The SPEAKER (09:31): I present report No. 19 of the Selection Committee relating to the consideration of committee and delegation business and private members' business on Monday 19 October 2020. The report will be printed in the Hansard for today and the committee's determinations will appear on tomorrow's Notice Paper. Copies of the report have been placed on the table.

The report read as follows—

Report relating to the consideration of committee and delegation business and of private Members' business

1. The committee met in private session on Tuesday, 6 October 2020.

2. The Committee deliberated on items of committee and delegation business that had been notified, private Members' business items listed on the Notice Paper and notices lodged on Tuesday, 6 October 2020, and determined the order of precedence and times on Monday, 19 October 2020, as follows:

Items for House of Representatives Chamber (10.10 am to 12 noon)

COMMITTEE AND DELEGATION BUSINESS

Presentation and statements

1 AUSTRALIAN PARLIAMENTARY DELEGATION:

Report of the delegation to the Antarctic Parliamentarians Assembly

The Committee determined that statements on the report may be made—all statements to conclude by 10.15 am.

Speech time limits—

Mr Snowdon —5minutes.

[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 1 x 5 mins]

2 Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit:

Report 480.1: Annual Report 2019-20

The Committee determined that statements on the report may be made—all statements to conclude by 10.25 am.

Speech time limits—

Mrs Wicks —5minutes.

Next Member speaking—5 minutes.

[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 2 x 5 mins]

3 Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit:

Report 482: Review of the Operations of the Parliamentary Budget Office 2019-20

The Committee determined that statements on the report may be made—all statements to conclude by 10.35 am.

Speech time limits—

Mrs Wicks —5minutes.

Next Member speaking—5 minutes.

[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 2 x 5 mins]

PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS

Notices

1   Dr Haines: To present a Bill for an Act to establish the Australian Federal Integrity Commission, and for related purposes. (Australian Federal Integrity Commission Bill 2020)

Presenter may speak to the second reading for a period not exceeding 10 minutes—pursuant to standing order 41. Debate must be adjourned pursuant to standing order 142.

2   Dr Haines: To present a Bill for an Act to enhance the integrity of the Parliament of Australia, and for related purposes. (Commonwealth Parliamentary Standards Bill 2020)

Presenter may speak to the second reading for a period not exceeding 10 minutes—pursuant to standing order 41. Debate must be adjourned pursuant to standing order 142.

3   Ms Sharkie: To present a Bill for an Act to amend the law in relation to financial transparency in the aged care sector, and for related purposes. (Aged Care Legislation Amendment (Financial Transparency) Bill 2020 [No. 2])

Presenter may speak to the second reading for a period not exceeding 10 minutes—pursuant to standing order 41. Debate must be adjourned pursuant to standing order 142.

4   Mr Falinski: To move:

That this House:

(1) recognises the Government's commitment to protecting Australia's marine environment including the Great Barrier Reef through the:

(a) Reef 2050 Long-Term Sustainability Plan;

(b) $1.2 billion investment to ensure the health of the reef; and

(c) $100 million Environment Restoration Fund which supports cleaner oceans and waterways;

(2) opposes oil or gas drilling off the coast of Sydney, including by:

(a) recognising that through Advent Energy's own admission on 29 December 2010, the exploratory well had failed to find gas; and

(b) not renewing the Petroleum Exploration Permit 11 licence; and

(3) notes the importance of Sydney's coastline and waterways to the ecosystem as well as tourism and investment.

   (Notice given 25 August 2020.)

Time allotted—25 minutes.

Speech time limits—

Mr Falinski—5 minutes.

Other Members—5 minutes. each.

[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 5 x 5 mins]

The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue at a later hour.

5   Mr Gorman: To move:

That this House:

(1) notes that Australia's arts sector is an essential part of our economy, our community and our identity;

(2) recognises that the impacts of coronavirus COVID-19 has destroyed the livelihoods of thousands of working artists in a diverse range of arts including, but not limited to performers, writers, designers, illustrators, musicians, fine artists, filmmakers and children's entertainers;

(3) further notes that many of the existing support mechanisms, including JobKeeper and JobSeeker, do not recognise the unique needs or economics of the arts sector;

(4) believes that protecting our arts sector now is vital for Australia to achieve a sustainable economic recovery from COVID-19; and

(5) calls on the national cabinet to work urgently in collaboration with the arts sector to:

(a) enact a tailored package of support to the arts sector;

(b) ensure that working artists are able to access appropriate income support; and

(c) consider how commonwealth, state, territory and local governments can assist the arts sector for the medium to long term economic impacts of COVID-19.

   (Notice given 12 May 2020.)

Time allotted—remaining private Members' business time prior to 12 noon

Speech time limits—

Mr Gorman—5 minutes.

Other Members—5 minutes. each.

[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 6 x 5 mins]

The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.

Items for Federation Chamber (11 am to 1.30 pm)

PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS

Notices

1   Ms C. F. King: To move:

That this House:

(1) recognises:

(a) the critical role that Australia's aviation sector plays in the lives of all Australians;

(b) that 45,000 Australians work directly for airlines in Australia. and hundreds of thousands more in related industries including aviation and tourism; and

(c) that the response to the COVID-19 pandemic has taken a huge toll on the aviation industry in Australia and around the world;

(2) notes the:

(a) Government's ad-hoc and piecemeal approach to Australia's aviation sector during the COVID-19 response, putting thousands of jobs at risk;

(b) Government's failure to take an equity stake in Virgin resulting in the company collapsing into voluntary administration, putting at risk the livelihoods of almost 16,000 workers; and

(c) inequitable treatment of the 5,500 workers of aviation support company dnata, who were told on 1 May 2020 that they would not be eligible for Job Keeper payments; and

(3) calls on the Government to outline a comprehensive plan for aviation to ensure the best outcome for both the travelling public and the thousands of workers whose jobs depend on a vibrant aviation industry.

   (Notice given 13 May 2020.)

Time allotted—35 minutes.

Speech time limits—

Ms C. F. King—5 minutes.

Other Members—5 minutes. each.

[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 7 x 5 mins]

The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.

2   Ms Flint: To move:

That this House:

(1) recognises that 120,000 Australians live with type 1 diabetes, and:

(a) the cause of the disease is unknown; and

(b) the majority of people with the condition are diagnosed before they are 19 years of age;

(2) acknowledges the many Australian families raising children diagnosed with type 1 diabetes and the incredible efforts they make to support their loved ones;

(3) supports the important work of the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation (JDRF) in raising awareness and funds for vital research and prevention of the disease, which includes $152 million invested in Australian research to date; and

(4) notes that:

(a) 1 October 2020 marked the beginning of the JDRF One Walk Step Challenge, encouraging participants to raise funds by walking 120,000 steps in October for the 120,000 Australians living with the disease; and

(b) 14 November 2020 is World Diabetes Day, promoting the role of nurses in the prevention and management of diabetes.

   (Notice given 6 October 2020.)

Time allotted—40 minutes.

Speech time limits—

Ms Flint—5 minutes.

Other Members—5 minutes. each.

[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 8 x 5 mins]

The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.

3   Ms Rishworth: To move:

That this House:

(1) recognises that young Australians have disproportionately felt the economic and social pain that the COVID-19 pandemic restrictions and recession have brought;

(2) notes that young people:

(a) are facing an extraordinary jobs crisis:

(i) in March 2020, 15 per cent of all jobs were filled by young people yet 40 per cent of all jobs lost since then were young Australians aged 14 to 24;

(ii) there are now over 345,900 young Australians out of work; and

(iii) nearly 2 in 5 young people are now unemployed or need more work;

(b) are struggling to afford life's essentials:

(i) 70 per cent of young Australians are now concerned about their financial wellbeing;

(ii) young people have missed payments for household bills at a rate of 2 to 3 times the general population; and

(iii) 52 per cent of young renters and 45 per cent of young mortgage holders were concerned about their ability to make housing payments in July 2020;

(c) are suffering severe social disruption:

(i) many have missed out on once in a lifetime milestones and rites of passage;

(ii) more feel isolated due to lockdowns with some schools closed, campus life extinguished, and social gatherings restricted or prohibited; and

(iii) 51 per cent of young people felt their mental health had worsened during the crisis;

(d) are grappling with disruptions to education and training:

(i) many feel their motivation and career plans have been dented; and

(ii) 53 per cent feel their study has been negatively affected; and

(e) feel they don't have a voice in politics—52 per cent of young people felt they had a say 'none of the time' in public affairs; and

(3) calls on the Government to work with young people and urgently design a comprehensive COVID‑19 youth recovery strategy that gets young Australians through this crisis and builds their futures.

   (Notice given 3 September 2020.)

Time allotted—35 minutes.

Speech time limits—

Ms Rishworth—5 minutes.

Other Members—5 minutes. each.

[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 7 x 5 mins]

The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.

4   Ms Hammond: To move:

That this House:

(1) notes the longevity of the 'Australian Made, Australian Grown' logo since its creation more than 30 years ago as Australia's most trusted, recognised and widely used country of origin symbol to promote authentic Australian brands all around the world;

(2) commends the Government for providing the Australian Made Campaign Ltd, the not for profit public company which administers the logo, with $5 million to promote the logo in key export markets as well as establishing trademark registration in the United Kingdom, the European Union and Canada;

(3) further commends the Government for its $5 million investment in the 'Go Local First' campaign, which is run by the Council of Small Business Organisations Australia and is encouraging all Australians to promote and support our local small and family businesses through the COVID-19 pandemic; and

(4) encourages all Australians to recognise the importance of local industry, manufacturers, producers, and businesses to our economy, and the quality of Australian made products and Australian grown produce.

   (Notice given 6 October 2020.)

Time allotted—30 minutes.

Speech time limits—

Ms Hammond—5 minutes.

Other Members—5 minutes. each.

[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 6 x 5 mins]

The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.

Orders of the day

1   Family Law Amendment (A Step Towards a Safer Family Law System) Bill 2020 (Mr Perrett): Second reading—Resumption of debate (from15June2020).

Time allotted—remaining private Members' business time prior to 1.30 pm

Speech time limits—

All Members—5 minutes. each.

[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 2 x 5 mins]

The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.

Items for Federation Chamber (4.45 pm to 7.30 pm)

PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS

Notices—continued

5   Ms Steggall: To move:

That this House:

(1) notes:

(a) as a result of the 2019-20 bushfires more than 400 people died of smoke inhalation and over 4,000 people were hospitalised;

(b) the Australian Medical Association warns that global warming will lead to significant health impacts, including but not limited to, rise in respiratory illnesses, heat-related illnesses, cardiovascular disease mortality, asthma, spread of disease vectors, reduced labour productivity, food insecurity and under-nutrition, displacement, and mental ill-health;

(c) the interim report of the Royal Commission into Natural Disasters Arrangements states that further warming is inevitable and that Australia is likely to experience more frequent and intense extreme weather events such as floods, bushfires and drought;

(d) University of Melbourne modelling projects that if we fail to meet the temperature goals of the Paris Agreement, the Australian economy will suffer an estimated $2.7 trillion in cumulative damages over the next three decades; and

(e) that the 2019-20 bushfires resulted in an estimated $20 billion in lost economic output and over $2.4 billion in insured losses;

(2) further notes:

(a) Australia is in recession for the first time in 30 years;

(b) the effective unemployment rate is at 13.3 per cent and may remain over 10 per cent for the next several years;

(c) that young people will now face the dual challenges of climate change and the economic recovery from this pandemic, which will limit their quality of life and future employment;

(d) before COVID-19, the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation estimated that limiting emissions to net zero by 2050, amongst other factors, could result in 2.75 to 2.8 per cent GDP growth annually—as opposed to 2.1 per cent under less ambitious scenarios;

(e) that acting on climate change will lead to a jobs boom in clean technologies like energy efficiency, manufacturing, renewable energy, and electric vehicles; and

(f) in order to unleash investment in clean technologies, investors need a bipartisan climate change framework and policy certainty;

(3) acknowledges:

(a) countries and jurisdictions such as the United Kingdom, Germany, Fiji and the State of Victoria have enacted framework climate change legislation;

(b) in the United Kingdom, there are now more than 396,000 jobs in low-carbon businesses and their supply chains with the low carbon economy growing at 11 per cent, per year—four times faster than the rest of the economy;

(c) framework climate change legislation supports reducing emissions, protecting against climate risks to health, and accelerates investment in a growth economy; and

(d) Australia has no Commonwealth framework climate change legislation; and

(4) calls on the Government to adopt framework climate change legislation.

   (Notice given 1 September 2020.)

Time allotted—45 minutes.

Speech time limits—

Ms Steggall—5 minutes.

Other Members—5 minutes. each.

[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 9 x 5 mins]

The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.

6   Ms Bell: To move:

That this House:

(1) recognises the passing of Don Burrows AO MBE on 12 March 2020, especially noting his:

(a) lifetime contribution to the Australian music industry; and

(b) contribution to music education and indigenous communities; and

(2) further recognises the:

(a) contribution that creative arts and culture make to Australian society; and

(b) impact of COVID-19 on the creative arts sector.

   (Notice given 6 October 2020.)

Time allotted—45 minutes.

Speech time limits—

Ms Bell—5 minutes.

Other Members—5 minutes. each.

[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 9 x 5 mins]

The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.

Orders of the day—continued

   AUSTRALIA'S MARINE ENVIRONMENT: Resumption of debate on the motion of Mr Falinski—That this House

(1) recognises the Government's commitment to protecting Australia's marine environment including the Great Barrier Reef through the:

(a) Reef 2050 Long-Term Sustainability Plan;

(b) $1.2 billion investment to ensure the health of the reef; and

(c) $100 million Environment Restoration Fund which supports cleaner oceans and waterways;

(2) opposes oil or gas drilling off the coast of Sydney, including by:

(a) recognising that through Advent Energy's own admission on 29 December 2010, the exploratory well had failed to find gas; and

(b) not renewing the Petroleum Exploration Permit 11 licence; and

(3) notes the importance of Sydney's coastline and waterways to the ecosystem as well as tourism and investment.

Time allotted—30 minutes.

Speech time limits—

All Members—5 minutes. each.

[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 6 x 5 mins]

The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.

Notices—continued

7   Mr Ramsey: To move:

That this House:

(1) recognises that:

(a) Patrick Ryan, aged 16 years, from Port Lincoln South Australia died in February 2020 at a party with friends as a result of inhaling Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG) from a barbecue gas bottle;

(b) a number of young Australians have died from intentionally inhaling LPG; and

(c) inhaling LPG can cause dizziness, coughing, nausea, vomiting, skin irritation, fever, numbness and death;

(2) notes that there is presently no label on LPG bottles warning inhalation may cause death;

(3) calls on the relevant Minister to:

(a) establish an inquiry to investigate the circumstances of such deaths; and

(b) develop recommendations to ensure LPG bottles are required to display a warning label which explains the gas is poisonous and of the dangers of inhalation; and

(4) asks that the relevant Minister consider the recommendations and urgently bring forward legislation, that if passed, will ensure all LPG cylinders in Australia carry the recommended warnings.

   (Notice given 25 August 2020.)

Time allotted—remaining private Members' business time prior to 7.30 pm

Speech time limits—

Mr Ramsey—5 minutes.

Other Members—5 minutes. each.

[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 9 x 5 mins]

The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.

THE HON A. D. H. SMITH MP

Speaker of the House of Representatives

7 October 2020

Mr TEHAN (Wannon—Minister for Education) (09:32): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

Today I introduce into the parliament, legislation which further improves and strengthens the governance of Australia's territories.

The Territories Legislation Amendment Bill will amend a range of Commonwealth legislation to improve the legal frameworks applying in the territories of Norfolk Island, Christmas Island, the Cocos (Keeling) Islands and the Jervis Bay Territory.

This is another key step in the Australian government's ongoing work to foster strong and sustainable communities in our territories, with rights and responsibilities comparable to other Australian communities.

These territories are an important part of our nation, home to some of Australia's most diverse communities and featuring spectacular natural environments.

Their governance arrangements are also unique, with the Australian government responsible for state- and Commonwealth-level functions provided for under an umbrella of Commonwealth law.

Strengthened applied laws arrangements

To enable the delivery of state-type functions, Commonwealth legislation allows for the laws of other Australian jurisdictions to be applied in these territories.

For instance, in Christmas Island and the Cocos (Keeling) Islands the laws of Western Australia have been applied. This supports the delivery of services such as health and education in these territories by the government of Western Australia.

The bill will amend Commonwealth legislation to ensure these applied laws operate effectively, and support service delivery in these territories.

This includes arrangements for delegating certain powers under applied laws to government officials working in the territories.

On Norfolk Island, Christmas Island and the Cocos (Keeling) Islands, local governments provide a range of services to their communities under applied laws.

Currently, local government officials' powers must be delegated to them by the responsible minister.

These delegations need to be regularly updated to make sure they are current. If laws change, there is a risk officials will not have the powers they need to do their jobs.

The amendments in the bill will address this by automatically delegating relevant powers under applied laws to local government officials. This commonsense approach will allow officials to do their work, without having to worry about whether or not their delegation is current.

The bill will make other amendments to account for the operation of applied laws in these territories. Where Commonwealth officials in the territories make decisions under applied laws, these will now be open to judicial review in the federal courts.

This improves the rights of people living in the territories and will ensure that decisions being made by Commonwealth officials are fair and correct.

Personal information collected from people living in the territories under applied laws will now be clearly protected by the Australian Privacy Principles.

Other changes will ensure that personal information collected by local governments and other local public bodies is managed in a way that is consistent with the Privacy Act.

These amendments will improve the efficiency of the applied laws frameworks and increase the rights and protections available to those living in Australia's territories.

Norfolk Island

For Norfolk Island, the bill will also make further significant improvements to its legal framework.

In March 2015, the Australian government announced comprehensive changes in Norfolk Island.

This was to address issues of sustainability which arose from the former governance arrangements which required the Norfolk Island government to deliver all local, state and Commonwealth government services.

As a result, the standard of services and infrastructure on Norfolk Island was well below the standard other Australians would typically expect. The roads and ports were deteriorating, the health and aged-care facility was outdated and accessing social security and other support services was difficult.

In 2016, most Commonwealth legislation was extended to Norfolk Island. This gave people living on the island access to the age pension, Medicare, pharmaceutical benefits and the same social security payments as everybody else in Australia.

Residents of Norfolk Island were also brought under the Australian taxation system, replacing a range of inefficient taxes and charges being levied by the former Norfolk Island government.

Given the significant impact and scope of these changes, some requirements are being phased in gradually to allow the community time to adjust. A good example of this is the superannuation guarantee paid by employers which is being phased in over a 12-year period, starting at one per cent and increasing by one per cent each year.

The extension of some legislation was also deferred as part of a staged transition. The introduction of more laws with this bill will further support Norfolk Island's growth and development.

The bill will allow the Australian government to enter into an agreement with any state or territory government for the delivery of state-type services. This amendment provides flexibility, in case it is needed in the future.

To support economic growth, the bill will transition companies currently registered under local Norfolk Island law to the Commonwealth corporations framework.

This will reduce red tape for Norfolk Island businesses and make it easier for them to access mainland suppliers, financial and other support.

In addition, the bill will extend the Commonwealth bankruptcy system to Norfolk Island, improving provisions for people experiencing bankruptcy and increasing protections for creditors.

In Australia, bankruptcy normally lasts for three years. For people declared bankrupt on Norfolk Island, if certain conditions cannot be met, they could remain bankrupt indefinitely.

The bill will make sure people declared bankrupt on Norfolk Island are treated the same as if they were living elsewhere in Australia.

As we all deal with the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, bringing people and businesses on Norfolk Island in under the Commonwealth umbrella means they will have access to the wide range of support and stimulus packages the government is providing.

Another important change will be to broadcasting. The bill will bring Norfolk Island radio and television stations under Commonwealth broadcasting law. This will allow the Australian Communications and Media Authority to issue broadcasting licences and plan for more broadcasting services in the future.

Through this, Norfolk Island's local media will be better connected to Australia's network of community broadcasters and receive better support for their services.

These changes are a continuation of the good work already undertaken to improve the standard of services being delivered in Norfolk Island, and will help support its future growth.

In the last few years the government has improved access to child care and other family and social support services. The island's health, education, transport and other community infrastructure has also been upgraded to make it safer and more accessible.

An example of this is the improvements to Cascade Pier completed in 2018 which now provides safer and more reliable access to Norfolk Island for cargo transfers and cruise ship passengers, both of vital importance to Norfolk Island's economy.

The bill, if passed, represents the government's ongoing commitment to improving services and supporting economic development and sustainability, not only in Norfolk Island, but in all of Australia's territories.

Debate adjourned.

Mr TEHAN (Wannon—Minister for Education) (09:40): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The Bankruptcy (Estate Charges) Amendment (Norfolk Island) Bill will extend the application of the Bankruptcy (Estate Charges) Act 1997 to Norfolk Island.

The bill is consequential to amendments in the Territories Legislation Amendment Bill, which extends the Commonwealth bankruptcy system to Norfolk Island.

The bill will ensure that any insolvencies on Norfolk Island are treated consistently and attract the same estate charges as all other insolvencies administered under the Commonwealth Bankruptcy Act.

Together, the bills will improve provisions for people experiencing bankruptcy and increase protections for creditors. This will ensure that people declared bankrupt on Norfolk Island are treated the same as they would be in the rest of Australia.

Debate adjourned.

Mr TEHAN (Wannon—Minister for Education) (09:42): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

Every Australian has been affected by COVID-19—some, tragically, more so than others. The OECD tells us that we are in the midst of the biggest global downturn since the Great Depression. We have weathered the storm better than most countries, and that has not been an accident. Economically, we have shown great resilience, aided by our quick introduction of programs like JobKeeper and our record levels of economic support. During this period, our export sector has been a source of strength, consistent with our long history of being an open, trading nation.

Exports makes an important contribution to the Australian economy. Thirty years ago, Australian exporters represented 12 per cent of Australia's GDP. By 2018-19, that share had nearly doubled to over 22 per cent, contributing $419 billion of Australia's $1.9 trillion economy. The Liberal-National government has implemented an ambitious trade agenda, resulting in more than 53,000 (including 46,000 SMEs) goods-exporting businesses in 2017-18, up 18.5 per cent since 2013-14, and more jobs, with one in five Australians employed in trade related employment. Australian household incomes are estimated to be an average of around $8,500 higher as a result of opening up new markets through trade.

However, the number of Australian businesses that export—either goods or services—is relatively small. According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, around two per cent of the 2.2 million businesses in Australia are goods exporters. Australian small and medium enterprises (SMEs) account for only 14 per cent of exporters, in contrast to the G7 average of 25 per cent. However, exporters contribute more than nonexporters to jobs and productivity, on average employing more staff, paying higher wages and achieving higher labour productivity compared to nonexporters. This is because Australian exporters compete with companies around the world and are driven to be innovative and use the most modern technology and management practices.

Cutting red tape and growing jobs through increasing exports is more important now than ever. The Morrison government wants to assist SME exporters to recover from the effects of COVID-19 and grow the number of SME exporters by providing better targeted direct financial assistance in a more simplified and streamlined way. This will help grow and diversify Australia's export markets, while also improving government service delivery and reducing regulatory imposts on business. We want to ensure taxpayer funding is used in the most effective and efficient way possible, with the greatest impact.

The Export Market Development Grants (EMDG) scheme is the key government financial assistance program to help aspiring and current exporters increase their marketing and promotional activity in international markets. Since it started in 1975, the EMDG scheme has supported over 50,000 SME exporters to enter and grow export markets for their goods, services, intellectual property and know-how. Last year alone, over 4,000 SMEs accessed the scheme, employing almost 69,000 Australians and generating exports worth $3.7 billion.

On 10 September 2020, the government released the independent Review of financial assistance to SME exporters. The review was undertaken by Anna Fisher, a wine exporter and past EMDG recipient. Ms Fisher was asked to examine the most effective and efficient way to deliver financial assistance to Australian SME exporters to encourage additional export development and promotion activities. Specifically, the review considered whether EMDG in its current form was the most effective and efficient way to generate additional export activity among the SME cohort.

The review undertook broad consultations to seek the views of exporters aspiring, new and established; individuals; industry associations; EMDG consultants; and other interested parties. The review found that the financial assistance provided by the EMDG scheme is valued by SME exporters. The scheme helps offset the high cost of export promotion, accelerates internationalisation and encourages exporters to diversify. However, the review also found that the EMDG administration needed to be streamlined, simplified and better targeted.

The review found that the financial assistance provided by the EMDG scheme is valued by SME exporters. The scheme helps offset the high cost of export promotion, accelerates internationalisation and encourages exporters to diversify. However, the review also found EMDG's administration needed to be streamlined, simplified and better targeted.

The review made 10 recommendations, all accepted in-principle by the government, including:

The government should continue to provide financial assistance to SMEs to encourage them to enter and grow export markets.

The principles underpinning the EMDG scheme were valued by exporters and should be retained in a simplified scheme.

An SME should be 'export-ready' before it receives financial assistance.

The program be re-targeted toward exporters with a turnover of less than $20 million with support aligned to the stages of an SME's export journey:

SMEs that are export-ready and will be doing business overseas for the first time; and

Exporters who are either expanding in their current markets or entering new markets.

That the way financial assistance is provided to SME exporters should be simplified by removing complexity, streamlining and providing more certainty.

This bill, theExport Market Development Grants Legislation Amendment Bill 2020, implements the review's recommendations.

The review noted simplification could be achieved by amending the Export Market Development Grants Act 1997 to provide a legislative framework that incorporates the key EMDG principles, with operational detail provided under the rules—a disallowable instrument—and with administrative details in the guidelines.

The review found the principles of the EMDG scheme remained relevant and valued by exporters. Those core EMDG principles are retained in this bill which:

Will continue to provide financial support for eligible Australian exporters who produce substantially Australian products, whether they be goods or services.

Does not prioritise particular industries or export markets.

Ensures a wide range of expenditure is eligible, reflecting that businesses approach markets in different ways.

Continues to focus assistance on promotional activities.

Provides access for SMEs to multi-year entitlements, reflecting the time it takes to build a presence in the market.

Ensures SMEs have 'skin in the game'—they will be provided with a proportion of their eligible expenditure.

Continues to provide for regular evaluation of the program. The review found that the current EMDG scheme, which reimburses exporters, provides no certainty about the level of government support prior to exporters' expenditure on promotional activities. Currently some exporters wait up to two years to receive reimbursements, with the level of funding unknown until after completion of their promotional activities. This is unacceptable.

This bill will create up-front certainty for exporters about the level of government support. The bill changes EMDG from a reimbursement scheme to one which will see eligible SMEs entering up-front grant agreements that provide them with funding certainty over multiple years.

The review also recommended that EMDG recipients be export-ready to ensure the greatest impact and obtain the most value from the government's support. The bill removes the export performance test and the requirement that recipients have a prospect of success. This is replaced with the requirement that recipients be either ready to export or have already exported their products. It is not the business of the Australian government to be picking winners.

The review found that the government should continue to fund export focused industry bodies or alliances formed on behalf of members and that support should be expanded to include facilitating education and training of members to help them become export ready. The bill expands eligible activities to include training, to implement this recommendation.

The review also found that the EMDG scheme administration was too complex. We need to cut red tape and make it easier for SME exporters to apply. Accordingly, this bill modernises and streamlines the administration of EMDG. Currently the bulk of EMDG's administrative requirements are contained within the act. While the bill contains EMDG's core principles, it removes the detailed requirements on administrative matters, such as how to apply for grants and what information will need to be provided to support the application. These matters will be managed through administrative guidelines. The bill also removes the separate approval process for industry bodies and requirements about when expenses are incurred. Like any grant program, funding will now be agreed for activities prior to expenditure.

Like the previous act, the bill also contains rule-making powers for the minister to establish the operational details for the program through the rules, a disallowable instrument. The rules will set the under-$20 million turnover threshold for eligible SMEs and the tiers of EMDG support for SMEs new-to-export and expanding exporters, as recommended by the review. While the bill establishes the EMDG as being for Australian exporters and for products that are substantially Australian, it is the rules that will elaborate on matters like the definition of eligible products and eligible expenses and deal with technical details such as the effect of foreign investment in an SME and disqualifying convictions for eligible persons.

The world moves at a faster pace than when the EMDG scheme started in 1975, and the new legislative structure will also allow the government to respond more quickly to rapidly changing markets and business practices and to unforeseen disruptions like COVID-19.

In streamlining EMDG administration, the bill focuses on the relationship, created through a grant agreement, between the Commonwealth and the EMDG recipient. The bill therefore removes the ability to compel third parties to provide information in support of the applicant. It also removes provisions related to other third parties, such as associates and consultants.

Mirroring Commonwealth grant agreements, the bill allows adjustments to be made to grant agreements should the amount appropriated for the EMDG program be reduced.

Reforming EMDG will result in systems and administrative changes. To meet the cost of these reforms, the bill temporarily lifts the cap on EMDG administration expenses from five percent to 7.5 percent for financial year 2020-21 and to seven percent for financial year 2021-22, before returning to its previous cap of five percent for administration costs.

In implementing the review's recommendations, the government is confident that this bill will create a framework for a reoriented EMDG program that is simplified and streamlined to deliver financial assistance to SME exporters in the most effective and efficient way and in a way which will have the greatest impact. These reforms will both assist current SME exporters to recover from the effects of COVID-19 and grow the number of SME exporters, contributing to Australia's economic recovery and future economic growth and prosperity. I commend the bill.

Debate adjourned.

Mr SUKKAR (Deakin—Assistant Treasurer and Minister for Housing) (09:55): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

This bill implements the Morrison government's tax plan for Australia's economic recovery from COVID-19 announced last night by the Treasurer.

The bill delivers lower taxes for individuals and businesses. It will stimulate demand, support investment, boost economic growth and most importantly, create jobs.

These measures are central to the government's JobMaker Plan.

First, we are lowering taxes for more than 11 million individuals who pay personal income tax.

These tax cuts support low- and middle-income Australians, with the majority of the benefit in 2020-21 being received by those on incomes below $90,000. In 2020-21, low- and middle-income earners will receive tax relief of up to $2,745, for singles, and up to $5,490, for dual income families, compared with 2017-18 settings.

Over the next 12 months, personal income taxes will be cut by $12.5 billion. Taxes will be cut by $17.8 billion over the next four years. With more money in their pockets, Australians can spend more in our economy, boosting demand and jobs.

Personal income taxes will be cut by bringing forward the second stage of the government's Personal Income Tax Plan by two years to this financial year. This involves increasing the top threshold of the 19 per cent bracket from $37,000 to $45,000 and increasing the top threshold of the 32.5 per cent bracket from $90,000 to $120,000. Under stage 2, the low income tax offset increases from $445 to $700, which will ultimately deliver more money into the pockets of some of the lowest income-earning Australians.

The government will also provide an additional low and middle income tax offset, worth up to $1,080, in 2020-21 that would have been removed under stage 2.

It all forms part of our plan that ensures that by 2024-25, around 95 per cent of Australian income earners pay no more than 30 cents in the dollar, on every dollar they earn.

Not only do we need more Australians with more money in their pockets out there spending, we also need to back businesses that have a go.

The COVID-19 economic recovery will be driven by private sector growth. Eight out of ten jobs are private sector jobs.

That is why our Economic Recovery Plan includes substantial incentives for businesses to invest. This bill will provide 99 per cent of businesses access to temporary full expensing until 30 June 2022. This will reward business for bringing forward their investment. Businesses with a turnover up to $5 billion will be able to deduct the full cost of eligible depreciable assets of any value in the year they are first installed. Whether it is a family farm investing in a tractor, a cafe in a new coffee machine, a manufacturer in new machinery or a services business in IT software these investments will boost productivity and ultimately boost our economy. With more investment, there is more work to do and with that comes more jobs along the supply chain.

We know that there are many businesses, which were sound businesses before COVID-19, that are now in a loss making position. Under this bill, companies with a turnover of up to $5 billion will be able to apply their losses against profits taxed in a previous year as far back as the 2018‑19 income year. This temporary measure will available until 2021-22. It will allow these businesses to access cash by using their losses now, to stay in business, rebuild and invest, rather than waiting until they return to profit.

Also in this bill, the Morrison government will invest a further $2 billion in businesses who invest in research and development, through the Research and Development Tax Incentive. Business investment in R&D is central to the development of new products, processes and services that will help make Australia more competitive. Investing in R&D provides jobs now and jobs for tomorrow.

The bill implements measures contained in existing legislation before this parliament, with several enhancements. The enhancements increase the tax offset rates for all claimants of the R&D tax incentive compared to the 2019 bill, remove the $4 million cap on annual cash refunds, streamline the intensity test from three to two tiers, and defer the start date of the changes to 1 July 2021.

And we know small business is the engine room of our economy. Under this legislation businesses with an aggregated annual turnover between $10 million and $50 million will, for the first time, have access to up to 10 small business tax concessions.

This will cut their red tape, improve their cash flow and allow them to spend more time on their business than with the tax office. The changes are estimated to support around 20,000 businesses and their employees.

These tax cuts and business incentives are all about delivering money into people's pockets, getting the economy going as we recover from the unprecedented impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, and getting people back into jobs.

Treasury estimates measures in this bill will support around 100,000 jobs.

Full details of the measure are contained in the explanatory memorandum.

Debate adjourned.

Ordered that the second reading be made an order of the day for the next sitting day.

Mr SUKKAR (Deakin—Assistant Treasurer and Minister for Housing) (10:04): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The Economic Recovery Package (JobMaker Hiring Credit) Amendment Bill 2020 makes a narrow extension of the current time limit on payment rules authorised by the Coronavirus Economic Response Package (Payments and Benefits) Act 2020 which allow the Treasurer to establish the JobMaker Hiring Credit scheme.

As announced last night, this scheme will operate from 7 October 2020 until 6 October 2022.

Youth unemployment has increased due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The JobMaker Hiring Credit will help to accelerate growth in employment during the recovery by giving organisations incentives to take on additional employees that are young jobseekers aged 16 to 35 years old.

The JobMaker Hiring Credit will be available to employers for each new job they create over the next 12 months from 7 October 2020 for which they hire an eligible young jobseeker. This will help young people access job opportunities and rebuild their connection to the labour force as the economy recovers from the effects of the coronavirus. This payment is a key part of the government's plan to assist the economic recovery from the coronavirus pandemic. Full details of the measures are contained in the explanatory memorandum.

Debate adjourned.

Mr FITZGIBBON (Hunter) (10:08): I rise to speak to the Biosecurity Amendment (Traveller Declarations and Other Measures) Bill, and I move:

That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:

"whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House:

(1) notes the Government's commitment to a $100 billion agriculture industry; and

(2) condemns the Government for its failure to implement in full the recommendations made by the 2017 independent Intergovernmental Agreement on Biosecurity review panel's report into Australia's biosecurity system".

This amendment goes to the government's performance on biosecurity more generally. Specific to this bill, many if not most Australians will be very familiar with the process of completing an incoming passenger declaration card when they're coming back into the country, whether by air or by sea. I suspect that many Australians take a fairly blase if not cynical approach to this declaration. It's just another burden upon them as they enter the country, usually feeling quite tired after overseas work or travel. But I think everyone in this place would fully understand how important that declaration is in protecting our biosecurity in this country and, in the case of this bill in particular, our farming sector.

Our biosecurity system is probably not one that is well understood by Australians—or anyone listening who might not even know what 'biosecurity' means. Of course, we are talking about what we used to call quarantine, making sure pest and disease doesn't enter our island continent. Being an island continent gives us a very significant advantage in that regard, particularly in the agriculture sector, but it doesn't mean we don't have to continue to work very, very hard to maintain our relatively clean and safe image. Since reports that were done some years ago, we now look at biosecurity quite differently. We think beyond the border a lot, making sure we're dealing with threats to our biosecurity before they come to our shores.

But the passenger declaration is very important. For example, a woodcarving, which might look very innocent to a tourist or someone returning from working overseas, could be carrying beetles, termites or larvae that are not obvious to the human eye. A seafood product could contain something like white spot disease, which nearly wiped out our prawn industry in Queensland not all that long ago. Red meat brought in could be carrying an exotic disease that would pose a big threat to our red meat sector. A plant, for example, could be carrying an aphid, and people would not be aware of that.

So it is very important that people fill out these declaration cards honestly. Sadly, that is not always the case—again, not because people are being deliberately sinister in most cases but because they think that whatever they're carrying is surely not a big issue. It looks pretty safe to them and they prefer not to declare it because, as we all know, once you declare a good you might spend a little bit more time getting through the regulatory and inspection process than you would if you did not declare it. So, the objective of this bill is to increase penalties to raise awareness and hopefully make people more reluctant to make a false declaration on that card. I won't go through the numbers on the penalty increases—the minister has done that—but they are very substantial and hopefully they will raise community awareness of the threats and also make people more likely to make a true declaration.

We support that approach. Biosecurity is of course a shared responsibility between the Commonwealth and the states, and it is a very important measure on the part of the Commonwealth. I am a little bit concerned about whether the government has extended additional training to biosecurity officers, who will have the difficult job of imposing higher on-the-spot fines in an airport, for example. That is something that is not easy to handle, if you've got an energetic and aggressive incoming passenger who is not happy about that fine. We want to make sure this job is done properly and accurately and we want to make sure our workforce has the appropriate training and is ready to deal with what might be some difficult situations.

I think there are a few things about biosecurity that we can all agree on in this place. I've mentioned one—shared responsibility with the states—but there should also be shared responsibility with industry and of course with the broader community, which has a big role to play, and this is the main point of this bill. We can also agree that we must take that pre-border approach, which I mentioned earlier, and we must all agree that the system must be risk based. In other words, we cannot hope to have a zero-risk approach to quarantine. That would be impossible, even for an island continent like Australia. It needs to be risk based. And the initiatives we take in dealing with the level of risk apparent have to be cost-effective and of course have to be science based.

I think we can all agree that it is the responsibility of all of us to make sure our biosecurity system is an effective one. Because it's a Commonwealth-state responsibility, we now have a thing called an Intergovernmental agreement on biosecurity to ensure that the Commonwealth and the states are going in the same direction and working together to get the job done. We do have an intergovernmental agreement, and it's an agreement that does come under review every five years. That is a good thing, because the situation both here and abroad is changing on a regular basis and, of course, threats change. We need to have a constant review to see that both the Commonwealth and the states are up to the mark and they're working as cooperatively and effectively as is possible.

We had one of those reviews headed by an independent panel, chaired by Wendy Craik. It was a very substantial review, and I think a good review, that provided a good explanation of both the system, its shortfalls, and where we can do better. Unfortunately, that review has, in part, been gathering dust. Its recommendations were significant. Many of them, the Commonwealth can say, go to the responsibility of the states or at least joint efforts, but at least 10 of them are solely the responsibility of the Commonwealth. People will now be asking how many. I suggest it's about 10. Then people will be asking how many of those 10 recommendations of the Craik review have been embraced and implemented by this government. I can report it's four. In three years, of those 10 recommendations from the Craik review—that go to the heart of the Commonwealth's responsibility—only four have been responded to.

To give some examples, they are things like asking the government to assign lead responsibility for driving and coordinating implementation of the National environment and community biosecurity research, development and extension strategy 2016 to 2019. We're told that work is ongoing, accelerating our national system of innovation. It flows to talk about how the government should do that—it's quite lengthy—ongoing:

The Australian Government should require public reporting of all Commonwealth funded biosecurity R&I investments …

ongoing.

The Risk Return Resource Allocation model should be extended to include all jurisdictions and their investments …

et cetera ongoing.

Funding for the national biosecurity system should be increased by …

There are a number of dot points demonstrating how that should be increased.

Interestingly, this is one that was the focus of some media attention, because the recommendation was that a $10 per 20-foot equivalent unit and a levy of $5 on incoming sea and air containers should be implemented, to raise the funds needed, to give the system the resources necessary to give us confidence in our biosecurity system. That levy has never been embraced and implemented. The government had a couple of goes at it and, embarrassingly, was sent packing by industry—mainly because the government had, clearly, turned it into a revenue-raising exercise rather than a package designed to bolster our biosecurity system.

In all those years the government kicked it down the road, beyond the 2019 election, declaring it all too hard and then, post election, it just gave up the ghost. It says that it's funding the same initiatives it had identified, that would be funded under the levy. We're yet to determine that with any great certainty. It's for the government to demonstrate to industry it's done just that. There's not much point in doing a comprehensive review of the IGAB, the intergovernmental agreement, if you're not going to pursue the recommendations. We should have ongoing reviews of the system, but we have those reviews. We need to pursue them.

I suspect it's reasonable to say that the work of an agriculture minister is dominated by biosecurity. In the short time I was in that position, I would assess that 60 per cent of my work was taken by biosecurity issues. Obviously, they're very critical. Australia's reputation on global markets is, in very large part, based on our reputation as a provider of clean, green, safe food, and we can't maintain that reputation if we don't ensure to the rest of the world that we are clean, green and safe. In any case, our yields would become very much under threat if pests and disease got into our country and wiped out our product here. Even one-tenth of a crop or stock would make a huge difference to our agricultural sector, but we've seen examples in other countries where whole industries have basically been wiped out because of the incursion of pests and disease.

COVID-19 has, or should have, heightened our awareness about the importance of a very sound biosecurity system, because we've seen the possibility of having exports of inputs cut, whether they're inputs for production or finished goods coming into this country, which highlights our awareness about the need to be self-sufficient as we can. We often say, rightly or wrongly, that we can never have a food security issue in Australia, because we export two-thirds of everything we produce. In other words, as a country of 25 million people, we feed about 70 to 75 million people in total. While that seems to be common sense, one-third of nothing is nothing, so, if we were to have a problem which caused us to be denied our local production and if we weren't able to import significant quantities of food then we could have a very, very significant food security issue.

COVID has also reminded us about the risk of having our ways of communications blocked and what that would mean for our fuel security—something that's very critical to our farmers—and our medicines, not just for human beings but for stock. We are very heavily dependent on the importation of animal medicines. The weather is changing in most challenging ways, and that should raise our awareness of the extent to which we are reliant on imported product.

Biosecurity is very, very important. And, on the issue of chemicals, moving away from animal medicines, it is very true that we are heavily dependent on the import of product, such as the chemicals that our farmers so desperately need, particularly from China. In fact, we're now at risk of losing the last manufacturer of the critical ingredient necessary for many of the chemical products our farmers rely upon. That means that soon, if nothing changes, we'll be 100 per cent dependent on that active ingredient, which should be a warning sign to us all.

Just before I rose to my feet, the various ministers were introducing bills relevant to the budget last night. I haven't had an opportunity, having looked at the macro of the budget and what's happening in my own electorate, to have a deep look at what the government has said about the agricultural sector. I will certainly do that throughout the course of the day, and I will do so with great attention to detail. I think what's missing still from the government in agriculture is an overarching narrative and the strategic guidance necessary to demonstrate to the sector that the government has a plan for the sector and has the will to provide the guidance to ensure that the sector does hit that $100 billion farm gate value that the government talks about so often. I'd like to think $100 billion is still achievable, but it's going to be more difficult now with the impact of COVID—that is, both the impact already and the impact that is going to flow over a number of years. It's okay for the National Farmers Federation to set the $100 billion, and we've been very supportive of that. It's not so necessary for them to give the detailed road map to $100 billion, but it is necessary for the government, if it's going to support the $100 billion, to provide that policy guidance, and it has not done so.

We were promised back in 2013, seven years ago, that the government would produce a white paper to give us that strategic guidance. I had a good chat with the member for New England at the time, as he was the agricultural minister. I basically begged him to use, as a foundation, the former Labor government's National Food Plan and further build upon that to provide the guidance the sector needs and is looking for. Unfortunately, as I've said in this place many times before, the 2015 white paper was a failure. It was more a collection of ideas, thought bubbles and failed projects than a document providing the strategic guidance that the sector needs to get to that $100 billion.

I heard the current minister make a speech at a CropLife breakfast this morning. I thought I was listening to Barnaby Joyce seven years ago. Nothing changes. There were plenty of cliches. It was short on policy, short on ideas and certainly short on guidance.

The agriculture sector in Australia is not without challenges. We have very limited natural resources—soil and water. We're the driest inhabited continent in the world. Our good soil resources are limited to a relatively small proportion of our continent. As I said earlier, our climate is changing in challenging ways, putting further pressure on those natural resources. Historically we have overproduced on much of our quality land.

Of course, we are short on capital resources, which is why we have been so heavily dependent on foreign capital over all of our lifetime. Traditionally it came from places like Canada, the UK and New Zealand, but increasingly it's now from Asian markets, including China. We in this parliament need to have a real think about the extent to which we facilitate China's investment, because it will be critical to the success of securing that $100 billion.

Minister Taylor was one of the key authors of a report that said that to be successful mid-century we'll need about $600 billion of capital investment in agriculture related infrastructure in this country. We will not get there if we don't secure more community support, have a better understanding and do more to facilitate foreign investment.

Of course we are short on human resources. This has been dramatically highlighted by COVID-19. We have an agriculture sector that is heavily reliant on foreign labour—up to 50,000 foreign workers every year. That's not new; that has been a growing problem over a decade or more. We have to ask ourselves whether that's a healthy proposition to be perpetuating.

We need a short-term solution. The government promised an ag visa and then unpromised an ag visa. It then promised an ag visa and unpromised it again. Since then we've seen nothing of any great merit that addresses the problem in the short to medium term. We also need a long-term plan to reduce that reliance. COVID-19 has demonstrated to us how serious it is for the sector when the supply of foreign labour is cut off. That is not a sustainable proposition.

We have a sector in which 80 per cent of the production comes from 20 per cent of the firms. Productivity has been flatlining for at least a decade. Profitability is, on average, low. According to the ABS, the majority aren't really making a profit. We have limited capital resources, limited human resources, limited natural resources, the climate moving against us and COVID-19 still hanging around. Hopefully, this is the last serious virus we see in a long time. Yet at breakfast this morning the minister said: 'Everything is okay. We're on track to reach $100 billion by 2030.' I beg to differ, given the current structure of the sector and the trajectory it is on at the moment.

This is all despite the best efforts of our growers and producers. There's no criticism of them. They're working within the system that the government is prepared to accept as being good enough. Of course we've had barley producers and others impacted by the decisions of the government of China. From the government there has been no real response that is credible and is likely to have a great impact on that situation. It's a structure and a situation normal that can't be left alone if the government is to have any hope of putting the sector on that $100 billion trajectory. Critical to that will be research and development, and innovation and extension. It's something this government's been talking about for seven years but has done nothing about.

We went to the last election making very clear that we are very proud of the 30-year-old research and development corporation structure that a Labor government put in place under John Kerin. But we also made the point repeatedly that it is a 30-year-old structure that is not fit for purpose in the 21st century and is not delivering the efficient outcomes that our agriculture sector needs right now. We promised a significant redesign of that system to rid us of the top-heavy situation we have in our RDCs, to get more cross-sectoral work going, to stop the siloing and to get people more focused on extension—in other words, to get the innovation inside the farm gate. After a little while, Minister Littleproud decided he might start agreeing with that proposition, and, particularly after the election, started making noises to that effect. But, in fact, pre the election, the minister decided—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Dr Gillespie ): Does the member for Mackellar have a question?

Mr Falinski: As much as I'm enjoying these remarks, I'm just struggling to understand how they relate to the biosecurity amendment bill in front of us.

Mr Brian Mitchell interjecting—

Mr Falinski: And I've been listening for eight minutes, for the member for Lyons's entertainment.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I thank the member for that comment. We'll leave the member for Hunter to finish his comments, bearing in mind the relevance of the matter he's discussing.

Mr FITZGIBBON: Thank you very much. I know members opposite, particularly the member for Mackellar, don't like hearing the truth and don't like hearing me talking about their inadequacies in farming over seven years, but, if he had any energy in him at all and did his homework, he'd know I moved a second reading amendment, which I think he might refer to—which might reinforce your very good ruling, Mr Deputy Speaker.

What did Mr Littleproud decide to do pre the election? He decided to have a review. Under this government, we've had so many reviews in the agriculture sector that, if I put the reports in my office, one on one, they would hit the ceiling. Those opposite love a committee, they love a review—they love revisiting these things—but they never do anything. They announce and forget. But how much did this review cost? How much did it cost the taxpayer to arrive at the same conclusions that I'd offered years in advance? Two point seven million dollars went to EY—$2.7 million to tell us that the 30-year-old system had run its course and needed to be fixed. Sadly, it didn't really tell us how it should be fixed, by the way. It was helicopter-high level in its approach; it didn't provide any practical solutions to be immediately embraced by the government. But it got Minister Littleproud through the election. He was having another review. Well, how long ago was the election—16, 17 months? What do you think the minister did in the budget last night? He did not allocate another $2.7 million: 2.7 became 7.2. They flipped the number. If they were going to spend $7.2 million restructuring our research and development capacity in the agriculture sector and they were going to spend it straightaway, maybe you wouldn't mind—at least they would be finally going to do something. But, no; it is $7.2 million over four years. Think about that. If they spend $7.2 million over four years and get the job done in four years, it will have been 11 years—11 years—since the election of the government before they have done anything. Based on experience, it would be a great leap of faith to believe they will do anything in four years, but that's their plan.

Now they've established some entity, AIA or something—I forget what it's called—that is going to work within the council of RDCs to do what I've been calling on the government to do all these years. I don't know what the council of RDCs has been doing or should be doing that is now going to be done by yet another entity, but there will be more money involved, Mr Deputy Speaker Gillespie; you can be sure of that.

We have emerging international competition in grains, from the Black Sea countries, and in red meat, from the South American countries; and freight rates are falling, so they're getting closer to the Asian market. If we're going to lift productivity and improve our profitability and competitiveness, we will need a heavy focus on research and innovation. The minister was talking about that this morning at the public breakfast. But talking about it is not enough. We've been talking about it for too long. It's time for action. We don't want to wait another four years. We don't want to unnecessarily spend another $7.2 million of taxpayers' money.

This morning, the minister was also talking about regulatory regimes. In fact, in one area, he's going to spend $70 million facilitating approvals et cetera for exporters. Great! I'm all for improving access for exporters. This review here in my hand—another review—is the report of the Productivity Commission inquiry into regulation of Australian agriculture, which, again, was announced with great fanfare at the time by this government—a big announcement! Remember, they had 'red-tape reduction day'? Well, this was just one portfolio. This review, and it's almost 700 pages, is a good review. I had a briefing from the authors and I congratulated them on the report, and I looked forward at that time—in 2016, four years ago—to the report being embraced. But, of course, it has largely been gathering dust. Most of the responses from the government basically say, 'It's a matter for the states.' Well, get your terms of reference right, I would say. But, again, if we're going to improve our international competitiveness and, therefore, our profitability, we need to reduce the regulatory burden on business. The minister seems to have put a bit of money into it last night, but I will be very surprised if we get any significant economic outcome from anything that he said last night.

We need to have a serious look at a sector in which, as I said, 80 per cent of the output comes from 20 per cent of the firms, so profitability is isolated amongst the few; our natural resources are not only limited and misallocated but further challenged by a changing climate; our human resources are so low; and, of course, our capital resources are nothing like those needed to provide the infrastructure to lift that productivity and that competitiveness.

We support the bill—no problem with that. But I do hope, still, that the government, after seven years of doing nothing, might start becoming serious—not pitch for votes but become serious—about the structure of the industry, and the role of government in providing guidance to the sector about where it needs to go to arrive at that $100 billion target, and, having set that guidance, providing the support it needs to be successful.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Dr Gillespie ): Is the amendment seconded?

Ms McBain: Yes. I second the amendment and I reserve my right to speak.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Hunter has moved as an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The question now is that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question.

Mr FALINSKI (Mackellar) (10:39): Once again, the member for Hunter has given a speech that, largely, those on this side could agree with. There was the bit in the middle which was a bit of a ramble, but we've come to expect—and, frankly, enjoy—those parts of his speeches. But you have to wonder why we're even debating this. I notice that the member for Lyons is up next on the speakers' list. The member for Lyons is a good man, but his brother is an even better person. Now some might say I'm saying this just because he happens to live on the northern beaches of Sydney and may or may not vote for me and because my pursuit of any vote is relentless. I suspect there are easier votes to get than that of the brother of the member for Lyons, but that will not deter me.

Now, more than ever before, the importance of biosecurity is at the forefront of our minds, with COVID-19 impacting upon the lives of all Australians. Biosecurity related to food and agricultural produce is equally critical in protecting consumers, exporters and farmers. As we create a bioresilient economy, a unified vision for national security is critical to our future prosperity and in supporting those in the agricultural sector who have endured so much hardship in recent times. Our biosecurity system underpins $60 billion in agricultural production, $49 billion in agricultural exports and $42 billion in inbound tourism. The flow-on effects of this are incalculable, and the importance of these industries both to our national economy and to many regional communities cannot be understated.

At the core of this bill is creating a more proportionate response to infringements by travellers when they bring undeclared goods to Australia. The infringements will reference the kinds of goods, their classification and the nature of the biosecurity risk they represent. This bill permits the Director of Biosecurity to determine what goods should attract a higher infringement associated with those items. We cannot overemphasise the importance of protecting our natural environment or our farmers. After the difficulties posed by both drought and fire, this government will do whatever it takes to help our farmers.

An additional component of this bill is indexing the current infringement notice to $440, which equates to two penalty units. Depending on the nature of the infringement, more penalty units will apply—up to 12 penalty units, which will incur a fine of $12,264 after indexation, or 60 penalty units subject to civil penalty proceedings in court. Failure by foreign travellers, airline crew or Australians to declare goods is a national threat, one that we are combating with these additional measures, given its severity. We will not wait for disaster to strike before implementing stringent biosecurity legislation but will be taking a proactive approach, as prevention is the most efficient way to manage this kind of threat. Of particular concern is African swine fever, which is contagious and is estimated to cost, if it comes to Australia, over $2 billion over a five-year period—making the fines appear not that great. We cannot allow the careless actions of individuals to put at risk the livelihoods of so many Australians.

From 2018 to 2019, biosecurity officers issued an average of 410 infringement notices a month at Australian airports. The forecast for 2019-20, before COVID restrictions were put in place, was more than 820 per month. Unfortunately, even this underestimated the reality, with 1,139 infringement notices issued in January 2020 alone, representing an increase of around 30 per cent on the forecast. The impact on biosecurity was growing and, until COVID restrictions, the number of people trying to get past airport security without declaring high-risk goods was also increasing.

This bill is urgent and should be the first step in constructing a strong and unified system which screens both agricultural goods and people for pathogens and biosecurity threats. Failure to do so not only will decimate Australian agriculture but will put lives at risk. The responsibility of passengers and crew to declare goods remains the same. This bill changes only the infringements and matches the risk of the goods with the infringement. It does not impose additional requirements on passengers, airlines, exporters or businesses. Changes will be published in conjunction with additional training for biosecurity officers and Australian Border Force officers, which is estimated to take two to three months. Redeployment of officers following COVID, when borders reopen, has been taken into account when creating a time line for implementation, along with ICT system updates. Having an infringement system without adequate enforcement measures will be ineffective, which is why we are investing heavily in upgrading our airport infrastructure to support this amendment. Deploying advanced detection 3D X-rays, which also use algorithm technology, is an encouraging example of the measures we are taking to safeguard our borders. Increasing our use of screening technology will remain central, particularly as we seek to detect meat, fruit and high-risk bio matter.

We are continuing to utilise big data in allocating our biosecurity resources and identifying ways we can improve our processes by establishing a national biosecurity data and analytics platform. In sharing biosecurity data, we will be able to enhance our capacity to identify security risks and take corrective action. We are allocating $36½ million in funding to develop this platform. COVID has shown us that we cannot rely on other countries or global institutions to safeguard our interests, and that responsibility for our national biosecurity is on us alone. That is why we cannot cut corners when it comes to funding our border security. Small agribusinesses rely on a stable and safe environment and, as a source of jobs, growth and future innovation, getting our biosecurity right is a must.

This bill is about providing a proportionate compliance response for people, regardless of citizenship, who fail to declare goods with a biosecurity risk. All first points of entry, including sea ports, will be included in these changes; however, particular attention will be given to biosecurity processes in airports, due to the high volume of travellers. In the last financial year, we invested $850 million in this area, and we'll continue to support frontline personnel in keeping our country safe. Creating a regulatory environment that maximises the competitiveness of Australian businesses whilst giving adequate protection to our farmers and the environment remains central to this legislation.

As part of the extensive consultation with industry and across multiple departments, this is a solution designed to be flexible to change. As it stands, the penalties do not accurately reflect the risk of the offence and, given this disconnect, often underpenalises some offenders. To have a penalty which disregards the nature of the offence and does not correspond to the level of infringement is, quite simply, bad policy. Given it costs nothing to declare goods, there is no reason why any visitor or returning resident should be trying to avoid declaring what they are carrying. The bill improves the penalty scheme by linking them with the degree of danger the infringement poses to the community. The different classifications which they are based off will be determined using a technical risk assessment.

As part of the smarter regulation agenda, this bill does not create any additional red tape or impose any more requirements on travellers coming to Australia. We do need a tight border policy, but the responsibility to implement that policy, its costs and burden should not be shifted to business or individuals. Compliance for all parties involved should be seamless and, in making the process both accurate and efficient, we should make the most of automation in processing high volumes of travellers. Being able to do this will be especially important for our tourism industry, where a positive experience makes a large impact. Doing this without cutting corners when it comes to our biosecurity is critical, which is why in this field we are seeking to be world leaders when it comes to border protection. The measures outlined in this bill have been taken in place of alternatives, which came at a significant regulatory impact on industry and those seeking to remain compliant. As a government, we seek to ensure that all departments implementing regulatory changes must co-design processes with industry working groups. Smarter regulation is light touch, highly automated and reduces the burden on small businesses so they can focus on what they do best.

As a country with one of the most pristine and untouched environments, we are fortunate not to have many of the biohazards that countries in the rest of the world have to contend with. This is a natural competitive advantage for our businesses in agriculture, but it can easily be lost if we are careless and fail to create the protective measures required to safeguard our farmers and consumers. Bills like this pave the way for a post-COVID era where a premium is placed on biosecurity and ease of compliance for businesses. We are leading the way by relying on technological solutions for these issues. And when government invests in the tech sphere—particularly in reg-tech, or regulation technology, and innovative security solutions—we are supporting an industry that will be in demand for the future. Australian technology firms are important creators of jobs, innovation and growth. Establishing a biosecurity innovation program with an initial $25.2 million in government funding will be a strong first step in this program. Whilst a lot of attention is rightly given to the cybersecurity space, there is abundant opportunity in biosecurity where demand will only be growing.

I would encourage the newly established Centre of Excellence for Biosecurity Risk Analysis to engage with the innovation and tech hubs throughout Australia as they develop risk analysis tools. As part of the government's ongoing commitment to our biosecurity, we are establishing a dedicated office to support the work of the Chief Environmental Biosecurity Officer. In creating a unified and efficient system for our biosecurity, we are enacting our long-term strategic vision. This legislation is a critical step in adopting a systematic process for identifying and planning for national priority biohazards. Taking measures to manage these risks is essential in facilitating the trade that we rely on for our economic prosperity. For these reasons, I highly commend this bill to the House.

Mr BRIAN MITCHELL (Lyons) (10:52): Tasmanians take biosecurity seriously. Whether the threat is from fruit fly or coronavirus, we like to keep the bad bugs out. Even for a small state like Tasmania, it's no easy task. We're helped by having a big moat, but we still have multiple points of entry by sea and by air. Travellers are greeted at airport gates by beagles eager to sniff you and your bags, and we have big signs warning of the dire consequences for those who try to sneak in their contraband bananas.

In 2019, more than 4.2 million people flew into Hobart, Launceston and Devonport airports, and another 200,000 arrived on cruise ships. More than 230,000 containers and 15.5 million tonnes of freight came into our state. Before COVID hit, the numbers were only getting bigger. Examples of things intercepted by Tasmanian biosecurity officers include turtles, a gecko from Noumea, a stink bug from France and salmon from Denmark. Yes, someone tried to bring Danish salmon into Tasmania—a bit like taking a bag of ice from the servo to Antarctica! On one flight from mainland Australia, biosecurity officers discovered 10 kilos of fish and seafood products in a passenger's checked baggage. We wouldn't have wanted that plane to have been delayed on the tarmac on a hot day. Another time, officers found bags of tamarind, soybeans, leafy greens and unidentified fruit on a flight from interstate. That package was infested with live ants and larvae. Of course, there are more common items such as flowers, plants, seeds, edible items and fruit. There are millions of travellers, millions of tonnes of freight and, in relative terms, a handful of biosecurity officers standing guard. I take my hat off to each and every one of them.

It's worth noting that in 2018 federal Labor and Tasmanian Labor committed $5.7 million to recruit an extra 20 officers in Tasmania. Sadly, that did not come about. But, for every idiot or criminal that these biosecurity officers intercept, for every bag of larvae infested salad greens they catch, how many are making it through? We know that across Australia in 2018-19, biosecurity officers issued, on average, 410 infringement notices every month or just under 5,000 a year. Compare that with the tens of millions of passenger arrivals and it doesn't take a genius to work out that there is a lot of raw pork and dodgy seafood coming into the country undetected. With passenger and freight numbers expected to soar 70 per cent in the next five years, the challenge is only getting bigger.

The fact is that effective biosecurity takes money—real money. Smart governments know that good biosecurity is insurance. You close your eyes, you hold your nose, you sign the cheque and you pay the premium, year in, year out. You complain about the cost, but you know that the risk is too great not to carry the insurance. Stupid governments cut corners. They shave off a few dollars here and there on biosecurity, hoping no-one notices. They cut shifts, they reduce staffing, they outsource. They hedge that the risks are low enough to do it. But, of course, it is a false economy. All it takes is one outbreak, just a small one, and then, to clean up the mess, you have to spend many multiples of the few dollars you have saved.

Tasmania had the lived example of this when our state Liberal government cut its biosecurity budget to save a million or two. A short time later, we had a fruit fly outbreak that threatened our horticulture industry. The measures put in place to isolate and eradicate the outbreak were costly and time-consuming both for the taxpayer and for growers in affected areas, who were told they could not move their produce to market. It's farmers who end up paying the heavy price when governments fail their biosecurity obligations. More recently, Tasmania has suffered a biosecurity failure of another kind. Despite Prime Minister Morrison's declaring that cruise ships were banned from Australia because of the coronavirus risk, the Ruby Princess was allowed to dock in Sydney and more than 2,500 passengers were allowed to disembark without undergoing any assessment or any checks. Those passengers wandered throughout the country, taking the virus with them, including to the north-west of Tasmania, which suffered a heavy, devastating and lethal toll in the early days of the pandemic.

Just in the past week or so Tasmanians have learnt of a new biosecurity threat—not from foreign shores, but from South Australia. The Tasmanian Liberal government quietly allowed a big South Australian producer, Mitolo, entry into the Tasmanian whole potato market, with no consultation with the public and no consultation with Tasmanian growers, who contribute $400 million annually to the state's economy. Tasmanian Farmers and Graziers Vegetable chair, Nathan Richardson, said the approval posed several risks. On 24 September, The Examiner quoted Mr Richardson as follows:

This announcement is shocking; there has been zero consultation with the industry.

Mr Richardson said that the approval did not take into account end-of-life use of the imported potatoes. He said:

What we could see is potatoes grown in the garden, or in a compost, where diseases could flourish and spread to the commercial crop.

The decision puts at risk the contracts that Tasmanian growers have in place with lucrative export markets, which prize Tasmania's status for disease-free potatoes. Mr Richardson hit the nail on the head when he said, as quoted in The Examiner:

'A few years ago we had a fruit fly outbreak, and a few years before that it was blueberry rust,' he said.

'What happened in those outbreaks is we thought everyone was doing the right thing, but they weren't, and the Tasmanian industry paid for it.'

This government has not done much in the biosecurity space in its seven years on the Treasury benches, despite its revolving door of agriculture ministers sprouting from the farmers' party, the Nationals. It has promised a lot but it has delivered hardly anything. That sounds familiar: all slogan, no solution; all headline, no story. It's the story of this government and this Prime Minister: talk big, do little.

The bill before the House today, for example, is worthy of support, but it's just good housekeeping. It increases penalties for idiots and criminals who breach biosecurity laws and it empowers the director to make some penalties heavier than others, depending on the severity of the breach, without having to seek legislative approval. We are supporting it, but not before we say a few things about how this government has been failing Australia's biosecurity challenge. As the deputy chair of the House Standing Committee on Agriculture and Water Resources, I often talk to farmers and others involved in primary production. Along with access to water and the impacts of climate change biosecurity is often cited as the most important issue confronting Australian agriculture and yet it remains woefully under-resourced.

In 2017 Wendy Craik was given the task by this government of reviewing our national biosecurity systems, with the goal that her report would inform any changes necessary to the Intergovernmental Agreement on Biosecurity. She handed down 10 recommendations, of which only four have been implemented. One outcome was an announcement that the federal and state and territory governments would come together to create a cohesive national biosecurity system. We've seen how well national coordination on biosecurity goes under this government with the Ruby Princess. The Craik review makes it clear that resourcing and funding are biosecurity's greatest weaknesses. So this government did what it generally does, it tried to offload its responsibility onto somebody else. Just like the Prime Minister tried to offload his responsibility for borders onto New South Wales, the government tried to offload its responsibility for biosecurity onto freight operators.

The government said it would introduce an industry levy that would raise $325 million over three years. In May this year it abandoned the levy, earning some brickbats along the way for the uncertainty that it had created. The National Farmers Federation CEO, Tony Mahar, described the decision as a blow to Australian farmers and a poor look for the government. Critically, the government has not proposed an alternative model to better resource biosecurity. If the levy is going to be raising $100 million a year to improve biosecurity, what is the government's plan to find that money? Yesterday's budget certainly provided no comfort to farmers.

The Tasmanian Farmers and Graziers Association recently reported that even a small outbreak of foot and mouth disease, lasting just three months, would cost the Australian economy more than $7 billion. A 12-month outbreak would cost more than $16 billion. Tens of billions of agricultural dollars are at stake and this government can't get its act together to find even $100 million a year to protect our crops from threats. The prevention of agricultural disease deserves to be a national priority and it's time this government took that responsibility seriously.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Claydon ): I thank the member for his contribution. I note that the original question was this bill be now read a second time, to which the honourable member for Hunter has moved an amendment that all words after 'that' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. I understand it suits the House that I will state the question in the form that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question.

Ms FLINT (Boothby—Government Whip) (11:02): I'm pleased to be speaking on the Biosecurity Amendment (Traveller Declarations and Other Measures) Bill 2020 today, because this bill is all about protecting Australian agriculture. As someone who grew up on a farm, and whose parents are still actively farming in the south-east of South Australia, this is a matter very dear to my heart. My mum and dad grow beef, lamb and wool, and we live in a part of South Australia that's quite close to the coast so we have a very important fishing industry there as well, which is mainly cray fishing. All of these products are critical to Australia's exports, critical to jobs and critical to our national income and economy, which is why we need to make sure that we do everything in our power to keep our agriculture, fisheries and forestry industries as safe as possible.

Australian farmers, as we know, produce some of the best food and fibre products in the world. Our food products are also some of the safest in the world. They're produced under very careful environmental controls with stringent conditions on things like the use of chemicals and veterinary products. We have very careful and stringent protections for our natural environment in terms of water, native vegetation and native wildlife. We have very careful rules around wild catch harvest, for example, as well. Our fishing industry has led the world in terms of protecting our fish stocks and carefully managing and protecting fisheries with quotas and sanctuary zones.

Unlike most other Western countries, our farmers are not paid by the government to farm. They're not protected by tariffs and subsidies. They are at very much at the whim of the market, and so have to be innovative and have to be able to adapt and change in response to market conditions.

As we know, Australia is a big island, and, as a big island, we are incredibly lucky to have very few pests and diseases that can impact our agricultural, forestry and fisheries industries and products. As the federal government, we work very hard to make sure we keep it that way. That's why we're introducing this bill, to keep our nation free of exotic and hugely dangerous and damaging pests and diseases that could easily destroy our agricultural, fisheries and forestry industries. We need to be vigilant in order to protect Australia from an ever-increasing number of pests and diseases that threaten our industries, and biosecurity is critical to doing that. Pests such as the brown marmorated stink bug, which has the potential to decimate crops and do untold damage to our natural environment, post a continuing threat. Other diseases, such as African swine fever—which I know is front of mind for many producers at the moment—has strains that kill almost every pig infected, and this would cripple our $1.2 billion pork industry as well as threaten our trade, environment and economy.

On the topic of pork, anyone out there listening or watching at the moment, please remember to always check the label on your pork products, especially ham and bacon, to make sure you're buying Australian, because, unlike pork producers in literally every other nation in the world, our pork producers are not supported by government tariffs and subsidies. So, please do everything you can to support our Australian farmers and buy Aussie pork. To protect all our Australian farmers, the Morrison government is investing millions of dollars into preventing pests and diseases from entering Australia, but we need every single person who is coming into our country to do the right thing and to do their bit when they come into Australia.

This bill seeks to amend the Biosecurity Act 2015 to ensure a proportionate and effective compliance response through the targeted setting of infringement notice amounts to deter noncompliance. In other words, if you do the wrong thing you will be punished, and there will be a financial penalty. This bill changes the regulation-making power so that infringement notices may be issued for different but set amounts for an alleged contravention of the Biosecurity Act and for different periods of time to pay. These different amounts and times to pay may be specified by matters including reference to the kinds of goods or classes of goods that the alleged contravention relates to.

The bill will permit the director of biosecurity to make a legislative instrument that lists goods or classes of goods that attract a higher infringement notice amount than currently available. In making this instrument the director must be reasonably satisfied that there is a high level of biosecurity risk associated with the goods. Currently, incoming passengers and crew, including persons in charge of an aircraft or vessel, who fail to declare goods may receive an infringement notice in the amount of two penalty units, which is currently $444. The effect of this bill will be to enable an infringement notice to be issued for up to 12 penalty units, currently $2,664. So, that's a big increase in the fine that you will attract if you do the wrong thing, when incoming passengers and crew allegedly fail to declare goods listed in the legislative instrument. The law applies to all Australian citizens and anyone else coming into our nation. So, it's not just for citizens; it's for any traveller coming into Australia.

I want to reiterate why this bill is so important and why protecting Australian agriculture is such an important issue. The key reason is that agriculture is a really big employer. Hundreds of thousands of Australians—in fact, over 330,00 Australians—are employed in agriculture, fisheries and forestry. And that's before we even get to the value-added processing that happens through our food manufacturing industry, for example, and before we get to the indirect employment provided by agriculture, whether it's farmers going into their local towns and shopping at the supermarket or the newsagent, getting their farm supplies locally or employing a truck driver from time to time throughout the year.

That's just in terms of jobs. Australian agriculture is also critically important to our national economy. The gross value of Australian agriculture was $60 billion in 2018-19, despite the significant drought conditions that we saw around the nation. The total gross value of crops in this financial year rose one per cent, to $30 billion—again, despite drought conditions. I want to go through the value of each of our different industries so that people have a really clear idea of what we are protecting when we make sure that we have strong biosecurity rules and that we all follow those rules when we come into Australia. Wheat is worth $6 billion; fruit and nuts, $5 billion; vegetables, $4 billion; barley, $3 billion; cotton, $1 billion; canola, $1 billion; and rice, $34 million. Our livestock is worth around $31 billion a year, gross value, to the Australian economy. In 2018-19 cattle and calves were worth $13 billion to our national economy; sheep and lambs, $4 billion; pigs, $1 billion; and wool, milk and eggs, $10 billion.

So every time people do the wrong thing, when they come into Australia and don't declare things that they shouldn't be bringing in, they put at risk hundreds of thousands of jobs and $60 billion of income for our nation. It's so important that people do the right thing and follow the rules, and the rules are really easy to follow. If you've ever been overseas, you'll be very familiar with the incoming passenger card. It's the yellow card that you're given when you're on the plane, or even on a boat, coming into Australia, and it gives you a really clear list of things that you need to declare to make sure that you're not putting Australia at risk.

The card asks whether you're bringing into Australia the following things: meat, poultry, fish, seafood, eggs, dairy, fruit, vegetables, grains, seeds, bulbs, straw, nuts, plants, parts of plants, traditional medicine, herbs or wooden articles. It asks you if you're bringing in animals, parts of animals, animal products (including equipment), pet food, eggs, biological specimens, birds, fish, insects, shells or bee products, and it also asks you if you have any items that might have soil on them that have been used in freshwater areas or if you've been in contact with farms, farm animals or wilderness areas in the past 30 days. There is more detailed information on what you can and can't bring into Australia on the department of agriculture website. If you've got any further inquiries, I encourage you to jump online and inform yourself of what you can and can't bring into Australia, so that we keep our farmers safe. If you visit www.agriculture.gov.au/travelling/bringing-mailing-goods you'll see the full list, item by item, of what you can and can't safely bring into Australia.

Unfortunately, we know that a lot of people are still doing the wrong thing, which is why this bill is necessary. Anyone who has watched Channel 7's program Border Security - Australia's Front Line will have seen people doing the wrong thing, trying to bring into Australia some really interesting goods that would have a devastating effect on our fisheries and our agriculture if they were to be consumed or to get into our natural environment. There's no excuse for this, because, as I just read out, the border entry card is completely clear about what you do and don't have to declare when you're coming in and what you can and can't bring in. In 2018-19, biosecurity officers issued an average of 410 infringement notices a month at Australian airports. Before the coronavirus pandemic hit our nation, in January 2020 this had risen to 1,139. That's a lot of people doing the wrong thing. That is a lot of people putting our fishers and our farmers at risk, putting $60 billion of Australian agricultural products at risk and putting over 330,000 direct agricultural jobs at risk.

That's why this bill is necessary. It sends a strong message to incoming passengers and crew that they need to declare biosecurity risk goods when they enter Australia. The beauty of this is that it costs you nothing to declare. If you are in doubt, just make a declaration on your incoming passenger card and ask our wonderful biosecurity frontline staff whether you're allowed to bring it in or not. It doesn't cost you a cent. It may cost you a tiny bit of time, but it's far better to spend those extra couple of minutes making sure what you're bringing in is safe to bring in than risk our $60 billion agricultural industry or risk a significant fine for yourself. It's when you don't declare and when you are found to have something that is not allowed into Australia that you will be detected and you will receive an infringement notice.

We have wonderful border security officers and staff keeping Australians safe from exotic pests and diseases, and they do this in a range of ways. They have detector dogs, they have 2D and 3D X-ray technology and they screen everyone's baggage coming in, especially if they suspect that you might have something you shouldn't. So, rest assured, you are at great risk of being caught if you don't declare properly or if you try to bring things in that you shouldn't. I believe we have over 40 sniffer dogs in our airports, working constantly to make sure that people are not trying to bring in things they shouldn't. They do a wonderful job detecting meat, fruit, vegetables, seeds and grains and other items that people shouldn't have and that they have failed to declare. There is a very high chance that you will be caught. I'm glad there's a high chance that people will be caught, because I don't want our farmers and our agricultural industries put at risk.

Ideally, this bill would not be necessary. The increase in infringement notices and fines would not be necessary if people were doing the right thing and didn't bring in prohibited goods. Please educate yourself. If you have visitors from overseas coming to see you, when our borders have reopened, please make sure that they understand what you can and can't bring in. Visit the Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment's website. Familiarise yourself with the incoming passenger card and, if in doubt, please make a declaration. Check with our wonderful biosecurity staff that the items you have are safe to bring in. The staff work so hard to keep our nation safe and to protect all our farmers and fisheries from exotic pests and diseases that would have catastrophic impacts if they were to come into Australia. We are lucky, in many ways, to be a large and relatively isolated island. It has meant we are one of the cleanest, greenest, safest and most productive agricultural nations in the world. Let's keep it that way. Let's all do the right thing, in terms of biosecurity.

Mr HUSIC (Chifley) (11:17): I notice in this debate that a coalition MP posed the question: 'Why are we even debating this legislation?' The reason we are is that the legislation itself is crucial. It's not just about protecting livestock or agriculture. Biosecurity matters. It saves lives. It protects Australians. It has a very important place, in the broad range of things, particularly during a pandemic where we should be ensuring that the biosecurity of all Australians is protected.

This government—particularly this minister, who is here in the chamber—should hang their heads in absolute shame for the grossest dereliction of duty we have seen through the course of this pandemic. This minister, who is responsible for this bill, demonstrated the astounding incompetence of being unable to know what aspects of his own legislation covered the protection of Australians and their health. This minister now is saying that he wants to bring in a whole range of measures that make ordinary Australians feel like crims, but when he does the wrong thing he's not held accountable for it. It is embarrassing that a minister of the Crown is so spectacularly incapable of knowing what his own act is responsible for and still holds his job.

I want to make it absolutely clear that none of the critical remarks I make in the course of this debate are directed at those public servants who do the public a great service at our airports and ports, and who do the right thing to help protect Australians. My criticisms are not directed at them; in fact, my greatest compliments are directed at them for their public service. The greatest criticism should go to their bosses. The greatest criticism should go to the ministers who failed the Australian public. Under the regime that's been put in place here, every Australian tries to do the right thing when they come back from an overseas trip. The pen hovers over the card, and people try to work out which box they should tick to do the right thing. They are made to feel that pressure. There are TV crews in Australian airports that monitor them, making ordinary, average Australians feel like they're doing something wrong.

But when it came to the big issues of protecting the country during the pandemic, we found the department of agriculture and this minister wanting—this minister in particular, along with the Prime Minister and the Minister for Home Affairs. When biosecurity mattered in a pandemic, they were found wanting. In particular, everyone in the country knows about the 2,700 people who were affected by coronavirus on the Ruby Princess, the 700 people who were infected by coronavirus on the Ruby Princess and the 20-plus Australians who lost their lives because they contracted coronavirus on the Ruby Princess. They lost their lives. They paid the price.

I get worked up about this issue when I think of all those passengers who went on that trip. They were just ordinary, average Australians. Many of them were older Australians who went the hard slog in their jobs, paid off their mortgages and raised their kids. They have grandchildren. They took a cruise, like a lot of Australians do. They treated themselves. They went on those cruises thinking they would have a great time. When they boarded and when they went to get off the cruise, they depended on the government to do the right thing and look after them. They depended on the cruise operators to do the right thing and look after them. They were massively let down through the course of this incident, and the lapses in biosecurity were critical in impacting on the health of ordinary Australians. Those ordinary Australians who took that cruise should have had full confidence that their health and safety would be protected and that, when they got off their cruise, they would not be attending a funeral. I genuinely feel for those people. I genuinely feel that we let them down and I genuinely feel that at no point did this government ever step up. The government that is quick to point fingers at others never stepped up to take responsibility for themselves.

In May we heard that, on the evening before passengers were allowed to disembark, federal authorities were aware of 128 sick people aboard the Ruby Princess, including 24 with a temperature. That's what the Senate COVID committee was told. The Australian Border Force—which said, as a result of the Prime Minister's declaration in mid-March, that they would control which cruise boats came in or didn't come in—didn't tell the harbourmaster what he should or shouldn't do, and Australian Border Force claimed they had no legislated authority to do that in regard to a biosecurity threat. The minister laughed a few minutes earlier about whether or not he was accountable. When quizzed on RN Breakfast on 14 August about an act he was responsible for, this minister—agriculture minister David Littleproud—who is responsible for this legislation and these protections, said:

Well let me make clear, that federal agricultural agency only looks after plants and animals; they don't look after human health.

Really? His own website, the department of agriculture website, says:

The … Biosecurity Act 2015—

which is going to be amended by the legislation we're debating here today—

explains how we manage biosecurity threats to plant, animal and human health in Australia and its external territories.

This is an act that this minister administers, and he doesn't even know he is responsible for human health. It's not that he didn't know; it's that he didn't want to admit that this was what he was responsible for, because there have been lapses between various government ministers in accounting for biosecurity threats with what happened with the Ruby Princess.

It is often put that there were no federal representatives on the Ruby Princess when it went to dock. They claim in many instances that it was NSW Health. But that is just wrong. There absolutely were representatives of Agriculture or the federal government on that ship. On top of that, the minister responsible for this act has repeatedly failed to explain the exact times that officials from his own department gave approval for people to disembark the Ruby Princess and, therefore, spread coronavirus in this country. It reached as far as Tasmania and triggered the lockdown of that state. That is a result of lapses that can be attributed to the minister responsible for the Biosecurity Act.

When the minister was quizzed on TV about when they gave approval, he said: 'They gave it on 19 March. The exact time I don't have in front of me.' It is one of the most seismic events in the course of the pandemic and he didn't have the detail. It's just like the aged-care minister, who didn't know the number of people who lost their lives in aged-care facilities in this country. We had another minister who didn't know crucial details involving the disembarkation of the Ruby Princess.

Again the minister responsible for this act has refused to acknowledge or apologise. His departmental secretary conceded to the committee that the department itself failed to do the required traveller-with-illness checklist onboard the Ruby Princess. Ordinary Australians are forced to look very carefully at the things they're filling out when they come back—the things that are being debated in this legislation—but the minister's own department don't do the same thing when it's up to them.

What happened at the start of the pandemic when the Queensland Premier wrote to the Prime Minister about the traveller identification cards that had been handed up—the very cards that we're debating in this legislation? They said that they wanted to keep more data on travellers for contact tracing. As we have all become very aware, contact tracing plays a crucial role in containing the spread of coronavirus. The Queensland Premier wrote to the Prime Minister and asked to get these cards. Samantha Maiden from news.com.au wrote in September:

As the states dealt with the influx of international passengers, they were shocked to learn that incoming travellers' passenger cards were essentially thrown in the bin or unable to be accessed on privacy grounds.

These are the same cards that we've been told today play such an important role in biosecurity. Yet, when the states asked for access to them to enable more efficient contact tracing to limit the spread of coronavirus, this government failed to do the job. We're being asked to improve the penalty regime in this legislation, but this minister can't even do his job.

Ordinary Australians—just like those passengers on the Ruby Princess—expect that governments will be there to protect them, but they're not. At no point has the Prime Minister, the Minister for Home Affairs or that minister over there stepped up and accepted responsibility. Why? Because they've spent too much time playing political games and trying to blame the states. They've been involved in blaming states for what's not happening in the shutdown—blaming them for this recession, in effect. We had this spread of coronavirus that triggered a whole set of shutdowns and lockdowns and all this economic spend, and yet we get asked, as the Labor Party, why do we call it the 'Morrison recession'? The reason is choices were made—or not made—that had an impact on people's livelihoods and had an impact on the economy. The government should be held to account for the depth of this recession. They should be held to account for the amount of money that they've had to pay in the budget to help save the economy because of a biosecurity threat that they triggered when they failed to do the right thing on the Ruby Princess.

I've heard the member for Higgins blame the Victorian government for this and that, despite the fact the federal government didn't do the right thing on aged care, despite the fact the federal government were quite happy for self-isolation rather than quarantining. The states had to step up to do quarantining because the feds wouldn't do it. And on top of that we had the Ruby Princess, a biosecurity threat that was not managed properly by this government. Every single one of them should hang their heads in shame for those ordinary Australians that copped it because of them. Instead of accepting responsibility, all they did was shift it somewhere else. It's just wrong! For example, the Minister for Home Affairs said: 'I don't employ a doctor or nurse at airports and ports to help with biosecurity. That's the responsibility of the Victorian health department, the Queensland health department, the New South Wales health department. It's nothing to do with Australian Border Force. They look at the documentation. They want to make sure people have valid passports and people have valid visas, that they are not criminals coming into this country. They do not conduct testing and they do not conduct temperature tests et cetera. That is not their responsibility.' It's just not true.

The failure of the federal government to be accountable is letting Australians down. This government's failure and dereliction of duty is hurting Australians, it has caused the death of Australians, and that's why this government doesn't accept responsibility. When it comes to the realisation it has done the wrong thing, it doesn't want to accept responsibility. All it wants to do is shift it, and this bill is another example of that. This minister is another example of the incompetence that led to the deaths of Australians, and this government should absolutely hang its head in shame for the way it let down ordinary Australians in this country.

Mr LITTLEPROUD (Maranoa—Minister for Agriculture, Drought and Emergency Management and Deputy Leader of the National Party) (11:32): The Biosecurity Amendment (Traveller Declarations and Other Measures) Bill 2020—the bill—will amend the Biosecurity Act 2015 to provide for a flexible and proportionate compliance response through the targeted setting of amounts payable under an infringement notice. The bill will allow the biosecurity regulation to specify different penalty amounts and different periods of time to pay for infringement notices issued for different kinds of alleged contraventions of the Biosecurity Act, including by reference to the kinds of goods or classes of goods to which an alleged contravention relates, and permit the director of biosecurity to make a non-disallowable legislative instrument to specify goods or classes of goods that can attract a higher infringement notice amount. These changes will enable incoming passengers or crew who fail to declare high-risk biosecurity goods listed in the legislative instrument to be issued with an infringement notice in the amount of 12 penalty units, or $2,664 after penalty units are increased on 1 July. This is an increase from the current infringement notice amount of two penalty units or $444 that applies regardless of the relative risk of the goods to which the contravention relates.

This bill will enhance existing compliance and deterrence measures, and is designed to protect Australia's biosecurity status by encouraging people entering Australia to comply carefully and accurately with requirements to provide written information for the purpose of assessing the level of biosecurity risk associated with the person and the goods they are seeking to bring into Australia. This is a sensible and timely improvement to Australia's biosecurity system that is consistent with mature, regulatory practice. I commend the bill to the House.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Claydon ): The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Hunter has moved an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted, with a view to substituting other words. The immediate question is that the words proposed to be omitted stand as part of the question.

Question agreed to.

Original question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Mr LITTLEPROUD (Maranoa—Minister for Agriculture, Drought and Emergency Management and Deputy Leader of the National Party) (11:36): by leave—I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Ms BURNEY (Barton) (11:37): I rise to support the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Strengthening Banning Orders) Bill 2020. I move:

That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:

"whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House calls on the Government to:

(1)take responsibility for all 'deaths by neglect' within the National Disability Insurance Scheme, which is a Federal Government program; and

(2)immediately respond to the report to the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commissioner by Alan Robertson SC into the adequacy of the regulation of the supports and services provided to Ms Ann-Marie Smith, who died on 6 April 2020".

The amendment is moved on behalf of the member for Maribyrnong, who is unable to attend this sitting of parliament. In moving this amendment, I stand with the member for Maribyrnong in stating that it is impossible to overstate the seriousness of this issue and that the government must put in place the safeguards needed to protect Australians who are accessing the NDIS, and I stress how serious the situation is.

This bill has its origin in the tragic death of Adelaide woman Ann-Marie Smith. It is a partial response to the shortcomings in the system that led to Ann-Marie's death. And when I say 'partial response', the emphasis should be on 'partial'. There is nothing inappropriate about the changes proposed, but they are largely peripheral to the reform and the bolder action that needs to be taken to prevent further, similar lonely deaths of Australians with disabilities. To properly illustrate just how peripheral these changes are, I need to discuss the sad details of Ann-Marie's passing.

Ann-Marie Smith had cerebral palsy. She lived alone and she relied on a carer for all her needs. She was an NDIS participant and her package entitled her to six hours of support a day. She was 54 years old when she died on 6 April. Some details of her death and last days and weeks remain unclear. But this is what we do know. She had been confined to a cane chair for 24 hours a day for more than a year. The chair had become her toilet. It is unimaginable.

On 5 April, Ann-Marie's carer attended her home and, finding her unresponsive, called for an ambulance. At the Royal Adelaide Hospital, she had major surgery to remove the rotting flesh and severe pressure sores she had on her body. She went into palliative care and died the next day. The pain must have been unimaginable. Ann-Marie died of severe septic shock, multi-organ failure, severe pressure sores, malnutrition and issues connected to her cerebral palsy. The police referred to her death as having occurred in disgusting and degrading circumstances. Only upon admission to hospital and a complaint made by the attending doctors to the health authorities were any alarms triggered about the NDIS participant's care or lack of it. Unfortunately for Ann-Marie, it was too late.

There has been a characteristic lack of transparency about the authorities' actions in this case from the NDIS minister, Stuart Robert. We should safely assume that, on the day of Ann-Marie's death, when the Health and Community Services Complaints Commissioner was notified, Mr Robert was also notified. Despite this, the case was not made public until the police probe triggered media reports more than a month later, in mid-May. It took a week after that for the NDIS watchdog, the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission, to sanction the company, the NDIS provider, that was being paid for Ann-Marie's care. The penalty—a measly $12,600 fine. It's insulting, it's disrespectful and it's pathetic.

The South Australian government launched a state inquiry, but the minister refused to launch a national equivalent, despite another death by neglect in a house in New South Wales of another NDIS participant. I tend to think the quality and safeguards commission, the so-called watchdog, would have been happy to leave it at that. But, under pressure to do something, Minister Robert said the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission would look into Ann-Marie's case. This amounted to Stuart Robert suggesting the watchdog look into her case, where the watchdog's own neglect and inaction played a starring role. If the watchdog had done its job, this provider and carer would not have been able to neglect Ann-Marie to her death. She would have experienced a living hell—an absolute living hell.

On 25 May, Labor and the member for Maribyrnong publicly pointed out the unworkable conflict of Mr Robert's solution and demanded an independent inquiry. The next day the watchdog announced that an independent former judge would be reviewing what happened, not the watchdog. This was some progress. It is not the national inquiry we need, though, and it is no comfort to the loved ones of another NDIS participant, David Harris, who was found in his Parramatta apartment after he passed away after being unilaterally kicked out of the NDIS. Mr Harris died in his home after his NDIS supports were cut off because he missed a review meeting, and he was not found for months after his death.

In the immediate aftermath of Ann-Marie's death, the provider was happy for all the blame to be hung on the carer who worked for them. Initially Stuart Robert's disability watchdog, the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission, was also happy for the provider to be given a small fine and to leave it at that. Sadly, the real disability watchdog work in this case has been left to the South Australian Police, and they only got called in after the tragedy had already occurred. Following the public scandal, the outcry, and the strong work of the police, the disability watchdog had a longer think about it, and eventually deregistered the provider. And now we have this bill.

The bill allows for the banning of a carer from further NDIS work in a situation where the carer is no longer employed by the NDIS provider. It is a worthy change, but it would not have prevented Ann-Marie's carer from neglecting her because, at that point, she was an employee. I note that the carer currently has bigger things to worry about. She's in home detention, awaiting trial, charged with manslaughter. That is because, as noted in this case, the conscientious authority has been the South Australian Police.

It's taken six months for this government to bring forward these minor legislative changes to a second reading. In that time, the South Australian Police have investigated, got a brief of evidence together and charged the carer. How sad that the ultimate authority looking out for people with disability is not the disability watchdog; it is the police—it takes a crime for anyone to take notice.

The other proposed change in this bill would allow the pre-emptive banning of a person from disability work due to their actions in an adjacent, non-disability area. This would have caught out Ann-Marie's carer, because she had previously been banned from Domiciliary Care, South Australia, due to accusations of theft. This change would, of course, have prevented Ann-Marie's specific carer from neglecting her, but it would not prevent another carer from doing the same and being tolerated or encouraged to do so by a substantive provider not held accountable by the watchdog.

A cynic might suggest it's the NDIS minister's attempt to appear to be a man of action and to appear to be doing something so that Ms Smith and others may not have seemed to have died in vain. Even now, this bill does not even amount to shutting the gate after the horse has bolted. These changes alone will not prevent future abuse, neglect, pain and possible death. These changes just make things a little better. These changes are painting the gate after the horse has bolted. These legislative changes presuppose that the determinative cause of Ms Smith's death was that a good watchdog had its hands tied, and these changes will untie them.

The sad truth, though, is that we have a disability watchdog that is not performing its role and a seven-year-old government turning a blind eye. The second the circumstances of Ms Smith's demise came to light, the NDIS minister, Stuart Robert, should have come down on the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission like a thunderbolt. In short, the minister should be making his commission do its job. Instead, through exercises like this one, the minister is doing the opposite of that. He is actually providing cover to the watchdog, which has been found sleeping.

Why won't the minister demand the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission get out there to keep providers and workers accountable? Who knows. Perhaps he thinks it will be expensive. Perhaps he plans to turn the whole thing into an app, as the digital innovator that he thinks he is. Or perhaps he doesn't care about the disability portfolio.

This brings me to another sad truth: when it comes to portfolios involving vulnerable Australians such as aged care and disability, the Australian people get the dregs of Morrison's ministry. Why do we have to wait for tragedies for these portfolios to be treated seriously and for them to be elevated to people who can do the job?

As a reaction to Ms Smith's death, this bill is, frankly, underwhelmingly disrespectful. At the risk of mixing animal metaphors, the elephant in the room here is this government's watchdog and its failure to perform its role. All institutions can tend towards entropy. The fault lies at the minister's feet, firstly, for allowing this to happen and, secondly, after the alarm had been sounded by these deaths, in failing to demand anything be done differently.

This watchdog has powers and resources to do its job well. No doubt there are many hardworking, well-intentioned people there. By their own account, the watchdog, the NDIS commission, already has broad powers. A media release of the commission dated 21 May states:

The NDIS Commission has broad powers to take compliance and enforcement action when NDIS providers are found not to have met their obligations under the NDIS Act 2013.

Yet this watchdog has only ever issued one fine to a provider—the one given to Integrity Care over Ann-Marie's death—despite more than 8,000 complaints in the last two years.

Providers routinely fail to report disability deaths to the watchdog in a timely manner, and there is seemingly little consequence. This government funds the executive of the watchdog to jet around, but does not ask them to do unannounced spot checks on the industry to keep everyone safe. Their own independent review of Ms Smith's death, conducted by Alan Robertson SC, made a series of sensible recommendations, including proactive spot checks, community visitation and that more than one carer be responsible for a vulnerable person with a disability. This was the review initiated under the watch of Stuart Roberts, yet there has been nothing but deathly silence from the minister as to whether the government accepts them.

In closing, I say that death by neglect of NDIS participants in their homes reveals a real need for the government to provide an NDIS watchdog that is willing to use its teeth. An overwhelming majority of carers and providers do the right thing. They do a great job in trying circumstances. All we ask of the watchdog is that it keep an eye on the sector and weed out the bad ones who do not do the right thing, and that it to do that before they do a great amount of harm.

Labor will support this legislation, though it would likely have made little difference in the deaths of Ms Smith and Mr Harris. A common link in all these cases is a lack of an active watchdog supervising the NDIS and performing active quality control, including unannounced spot checks on providers and the carers working for them. Under the hapless reign of Minister Stuart Robert and after seven years of Liberal mismanagement of the NDIS, the commission is acting more like a purse puppy than a watchdog. The commission has still not launched an inquiry into the death of Mr Harris. It is an outrage. Putting the watchdog to work is the real action required by this government to prevent further disability tragedies. As my second reading amendment, I move:

That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:

"whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House calls on the Government to:

(1)take responsibility for all 'deaths by neglect' within the National Disability Insurance Scheme, which is a Federal Government program; and

(2)immediately respond to the report to the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commissioner by Alan Robertson SC into the adequacy of the regulation of the supports and services provided to Ms Ann-Marie Smith, who died on 6 April 2020".

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Claydon ): Is the amendment seconded?

Mrs Phillips: I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Barton has moved as an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The question now is that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question.

Mr FALINSKI (Mackellar) (11:55): Nothing is more important to our nation than supporting our community's most vulnerable and helping them achieve the highest standard of living possible. This bill, the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Strengthening Banning Orders) Bill 2020, strengthens the integrity of the NDIS system by providing additional powers to the commissioner to ban providers who, due to misconduct, are unsuitable for this work.

We require the highest standards when it comes to organisations and people involved in delivering the NDIS. Why others in this House do not support us on that is really a question for them. There is no room for shortcuts. There is no place for second best. It is important that the system and the people tasked with looking after the interests of vulnerable people are given the resources to do their job. To us as a government the safety and wellbeing of Australians is paramount. Expanding the powers of the commissioner to ban those who are unsuitable could not be more important. How are we to empower Australians if we cannot guarantee their wellbeing?

As the legislation currently stands, the commissioner does not have—let me repeat that: does not have—the authority to ban non-NDIS providers from entering the scheme. This means, for example, that an organisation guilty of misconduct can close its NDIS arm of the business to avoid sanctions. Gaming the system is simply not on, especially when it comes to the disabled, the elderly or children. As a government and, I would say, as a nation we have a special responsibility to the less fortunate—a duty of care and a responsibility that will be enshrined by this bill being passed by this House. Having worked in aged care I understand the importance of putting in the right kinds of protections to help those who help others. This legislation will make a big difference by proactively stopping unscrupulous actors from undermining our system and putting other people's lives at risk. Taking a strong stand on this issue could not be more important.

Given the current provisions are too narrow, this legislation in effect closes a potential loophole and undermines vested interests which are seeking to exploit the system as it stands. Pre-emptively banning someone from providing services to the NDIS may feel harsh, and, indeed, in most circumstances it is—but not in these circumstances. The reality is that, if somebody has been identified as unsuitable, due to their past actions, to work with persons in fields such as aged care or child care, they should not be allowed to do so under the NDIS. Far from picking people out for exclusion, this bill is about keeping consistency and justice at the core of our system, and is designed to protect people.

All too frequently, bureaucracy gets in the way of people; it disempowers them. We see it with startups looking to innovate, we see it with small businesses try to pay tax and now we are seeing it with the most vulnerable members of our society. It is tragic that, at a time when Australians are doing it tough, there are still vested interests that are calling for more regulation and higher taxes, all the while ignoring the fact that this puts Australians' lives at real risk. This bill takes a stand against the exclusive clubs that game the systems that Australians rely on.

Our smarter regulation agenda is not about more or less regulation but about better regulation, fairer regulation, simpler regulation; regulation that makes people's lives better, not worse; regulation that empowers individuals to make decisions so they can make their lives better. It is not about higher taxes but about simpler taxes, fairer taxes, that help small businesses run by mums and dads.

Smarter regulation is empowering those with disabilities to pursue their own goals and to live a fulfilling life. Smarter regulation is providing that base level of protection and assurance. This has been the foundation of Australia's prosperity, which has been slowly chipped away with the passing of new and more regulation and higher and higher taxes. As we look towards our post-COVID-19 recovery plan we will be relying more than ever on streamlined regulation where no-one is left behind. This especially includes those with a disability, the elderly and children.

This proposed measure will expand the NDIS commissioner's powers to allow a banning order to be made in relation to a person who was but is no longer employed by an NDIS provider. The current legislation requires individuals to be employed at the time for the banning order to apply. This means that those who are guilty of gross misconduct could be working in a similar or, indeed, the same field, as long as it is not with the NDIS or an NDIS provider. This may very well be putting Australians in danger. It is something that we need to stop and stop now. This is a time for decisive action in defence of the vulnerable and those who may not have a strong voice.

The NDIS provider register includes a list of those who are banned. Ensuring that that list is comprehensive is an important part of the first line of defence for NDIS participants and their representatives to ensure that any provider or worker they might engage is not currently subject to a banning order. This means having a commissioner who is empowered to protect those benefiting from the NDIS. An important part of that process is being able to issue a banning order to organisations who either are employed by the NDIS or have left the sector. Currently, if an employee leaves the sector due to an issue which may result in a banning consideration, they may be able to avoid that ban. This bill strengthens the system that we rely on to help protect our loved ones.

The NDIS provider register holds information about the identity of providers and workers who had a banning order made against them by the NDIS commissioner, and includes enough information to identify them. The register is publicly available to allow persons with a disability and their representatives and providers to ensure the people they are engaging to deliver NDIS services are not subject to banning orders. This database is an important part of maintaining the integrity of NDIS and protecting people. Australians should have complete certainty that the professionals who are entrusted with their care are correctly trained, have a good track record of delivering their services and are not a risk. This bill gives the commissioner additional powers such that he can support positive outcomes for those in our nation who most need them.

COVID-19 has meant we are all focused on the safety and security of those who are most susceptible to the pandemic. Often this has significant overlap with those who are disabled and currently using the NDIS. All it takes is a single person's misconduct for COVID-19 to cause mass disruption and harm. Whilst this bill is not specifically related to the pandemic, the reality is that, by being able to pre-emptively ban people who have a history of misconduct, we are giving ourselves security against the careless mistakes that cost lives. This is more crucial now than at any other time in living memory.

Providing additional measures of support and care is time sensitive. That is why, even with the disruption that the pandemic has caused, we are prioritising this bill. It is a reflection of this government's ongoing commitment to retirees, to children, to the vulnerable and, frankly, to all Australians. That is part of what it means to have a fair go. Hardworking Australians deserve systems which protect their loved ones and provide the best possible care. This is an integral part of building healthy and strong communities. With bushfires, floods and now a global pandemic, we are relying on our neighbours and communities more than ever. The government has a critical role to play in ensuring that everyone in our community is being protected and helped and that those in need are being cared for. Building resilient communities depends on building systems that are robust and put Australians first. This bill safeguards vulnerable people by empowering the commissioner to act pre-emptively against those who are unsuitable for looking after vulnerable people, due to prior misconduct. This bolsters the effectiveness of the NDIS provider register, which in turn helps inform effective decision-making on the part of Australians.

This legislation is creating a better Australia, based on the principles of a fair go, justice and protecting those who are more susceptible to misconduct. Legislation of this kind has a negligible financial impact and it helps to create a better NDIS and a better Australia. There are many who seek a larger and more interventionist government because, in their view, government can solve all problems. The reality is that government is no replacement for robust communities or for families, especially in times of crisis. Rather than trying to prescribe what each individual requires, this government has always been about supporting the individual aspirations of Australians.

The vision of the NDIS is to do exactly that. We do not seek to have a one-size-fits-all approach, especially given the complications that disabilities can result in. It is the individuals and their carers and representatives who know best, not a bureaucrat in Canberra with a big-government agenda. We are returning the power of choice to the Australian people—the power to decide what a good life means for the individual and how best to go about achieving it. We are trusting in our fellow countrymen. For this to become a reality, the role of government is simple: create and maintain effective systems that put hardworking Australians first. We can wax lyrical in this place about compassion and care. It is easy to say; it is harder to do. This bill does that. For these reasons, I highly commend it to the House.

Ms THWAITES (Jagajaga) (12:07): [by video link] I am speaking today on this bill, the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Strengthening Banning Orders) Bill 2020, because we need to do so much better for people with disability, their families and carers. The NDIS is a great Labor reform. Unfortunately, its implementation has been bungled by this government's neglect and lack of interest. We have seen that reflected in the number of cases of neglect and abuse of people with disability. This just shouldn't be the case. The reports of the death of Ann-Marie Smith shocked our country. While this bill is a first step in creating a stronger framework to ban providers, we need further provisions to stop the abuse of people with disability before it happens.

We must also go further and address the systemic failures this government has allowed to develop within the NDIS. We should not be leaving people with disability vulnerable to providers or carers who do not meet the highest of standards. We should not be leaving people with disability vulnerable to pandemics, like the current COVID pandemic. We can and we must do better.

The bill seeks to broaden the circumstances in which the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission may make a banning order against a provider or a person. The bill also seeks to clarify the commissioner's powers. These are welcome changes and they do address areas where the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission's powers are too narrow. But these changes do not do enough and I support the amendments moved by the member for Barton in the name of the member for Maribyrnong. Of course we need a commission that is empowered to act if abuse is found to exist. But we also need a system that means abuse is stopped before it occurs. We need a system where oversight of the care of vulnerable people is baked in from the beginning. We've just seen in our aged-care system during this pandemic how it plays out when a regulator does not see itself as having a preventative role, and I am concerned that the NDIS commissioner remains in a similar space. Every person with disability deserves to feel confident that the care and support they are receiving is of high quality and will keep them safe. I am very concerned that the changes in this bill do not go far enough to ensure that.

Currently, the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission has monitoring powers, under the regulatory powers act, to enter premises voluntarily to ensure the act is being appropriately administered, and, if it is refused entry, a monitoring warrant can be applied for. However, the number of times these powers have been used has not been reported, and this again goes to how the commission sees its role. It's clear the commission is not exercising the full extent of its proactive monitoring powers or its powers to penalise non-compliant providers. Under the Morrison government's watch, the commission has received more than 8,000 complaints about the abuse, neglect and even fatalities of Australians with disability. Yet, from all of these complaints, the commissioner has issued just one fine and banned only one provider and 22 individuals. That is despite thousands of complaints and thousands of tip-offs. Something is clearly amiss here.

We have already heard about the harrowing case of Ann-Marie Smith. This just should not have occurred. Adelaide NDIS participant, 54-year-old Ann-Marie Smith died on 6 April of severe septic shock, multiple organ failure, severe pressure sores and malnutrition. Her NDIS package included six hours of support per day. It has since been reported that she only received two hours of care and was confined to a cane chair, 24 hours a day, for more than a year. Her death launched a South Australian police investigation into the carer, and the SA government created a safeguarding task force to examine the current gaps in oversight and safeguarding for people with disability. Finally, this government was pressured to commission an independent review of the NDIS commission's regulation of the provider of NDIS supports and services to Ann-Marie Smith, which was established and conducted by the Hon. Alan Robertson SC.

I say the government was 'pressured', because the review was established following public pressure and calls from Labor for an independent investigation. My Labor colleagues and I have continually argued that this should have been a broader inquiry. As we heard from the member for Barton, it should have also looked at what went wrong in the case of David Harris, an NDIS participate who was found dead in his house more than two months after his supports had been cut off. The inquiry should have been free to look at broader considerations such as whether the commission has in fact been a toothless watchdog across multiple cases, not just that of this provider, and whether the $4.6 billion funding cuts this government has made to the scheme mean that we're having more deaths in homes by neglect, because the money for regulation is just not there. The investigator should have had subpoena powers, and disability advocates should have been much better supported to engage with the process.

Despite these flaws, it's clear from the inquiry's recommendations that the NDIS commission has not been set up properly and that the NDIS minister, Stuart Robert, has failed to fix this, despite these tragic cases of NDIS abuse, neglect and death. The inquiry does not identify any failings in how the quality and safeguards commission carried out its functions around Ann-Marie Smith's death, but this is because the real reason the commission didn't fail is that the commission's scope is too narrow. It is not taking on a preventative role. It is only empowered to act once abuse has happened.

With its 10 broad-ranging recommendations, the inquiry report clearly shows that the commission and the NDIS safeguarding framework are not set up to effectively protect people who use the NDIS. The report highlights buck-passing between the NDIA and the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission. The problem is that the NDIS commission only regulates providers and the NDIA is set up to administer the scheme to participants. The report rightly highlights that the two agencies are not sharing information and that people are falling through the cracks of this patchy oversight. The government must respond as soon as possible to this inquiry report and implement its findings. We don't have time to waste. Ann-Marie Smith died on 6 April 2020 after years of neglect. It is now 7 October 2020, nine months later, and we still do not have the steps we need to make sure that this will never happen again.

I referenced earlier how part of what we're seeing at the moment has the potential to reflect what we've seen in aged care during the pandemic—where the regulator doesn't see itself as having a preventive role in supporting vulnerable people but rather comes in afterwards to try to fix up a mess that is already created. We know that this government was caught off guard by COVID and we know the damage that COVID has had on our aged-care facilities because of this. We know that the Morrison government had no COVID plan for our aged-care facilities. Likewise, the disability sector is still without a comprehensive government plan or support to deal with the pandemic.

We don't see the COVID contagion rates, locations and deaths for people with disability. The system of reporting is just not there. Again this goes to oversight and regulation. It goes to safety and quality. It goes to people with disability and their families and carers being able to be confident that the people that they let into their homes and the people they rely on for care are people who can be trusted and will provide them with the highest standard. That is not an assurance they can have at the moment. Unfortunately, it's not an assurance that this bill gives them.

I've heard from disability providers in my own electorate about these issues through the pandemic. They themselves are worried about the lack of planning and support that has gone into this from this federal government. Providers have told me that they don't feel supported through this pandemic. They were expected to, on their own, close or readjust their services to try to meet demand in a safe way. These adjustments were unfunded by the government. They didn't get extra support for COVID plans and communication systems they needed. Not all participants were able to adjust to new systems and new ways of working, meaning that some participants have been left unsupported and providers have been left without income.

The loading that was available to service providers through the NDIA ceased on 30 June 2020, despite here in Victoria still experiencing a very severe COVID outbreak. Providers are having to meet the immense cost of PPE, having to support their workers and trying to do the best by people with disability all without the support they should get from the federal government and all without a system that has the right level of quality, safety and oversight that vulnerable people with disability deserve.

It's not a cliche for us to say that as a society we should be judged on how we protect vulnerable people. People with disability deserve choice and control. They deserve a NDIS that works for them. They also deserve to know that the care they get is of the highest standard. As I've said before, that is not what this bill delivers. It is not what we have seen happening under the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission. It is very concerning—and remains very concerning for people with disability, their families and their carers and it remains concerning for the providers who want to do the best by their clients and by the people they support—that these frameworks are not in place as they should be.

They're concerned that this government has dropped the ball. They're concerned that there hasn't been action taken since these tragic deaths that I've highlighted to change the way that the system is regulated to the extent that it will mean that we are taking preventive action and not waiting for tragedies to occur, and that people with disability and their families and carers are assured that the system is set up to do the job it should—to keep them safe and to make sure they get the highest possible standard of care. We should not have a system where people have to die for an investigation to take place. We should not have a system where neglect has to occur before someone is found to be unfit to be working in it.

It's time for this government to take more action. It's time for it to take this issue more seriously. This bill starts the process. It does not finish it. I urge the government to make sure that it goes a lot further than what we have seen to date.

Mr ANDREWS (Menzies) (12:19): [by video link] I appreciate the call to speak on the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Strengthening Banning Orders) Bill 2020. Since the NDIS rollout began in July 2014 until the end of June this year, some 391,999 people have become participants in the National Disability Insurance Scheme. When this scheme is fully rolled out right across Australia, some 432,000 Australians will be participants in the scheme. This comes at a very considerable cost of $23.4 million in funding in the full year of rollout of the scheme.

The NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission was established on 1 July 2018, and its essential functions are to ensure compliance with the act and to promote quality services and safeguards. Between 1 July 2018 and 30 June 2020, the commission received some 5,784 in-scope complaints, which it has dealt with. As part of that process, the commission has banned some 23 entities, 22 of which are individuals. Fifteen of those bans were based on the suitability of the person concerned. The NDIS strengthening banning orders provisions are to provide further powers to the commission. They broaden the circumstances in which the commission may ban a worker or a provider from delivering services, even if that worker or provider is no longer operating in the National Disability Insurance Scheme. The commission may also take pre-emptive action against an individual or an organisation and, of course, it can make publicly available its decision and its resolution to ban a particular person. These are sensible additional amendments to the legislation to give the commission the power that it needs to ensure the safeguards of individuals in the scheme.

As the chairman of the Joint Standing Committee on the National Disability Insurance Scheme of this parliament, I wish to mention a couple of inquiries in the context of the NDIS that the committee is currently undertaking. One is into planning, which we hope to be able to finally report on soon. Another one is on general issues, on which we expect to issue a progress report by the end of this year. Importantly, we have two other inquiries underway, one into the work of the quality and safeguards commission and one into the role and the future workforce for the National Disability Insurance Scheme. These inquiries go very much to matters covered in this bill and also the broader NDIS itself.

Two issues are important for the future success of the scheme. One is obviously having an adequate workforce in terms of the number of people who can provide services. Another issue is skills and training, and the competency of that workforce. It's expected that we'll see a trebling of the number of workers in disability services over the coming few years, and that's at the same time that we'll need a trebling of the number of workers in aged care. So there's going to be significant demand and competition, if you like, to have an adequate workforce to provide these services. Without an adequate workforce, the services can't be provided and the scheme cannot live up to the expectations that so many Australians have for it. Equally, the quality and the training of the workforce is important, which is where quality assurance comes into play. How do we encourage service providers to prioritise quality and ensure that that quality is risk averse in terms of what's provided to the participants in the scheme? A simple tick-a-box approach is not as good as a genuine commitment to actually providing quality of services in this scheme. I sometimes wonder whether the approach that we've taken on both sides of parliament under the political hues of both the Liberal-National coalition and the Labor Party in aged care, for example, which has relied largely on a tick-a-box approach, has perhaps precluded the development of quality assurance by the providers themselves at a level that we should be able to expect from a scheme such as aged care and, now and in the future, in relation to disability services. In relation to the commission's function, developing a nationally consistent approach to managing quality and safeguards for people who have a disability and who are receiving supports or services is one of the core functions of the quality commission.

The parliamentary joint standing committee will continue to look at these issues over the coming weeks and months, particularly in relation to the quality and safeguards commission and also the workforce itself. In the meantime, this is an important piece of legislation and I commend it to the House.

Mr DICK (Oxley) (12:25): I'm pleased to rise today in the House to speak on the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Strengthening Banning Orders) Bill 2020. As we've heard from speakers today, the NDIS was introduced by the former Gillard government in response to the Productivity Commission recommendations, and it provides support to some of the marginalised people in our community: people with a disability, their families and their carers. It gives independence and social and economic participation to people with disability. It gives reasonable and necessary support, including early intervention. It gives people with disability a choice and control over the pursuit of their goals and planning for the delivery of their support and hopefully a nationally consistent approach. As members of parliament, we've all seen the power of the NDIS. But I think all members of parliament have also seen the difficulties in navigating and understanding the complexities and also the deficiencies of the NDIS. The bill being debated today seeks to expand the circumstances in which the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commissioner may make a banning order against a provider or person and clarifies the commissioner's powers.

I want to spend a little time today speaking about some local cases to bring to the parliament's attention some of the examples I have come across from the community I represent. I also want to focus, in my remarks today, on a pretty important second reading amendment moved by the member for Barton. I'm very glad the member for Barton has moved this amendment, because it enables me to highlight some of the issues that I certainly come across. In the first part of the amendment we've got:

take responsibility for all 'deaths by neglect' within the National Disability Insurance Scheme, which is a Federal Government program;

And then we've got:

immediately respond to the report to the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commissioner by Alan Robertson SC into the adequacy of the regulation of the supports and services provided to Ms Ann-Marie Smith, who died on 6 April 2020.

The amendments are appropriate. However, they do not address the failure of the NDIS and the NDIS Quality and Safeguarding Framework to prevent abuse. And I'm glad Minister Robert is at the table today because I want him to hear firsthand some of the examples from my community, where people have suffered and had a terrible experience with the NDIS.

One of the first things I did following the election in May 2019, within a matter of weeks of that election, was hold an NDIS roundtable. It was held in Goodna in my electorate, where I brought together a whole range of stakeholders, including service organisations and service providers, a number of churches that are involved with the disability sector, advocates, parents and carers. I wanted that to be the first thing I did on my re-election to this place, because the community, during the most recent federal election, made it clear to me that there were problems with the scheme, and they wanted them fixed, and I wanted to hit the ground running post that election. The shadow minister, Bill Shorten, attended that forum and heard firsthand. One of the outcomes from that roundtable was for me to write directly to the minister who's at the table now with the concerns. I requested a meeting with him and his office about those concerns, and that's what the community wanted me to raise. To this date, I've had no response to that correspondence.

Mr Robert: Rubbish!

Mr DICK: I'm glad the minister just said, 'Rubbish!'

If he would like to check, or his advisers would like to check, which meeting he had advised me of hosting so I could raise these concerns, I would be happy to sit down and allow him to respond. He's called the concerns I raised 'rubbish'.

Mr Robert: I did not call—you're verballing me that I didn't respond to your correspondence rubbish, pal!

Mr DICK: I hope that's on the record.

Mr Robert: So do I.

Mr DICK: What we will see as a result of him misleading this chamber—

Mr Robert interjecting—

Mr DICK: There you have it—a minister of the Crown saying, 'Move on, you fool.' So, when my community comes together and wants answers from this government, I'm dismissed! That's fair enough. But don't you dare—through you, Mr Deputy Speaker Vasta—dismiss the concerns. Don't wave them away like you're doing. Don't wave them away like they're an annoyance. Don't wave them away like they're some kind of irritant. They're not. These are people with real stories and real life experience. I'm going to talk that about experience today, as a result of the member for Barton's second reading amendment, so that the minister hears. It might be uncomfortable for him to hear truths, but it is time he started listening, not simply dismissing people.

I want to talk in the chamber today about a local resident who has had a horrific experience. Her name is Annie. I met with her. She is the mum of two sons who suffer from a form of Duchenne muscular dystrophy. Annie has been in touch with my electorate office since August 2018. There's been funding taken away from her plan in the past. She's had difficulty getting these reviews. She's had trouble and delays getting wheelchairs, ramps and modifications in the house to assist her sons. These are adult children who have severe and complex issues. They like to leave the house on their own for some independence. It is impossible for them to do that. It's been a struggle against all struggles for Annie. I've met with her and I've seen the tears in her eyes.

She is an amazing mum. She's on her own, but she's an amazing mum. She doesn't complain. She doesn't complain about herself. She doesn't complain about all the things she has to go without. She just wants her kids, her boys, while they're still with her, to have the quality of life that any other child would. It breaks her heart that she can't do that for her kids. I think that's the hardest thing when you meet with a parent—that all they want is to be able to do things for their kids so that their kids feel like they're valued. I promised Anne that I would raise this in the parliament today.

She's had trouble with delays in getting wheelchairs and home modifications. The latest issue is getting around legislation that has no NDIA funding for in-hospital patients. This is something people forget about. When a severely disabled person with complex health issues enters hospital for treatment, there are no support packages for them once they're in the hospital. As the mum of two sons who need constantly care, she can't leave one son at home and the other son in hospital without care. She feels completely conflicted about leaving at home one son she needs to look after, but there's no care for the one in hospital. I know that sounds silly in a hospital, but the complex needs are so varied that she needs that extra support while they're in hospital. You would think, 'Well, there are nurses and doctors there,' but they're not qualified and they simply don't have the resources.

I wanted to bring to the parliament's attention today the real deficiency for a whole range of people who are struggling. It may be a negotiation between the Commonwealth and state health systems. I understand that. But this is a real issue for thousands of people. They need to stay at home for care responsibilities but they also need to be at the hospital when people are dealing with complex health issues. There's no funding or avenues for that extra support. This is a policy area. It's not specific to the bill, but I wanted to take this opportunity to talk about this, given the member for Barton's second reading amendment today, so that we can understand the complex health and safety issues for a whole cohort of people who are really struggling at the moment. As Annie said to our office—she is just one of many—she doesn't want any special treatment. She just wants to be able to know that when her sons are admitted to hospital on alternative bases that there is proper care for them and extra support services there, so they're not a burden to the existing nurses and allied health services, and she's also got the quality of care of looking after her sons at home.

I want to quickly speak on the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission. Shortly after his appointment in 2018, the inaugural NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commissioner, Graham Head, gave a speech to CEDA in which he said:

We're able to take a range of actions including deregistration, banning orders or seeking the application of civil penalties so we really do have a comprehensive tool kit. We have comprehensive regulatory powers and functions, and real regulatory teeth. Incidents that must be reported to the commission include the death of a participant, serious injury, abuse or neglect and importantly also the unauthorised use of a restrictive practice in relation to a participant. It does represent a significant step change in how we approach the delivery of quality services to people with disability and how we protect and prevent neglect and abuse of people with disability.

These comments have not aged well. If the commission has real teeth, then why did Ann-Marie's service provider only receive a fine of $12,600 after allowing her carer to neglect her so severely? If the commission has real regulatory powers and functions, why wasn't it overseeing the care that Ann-Marie was meant to be receiving? The government must provide answers to these questions and outline what it intends to do to ensure that the commission's powers are being properly used to prevent abuse and neglect, not just issue a slap on the wrist after the act.

The NDIS scheme is a vital national service. After seven years of the Morrison-Turnbull-Abbott government, I believe it's been slashed and mismanaged to such an extent that people are now, as we're seeing, being neglected. I want to see the minister getting real and start acting in the interests of Australians with disabilities. Australians pay their taxes. As we've heard, we cannot have a strong economy without delivering the services that people need. When it comes to the NDIS we're not delivering the services that people need.

I was relieved to see that the Morrison government heeded our calls for an independent investigation into the death of Ms Smith. The loved ones of Ms Smith deserve to know that others will not be similar kinds of victims of a failing system. It's a good start. The current scope of the inquiry—the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission's regulation of the late Ms Smith's service provider, Integrity Care—was clearly too limited. The inquiry needed to be free to look at broader considerations, such as whether the $30 million a year commission has been a toothless watchdog across multiple cases, where the deaths in home by neglect of NDIS participants has been exasperated by the removal of $4.6 billion from the scheme, or underspend as the government likes to say. When I use that term in my community—and I go to disability groups, parents and carers—and say, 'You will never believe what happened. There was not the demand for $4.6 billion,' people are blown away and cannot accept that that is any way in reality. Maybe I'm in an alternative universe to those opposite. When I meet with advocates they have no belief that the demand is not there. Maybe we need to work on some of the language there about an underspend versus, perhaps, in my opinion, mismanagement.

There are a whole range of findings that I know the government will have to deal with, but my final message today to the government is: please start listening to the sector. Make sure that their voices are heard. We need to continue to keep working on this scheme. It is far from perfect. It is a scheme that is benefiting tens of thousands of Australians. I know the joy that you hear from parents, in particular when they see their loved ones being able to participate in social activities or in the broader community, cannot be underestimated.

If I have achieved anything today, I'm hopeful that the minister will take onboard some of these concerns. Being the charitable person that I am, I will again forward my correspondence to him. I hope that after today we do get to sit down. It might have taken a year, but at least today we might see a meeting occur, so my residents can let him know their concerns directly.

Ms McBRIDE (Dobell) (12:39): I rise to speak on the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Strengthening Banning Orders) Bill 2020 and support the amendments moved by the member for Barton. I'm pleased to follow my colleague the member for Oxley and recognise his advocacy for the vulnerable people and those living with disability and their families and carers in his community.

The bill seeks, as others have mentioned, to broaden the circumstances in which the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commissioner may make a banning order against a provider or person and clarifies the commissioner's powers. The bill addresses some timing issues and shortfalls in the NDIS commissioner's ability to make banning orders against a worker who is no longer employed or engaged by an NDIS provider. The commissioner's ability to make a pre-emptive banning order against a person who has been identified as unsuitable to work with people with disability as a result of their actions in another field is also addressed. The changes allow the commission to make a banning order against a provider's former employee or staff and prevent the lapse of a banning order if the employer ceased to be engaged or the provider leaves the sector.

The amendments will also empower the commissioner to include details of the order, including enough information to identify the person in the publicly available NDIS provider register. While I acknowledge the government's intention to address specific areas where the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commissioner's powers are too narrow, it has taken the government two years to act and introduce this amendment to the House.

The NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission has monitoring powers under the regulatory powers act to enter premises voluntarily to, administer the NDIS Act and to seek monitoring warrants if entry is refused. The commission has significant powers under the National Disability Insurance Scheme Act to issue compliance notices, injunctions or civil penalties or vary, revoke or suspend registration of providers or make a banning order prohibiting or restricting specified activities by a provider or a person employed or otherwise engaged by a provider.

Shortly after his appointment as NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commissioner in 2018, Graham Head give a speech in which he said:

We're able to take a range of actions including deregistration, banning orders or seeking the application of civil penalties so we really do have a comprehensive tool kit.

We have comprehensive regulatory powers and functions, and real regulatory teeth.

If only that were so. However, in the last two years there have been 2,473 complains made to the commission, and the commission has only issued 23 banning orders. It's clear the commission is not exercising the full extent of its monitoring powers nor its powers to penalise non-compliant providers, and this is putting vulnerable people at risk.

Labor notes the Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme—I note the minister's presence in the House—said in the second reading of this bill:

The recent tragic circumstances surrounding the death of Ann-Marie Smith in South Australia have highlighted just how important it is to have the strongest possible protections available for NDIS participants.

And it is. And it must be.

As others have noted in this House, Ann-Marie Smith's death is a tragedy. While supportive of the changes, the bill does not address the underlying problems. Importantly, even if these amendments were in place at the time, they would not have prevented Ann-Marie's death. The change proposed by the government to make a pre-emptive banning order against a person identified as unsuitable to work with people with disability as a result of their actions in another field would have prevented Ann-Marie's carer from becoming her carer, but there is no guarantee that her death would have been prevented as the bill does not contain measures addressing the lack of oversight which could allow any carer to perpetrate similar abuse.

The National Disability Insurance Scheme is vital. The National Disability Insurance Scheme is lifting the quality of life of so many Australians living with disability for their carers, for their families and for their loved ones, but it is falling short and, tragically, the mismanagement and underinvestment by this government has sadly led to the death of Ann-Marie Smith and to the neglect of many others who are in the care of this government.

Labor was relieved when the government heeded our calls for an independent investigation into Ann-Marie Smith's death. Labor called on the government to broaden the inquiry to review the case of David Harris, whom other people have mentioned, an NDIS participant who was found dead in his house more than two months after his supports had been cut off.

While we recognise the inquiry was a good start, it has fallen short and it is clearly too limited. The inquiry needed to be free to look at broader considerations, such as whether the $30 million-a-year commission has been a toothless watchdog across multiple cases—not just the case that has brought this amendment to the House, not just the case of Ms Smith's provider—where the deaths in home by neglect of NDIS participants have been exacerbated by the removal of $4.6 billion from this scheme, as so many others have mentioned. When we have so many vulnerable people, so many people waiting for the support that they need, when we have seen so many delays, when we have seen so many errors, how can this government stand by and allow this to happen?

There also remains a clear conflict of the commission appointing the investigator and the investigator reporting back to the subject of their inquiry. The investigator needed subpoena powers, and disability advocates should be supported if they wish to engage with the process. We welcome the appointment of the investigator, who is, at least ostensibly, separate from the NDIA, but this is not enough.

As we know, the Robertson report was released at the end of August. The review found there was no wrongdoing when the commission set out to protect NDIS participants and issued a meagre fine of $12,600 for failing to notify the commission of Ann-Marie's tragic death. We now know that this is the only infringement the commission has issued in two years of operating—the only infringement. During the coronavirus pandemic, the commission has contacted NDIS participants on only one occasion, in a joint letter that participants received in early September. Disturbingly, witnesses at the recent hearing of the inquiry into the NDIS commission overwhelmingly told the NDIS joint standing committee that most people have never heard of the NDIS commission. Most people don't know it exists. How can people receive support from it if they don't know it's there to protect them? How does this work in practice if a person has an issue with their provider but doesn't know that they can get support through the commission? They don't know it exists.

The NDIS commission only regulates providers, and the NDIA is set up to administer the scheme to participants. Justice Robertson says the two agencies are not sharing information and acknowledges that, without this communication, people could easily fall through the cracks between these silos. The government has a responsibility that it can't walk away from—a responsibility to help NDIS participants understand the role of the commission and their rights if they experience problems with their providers. But, sadly, after years of funding cuts and neglect and mismanagement, people are dying of neglect in their homes and not receiving the support they deserve.

I'm going to turn to some local examples. I know so many of us have had so many people come to us when they have been let down, when they haven't received the support that they deserve and that they need. Wendy from Chittaway Bay in my electorate needed home modifications for her wheelchair so that she should stay independent in her home. She applied for NDIS funding. As a participant, there were several quotes presented to the NDIA. The quotes ranged from $41,200 to $80,000. The agency settled on the lowest quote, despite Wendy's concerns about the builder.

When the building work started, Wendy did the right thing and contacted the local council about certification and was advised the builder hadn't submitted a construction certificate. Wendy was then faced with threats from the builder to pull the modifications down. She then lodged an application with New South Wales Fair Trading and, later, NCAT. When consent orders of $65,000 were reached, the builder made an admission—he wasn't qualified to do the home modifications and had no builders home insurance. This was the builder the agency had chosen to do the modifications on Wendy's home.

This has been ongoing for five years, and Wendy had been left with a house that's considered unsafe because it can't be certified, and unsaleable. She's also been billed almost $15,000 in pursuing this through an NDIA recommended lawyer. Because of the choice of the builder by the NDIA, Wendy has been through New South Wales Fair Trading, the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission, and NCAT and is living with the personal and financial consequences of this mistake. It shouldn't be so hard for somebody like Wendy to get the home modifications she needs to be independent and safe within her own home.

I now turn to Margaret from Bateau Bay. She recently contacted my office concerning her prosthetic limb, which was provided under her NDIS plan. It's a prosthetic leg that doesn't fit. After trying to negotiate with the provider, she's been asked, personally, to pay more to fix the prosthesis. This is money that Margaret doesn't have and shouldn't have to pay. Mistakes happen. But, when they do, processes should be in place to fix them, and people like Margaret should not have to foot the bill to pay for the NDIA's mistakes.

I'm now going to turn to carers, because we know that so many carers have been so impacted through COVID-19, and carers of people living with disability, particularly children with disability, have been particularly vulnerable. Next week, as we know, is National Carers Week. I would like to thank all of those carers across Australia for the unpaid care that they provide so generously and without any recognition. They deserve to be acknowledged.

When the NDIA fails, it's not just participants that are affected; it's their families and carers that are impacted as well. A recent survey by Mental Health Carers Australia on the impacts of COVID-19 in NDIS participants with psychosocial disability found provision of NDIS supports for participants, families and carers had dropped significantly. Sixty-one per cent said lockdown had impacted NDIS supports they'd received, and 80 per cent had not been in contact with their NDIA provider regarding their plan. The survey found families and carers had stepped into the breach left by providers and it was impacting their mental health. Seventy-five per cent of these carers were concerned about their family's mental health, and 65 per cent were concerned about their own emotional wellbeing.

Nearly 50 per cent reported their caring roles increased significantly, to more than what they could cope with. Unsurprisingly, 73 per cent of these carers were aged over 50, and nearly all of the respondents to the survey were women. For many of them, the day-to-day expenses increased by over half, and most of these carers are retired or working part-time because of their caring responsibilities. Finally, the survey found that carers were an at-risk group: more vulnerable to COVID and more likely to be struggling financially. These figures provide just a snapshot, a little insight, into the carers of people receiving NDIS support for psychosocial disability. They reflect the strain being felt by the wider carer community.

The Caring Fairly Coalition Caring during coronavirus survey highlighted the impact of the virus on the carer community. Sixty per cent of carers reported losing some or all of the support for the services for the person that they cared for, and four in five said that their mental health had deteriorated since COVID-19. Nearly 90 per cent had experienced increased stress in their role as a carer, and close to 40 per cent reported losing some or all of their regular income. Given these impacts, it's no surprise that less than six per cent of carers reported that the Australian government was providing enough support for carers during the pandemic. It's not hard to see why carers feel overlooked. It's not hard to see why carers feel they've been left behind. Unpaid carers, Minister, should not have to pick up the slack for the government's failure to manage the NDIS.

The NDIS was built by Labor. Since it was introduced, it has helped people across Australia living with disability to have a better quality of life. However, over the past seven years, it has been mismanaged. It has been neglected. People—sadly, tragically—have died of neglect in their own homes. People in my community have been left behind. People in my community are struggling. People in my community who are living with disability have been overlooked by this government. And it's people in my community and their circumstances that reflect those of people across Australia. People living with disability and their families and carers have been left behind by this government, Minister. They deserve better. Nobody should be left behind by this government. No vulnerable person, particularly during COVID-19, should be left desperate to the point that they believe their own mental health and wellbeing are at risk because of their disability or because of their caring responsibilities. It is not good enough, Minister. They deserve better. They deserve better from you, and they deserve better from this government.

The government talks about the NDIS being fully funded, and it ripped $4.6 billion out of the scheme.

Mr Robert interjecting—

Ms McBRIDE: You, Minister, have oversight of this. You, Minister, are responsible for this. People with disability in my community and across Australia deserve better from this government. They deserve dignity, they deserve respect and they deserve empathy. That's what they deserve.

Ms COKER (Corangamite) (12:54): [by video link] I rise to speak on the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Strengthening Banning Orders) Bill 2020. On behalf of the people of Corangamite, I do welcome the introduction of this amendment to the legislation that underpins the National Disability Insurance Scheme. However, it must be said that this amendment is, tragically, too little too late. For countless NDIS participants a lack of safeguards and protections has resulted in significant suffering and death, and this has happened under the Morrison-McCormack government's watch. While this bill will permit a commissioner of the scheme to place a ban on a former employee under the NDIS, this amendment will not bring Ann-Marie Smith back. This system and the Morrison government failed Ms Smith in the most egregious way. The bill will also identify staff that have clearly breached acceptable conduct. But, again, this amendment has been introduced after the horse has bolted. Too many people have suffered. Too many people have died. We need the watchdog to wake up and do its job and protect our most vulnerable.

Ann-Marie was an NDIS participant. She was a 54-year-old Adelaide resident who died earlier this year of severe septic shock, multiple organ failure, pressure sores, malnutrition and issues connected with her cerebral palsy after being confined to a cane chair for more than a year. What a shocking indictment on the Morrison government's inept management of the NDIS system. The minister must take responsibility for this shocking tragedy. To give the provider a banning order and fine them $12,600 is woefully underdone. Is this how much Ann-Marie Smith's life was worth? It is insulting, disrespectful and pathetic.

Ann-Marie Smith is not the only participant who has suffered due to the watchdog's underperformance. David Harris suffered from schizophrenia and diabetes. After being excluded from the NDIS because he missed an annual review, Mr Harris was found dead in his Parramatta home. He had died two months earlier. Another 12,000 Australians with disability have died while waiting to be funded by the scheme. Ann-Marie Smith's death was a tragedy. David Harris' death was a tragedy. They were both preventable. These deaths need to be approached with remorse, reflection and an honest, heartfelt commitment to do things better. The Morrison government must do better.

I acknowledge the government has undertaken an independent investigation into Ann-Marie Smith's death, but this only occurred after the shadow minister and the disability community applied significant pressure. And it should be noted the scope of the review only extended to the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission's regulation. This was far too narrow an investigation. The inquiry should have taken a broader view, including the events leading to David Harris' death and the other victims of insufficient safeguards within the system. A more earnest investigation would include why current monitoring has failed, and what impact $4.6 billion in funding cuts under the Morrison-McCormack government has had on the system's capacity to do its job. The investigator did not have, but should have had, subpoena power to conduct the inquiry.

Former Federal Court Justice Alan Robertson's review into Ms Ann-Marie Smith's death included clear recommendations to improve oversight of the NDIS provision. These included: identification of people with disability who are vulnerable to harm and neglect; a crosscheck of care provision by having more than one carer for vulnerable people; a clear identification of the primary responsible carer of every vulnerable person; a community visit scheme; spot checks; clearer reporting requirements; and better and more communication between state and territory emergency services, the NDIA and the commission. Justice Robertson's report also highlighted an unproductive blame culture between the NDIA and the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission. Importantly, it found that the two agencies are not sharing information, and people can easily fall through the cracks of government bureaucracy. These are clear instructions to this House.

It should not be lost on us that throughout the coronavirus pandemic the commission has only reached out to NDIS participants once. This was in a joint letter only sent to participants early last month. The NDIS joint parliamentary standing committee, of which I'm a member, was very concerned by witness testimony that the NDIS commission was not known to participants and carers that most depend on its work. We cannot be surprised the scheme is not adequately looking after participants, when participants do not know how the safeguards work and who they should turn to when they do have a concern. Even where participants know and engage with the commission, more than one-third of their complaints hit a dead end, without further action. This is the failure of half-measures and a system that does not adequately monitor, evaluate and act on its own failings. The Robertson review has made it clear that the government must reform the functions, powers and capacity of the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission to respond to the concerns and complaints of NDIS participants.

In my own electorate, many carers and people with disabilities have contacted me with their concerns about the NDIS. Because of this, I have formed my own reference group, who come to me regularly to discuss the issues and suggest how we can improve the system. One example is the case of a six-year-old boy with a long and complex medical history who has had issues with the NDIS. He was rejected for respite care twice, even though the NDIA agreed he qualified for support, given his situation. It is now under review, following advocacy from my office. It is still under review, but it should not have to take the intervention of a federal MP for participants to get the help and support they need. This is just one example of a system that has not accurately assessed the needs of participants. The result is ongoing anguish, anxiety and exhaustion for many participants and their families and carers.

It is an unacceptable moral failing for this House to presume that everyone who receives support from the NDIS is in a position to speak out when they need to. The system should be built to help people reach out when they need help, not make it harder for them. It needs clearer inbuilt protections to support our most vulnerable. The Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme has commented that we need the strongest possible protections to be available for participants. The Labor Party couldn't agree more. Australians couldn't agree more. So here's the question: where are the protections? True to form, the Morrison-McCormack government has responded to public outcry with aggressive commentary but little action—all announcement, no delivery. It is not good enough.

Every day, individuals and families in my electorate, who I proudly represent, depend on the National Disability Insurance Scheme. Carers and families do a great job, and I would like to take the time to acknowledge all the carers out there who work so well and so diligently to support people with disability. More than a quarter of a million Australians access the NDIS. It is not good enough to tinker around the edges with amendments to laws that sound well targeted but fail to deliver desperately needed reform. A properly functioning support structure for people with disability is not an add-on; it is not a luxury. It is an investment and it is an absolute necessity to ensure we protect our most vulnerable. We owe it to all Australians to get this system right.

Mr BRIAN MITCHELL (Lyons) (13:04): Labor welcomes the introduction of the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Strengthening Banning Orders) Bill 2020. The bill seeks to broaden the circumstances in which the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commissioner may make a banning order against a provider or person and clarifies the commissioner's powers. After the first reading of this bill, the minister stated:

The recent tragic circumstances surrounding the death of Ann Marie Smith in South Australia have highlighted just how important it is to have the strongest possible protections available for NDIS participants.

I won't go over the details of Ms Smith's death again. Previous speakers, particularly the member for Barton, have eloquently detailed those tragic circumstances. Suffice to say, we know there was an absolute failure of the system.

The National Disability Insurance Scheme is a vital national service, intended to be the most significant economic and social reform in Australia for more than a generation. Unfortunately, the NDIS has not lived up to its full potential of delivery of quality services to people with disability. Mismanagement at the hands of this government has meant that we are still tinkering with the legislation, still amending the scheme, still hearing far too many horror stories of people falling through the cracks. Minister Robert has so far presided over $4.6 billion being ripped out of the NDIS and 1,200 Australians with disability dying while waiting to be funded by this scheme.

There are more than 8,000 NDIS participants in Tasmania, more than a third of whom reside in the Derwent Valley in my electorate. It is of the greatest concern to me that even one of these people may not be getting the support and services they need or, worse, that there may be incidents of serious injury, abuse or neglect that are going unreported or ignored because of systemic failures. Recently my office had the opportunity to meet with Greg Harwood, a director of Access Coordination Tasmania. I sincerely thank Greg for sharing his knowledge and expertise and helping me and my staff better understand the issues facing the NDIS, especially in Tasmania. Greg and his partner, Suzie Marston, operate Access Coordination Tasmania, a small NDIS provider based in regional Tasmania primarily delivering NDIS support coordination and service development to NDIS participants. Greg explained that a large part of the business for their eight staff is working towards getting people's NDIS plans up and running within eight weeks of the plan being approved.

So I was shocked, dismayed and angered to learn that it is not uncommon to have months of delays in plans being implemented. One young family, who have had their son's NDIS plan in place since December 2019, was only recently referred to Access Coordination Tasmania and connected with support coordination. That's nine long months in which funding has been parked, of no benefit to anyone—nine months of uncertainty. I'm told that this plan will now have to be reviewed to meet their needs. It just is not good enough. Unfortunately, delays such as this are inevitable when the system is so drastically underresourced. Working day to day on the ground in the sector, Greg said it was clear that the disability workforce is increasingly casualised and reliant on frontline staff who may not have the training, experience or support to deal with high-risk clients. I have previously mentioned in this place concerns raised by the Health and Community Services Union, which represents disability workers, that work in the disability sector is increasingly insecure because of the nature of the NDIS model, where fixed-term contracts and yearly funding reviews are industry standard.

We know that the intention of the proposed amendments to the NDIS Act, from the Tune report, is to address the length of plans. However, we are yet to see that this will be the case. This is a workforce that has often been undersupervised, working across multiple locations and without the oversight mechanisms in place to ensure that reporting and regulatory requirements are properly carried out. The government has not invested in the workforce or the infrastructure that supports that workforce to make this scheme work as well as it could and should. We know that frontline staff such as disability and aged-care workers are some of the lowest-paid in this country. Overwhelmingly they are women. Yet we place them in extremely physically demanding and high-stress situations where they are responsible for the welfare of our most vulnerable citizens.

Agency and NDIA staff are also impacted. One of the main complaints to my office is that there is no consistency for clients as to whom they deal with through the NDIS. It's a lottery on the phone. This is very much a consequence of the federal government's decision to understaff the NDIA, with 3½ thousand staff when it commenced instead of the Productivity Commission's recommendation of a minimum of 10,000 staff nationally. Families might deal with three or four people about their plan and have to explain the same issues over and over again. The gap between people who have local area coordination services, and agency assigned planners, and those who need to move between them creates much of that turbulence. A high turnover of staff, minimal training and a huge volume of work for agency staff means it is just not possible to develop specialist knowledge.

Access Coordination Tasmania suggests there should be planners in every region and they should have more specific training and knowledge of the most common and challenging disabilities in their regions: local knowledge on the ground. In Tasmania, as well as having impacts on the workforce, under-resourcing also means there are a lack of facilities and services within the community that provide the specialist disability supports and care that many people accessing the NDIS require. In particular, a severe shortage of high-support-needs short-term accommodation for people with challenging behaviours results in families with no support options.

Some of the 8,858 NDIS clients in Tasmania end up in hospital because appropriate discharge and specialist supports in accommodation are not readily available. This has been exacerbated by the impacts of COVID-19. NDIS clients were rushed out of hospital and into accommodation that was intended for that purpose. One respite centre in the north of Hobart, for example, has been reportedly full for more than four months, preventing others from accessing this service—even though it does not provide the high-needs services that many of these clients need, which is why they're in hospital or other settings in the first place. Another example is the lack of readily available respite for people with motor neuron disease or Huntington's disease, despite Huntington's in Tasmania representing the second-largest cluster of people in the world with this disease. Access Coordination Tasmania spent last year working to find suitable short-term accommodation for one participant who has been in the Royal Hobart Hospital for seven months, waiting for respite. The pandemic has further highlighted this issue of a lack of facilities and supports available to people with a disability and their families within the community.

For service providers such as Access Coordination Tasmania, so many of the ongoing issues with the scheme come down to underresourcing of the workforce, of the agency, and of educating the mainstream community about what the NDIS does. Greg made the point that this particular social reform, the implementation of the NDIS, lacked public messaging or effective advertising about the scheme, undermining its very intention of supporting Australians with a disability to fully participate in mainstream society. The lack of understanding from the general community—despite the general community having an overwhelmingly positive attitude towards the NDIS as a whole—and particularly from mainstream support services about the responsibilities of the NDIS is one of the main issues that face providers like Access Coordination Tasmania every day. The government simply hasn't done enough to inform people what about the NDIS does, and how it does it, and what it should be doing. Greg said that he often must explain to mainstream services—like housing, justice, aged care, home services and mental health et cetera, agencies that should be better informed—just what client responsibilities are theirs and what the responsibilities are of the NDIS.

Recently, for example, a client of Greg's with Huntington's was returning home to Tasmania from Queensland and was required to undertake 14 days of hotel quarantine. Access Coordination Tasmania contacted the state government to advise the state controller of the specialist needs and support required for this client. Unfortunately, those required supports were not put in place and the end result was this gentleman being put in a taxi and sent home. Greg says this is just one of the many examples he has where mainstream services are not clear on what their duties are. Instead, they expect NDIS to take on a responsibility that may not be theirs and, ultimately, leave a client without the support or care they need.

The Carers Tasmania 2019 NDIS satisfaction survey tells a similar story. There are still many carers who appear to be overwhelmed, distressed and/or disillusioned with their experience with the NDIS. More than 20 per cent said that there had been little or no improvement since they first engaged with the NDIS and 75 per cent of those caring for a person assessed as ineligible for the NDIS stated that they had no contact with the local area coordinator, despite the fact that one of the roles of a local area coordinator is to assist those ineligible people to access supports in the community. Carers feel dismissed, unclear about how they can be involved and unsure where they fit in a system designed to give the person with the disability choice and control.

This bill is a step in the right direction, but it is clear that there are fundamental systemic issues within the NDIS that need to be urgently addressed. I note that the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission report into the death of Ms Smith suggests that steps need to be taken:

… to identify earlier those people with disability who are vulnerable to harm or neglect. Every stage of decision-making, including corrective regulation, should be alive to factors indicating that a participant may be vulnerable to harm or neglect.

…   …   …

(2) No vulnerable NDIS participant should have a sole carer providing services in the participant's own home. The relevant statutory instruments and guidelines should be amended to provide expressly for this.

(3) For each vulnerable NDIS participant, there should be a specific person with overall responsibility for that participant's safety and wellbeing.

There are broader questions too that need to be addressed. From what I am hearing from providers and NDIS clients there is certainly an argument to be made that the role of the commission can be strengthened. Access Coordination Tasmania would like to see more regular community visits from the commission, including random spot checks and an improved feedback system. Participants living on their own or with a single parent should receive higher amounts of diverse supports and not rely on a single service to own that responsibility. The government must provide answers and outline what it intends to do to ensure that the commission's powers are being properly used to prevent abuse and neglect, not just issue a slap on the wrist after the fact.

The National Disability Insurance Scheme is a vital national service, but after seven years of Liberal rule and mismanagement it has been slashed and mismanaged to such an extent that people are literally dying of neglect in their homes. The minister needs to get real and start acting in the interests of Australians with a disability. Australians pay their taxes so that when they are vulnerable they are not left to die in squalor. This kind of system failure resulting in death by neglect needs to be approached head on with honesty, genuine reform and enough money to get the job done.

Ms TEMPLEMAN (Macquarie) (13:17): The NDIS was designed by Labor to empower people with disabilities to make their own decisions about the care that best supports them and their goals. For that to occur many things have to go right. Many systems have to be functioning effectively so that the support packages people receive are fair and tailored to their needs. There also has to be effective oversight and safeguards to ensure that when people are not treated fairly there is an appeals process that delivers fairness—and I'll speak more about that a bit later. Those protections and safeguards also have to include the providers of care and the staff that they employ.

People living with a disability and their families need to know that serious injury, abuse, neglect, unauthorised restraint or, at the very worst, death will not go unnoticed or unpunished. Recent very public and tragic cases have demonstrated that to date those safeguards simply have not been in place. The death of Ann-Marie Smith—a woman close to my own age who was living in Adelaide and died of severe septic shock, multiple organ failure, severe pressure sores, malnutrition and issues connected with her cerebral palsy after being stuck in a cane chair for 24-hours a day for more than a year—tells us that something is seriously wrong.

Her NDIS package included six hours of support every day. The evidence indicates that she received only two hours of care a day and may not have left her home for years. How this happened, without anyone knowing about it or doing something about it, beggars belief. This woman was not given a chance to thrive.

This is also the nightmare of every parent with an adult child with a disability. I remember back to the years between 2010 and 2013 and the discussions about this new NDIS system, and how it might work, that I had with many people who either had a disability or cared for a child with a disability, and that child might have been an adult. While it was clear that parents with young children were just swamped by the need to provide the best possible early interventions and were faced with the relentlessness of caring, there was another group of parents who were worn down not just by years of care but by decades of it. They were the aging parents of an adult child with a disability. Their stories were heartbreaking. A very common scenario was that they really felt they had only two options before the NDIS—that, generally, at least one of them had to give up a full-time job to be a full-time carer. This had the effect of drastically reducing their income, which, over time, pushed them into poverty. Their other option was to relinquish care of an adult child into a group home, which many felt they were just unable to do, or did so with enormous guilt.

These were very common stories that I heard as the NDIS was being formed. What they all said to me was that they weren't worried about the fact that they were exhausted. That was okay—they very generously provided care for their child. They weren't so worried even about their own health. They recognised that that was a consequence of the load they were carrying. The last of their concerns was not having money. But they were worried about what would happen to their son or daughter if they died first. That was the most oft-spoken phrase to me. What keeps them awake at night is the thought of who is going to look after the child—and the child may be in their 30s, 40s or 50s. I heard this from parents who were in their 80s, their 60s and their 40s. They could see a future without a scheme like the NDIS.

Providing secure residential care, supports with dignity and allowing people to live in their own home, the home of their choice, were an absolutely prime and fundamental objective of the NDIS. But in the way the system has been implemented it has failed people. It certainly failed Ann-Marie Smith. To my mind, that means the minister has failed Ann-Marie Smith. The fact that, following the investigations that looked into this case, the service provider received a fine of $12,600 after allowing the carer to neglect her so severely, tells you that this legislation today is desperately needed.

There's also the case of David Harris in Parramatta, who died after his NDIS payments were cut off. That also needs serious investigation to understand the systemic flaws that led to it happening. David was also around my age. He suffered schizophrenia, was diabetic and incontinent and needed regular injections and he missed an annual review meeting. This meant that his funding was simply cut off and his cleaners and other NDIS funded support just stopped. It simply stopped and no-one thought, 'What's the consequence of this for David?' This is the stuff of nightmares that families in my electorate are going through. They're concerned about plans being ended and there being no plan in place. They lie awake at night worrying about this.

I'm going to talk about some of the things I'm currently seeing in my electorate, but I also want to point out the banning orders. When we hear cases like this, it is just staggering that only 13 banning orders have been made in the last 18 months—1,422 complaints and 13 banning orders. We don't really know the details of the neglect or the abuse in any of the complaints that were made. The lack of transparency is frightening. The only way schemes like this function is with transparency—transparency and accountability.

I spoke with an NDIS participant today. She confirmed with me that she and others who are friends who have packages have had to make complaints to providers about carers. She had a circumstance where one provider tried to sell her mother a house that this young woman could live in, when the young woman had already declined that offer. There are flaws that run through this, and if we don't get it right for those serious cases it just goes all the way through the system. I'm all for this legislation supporting far greater scrutiny and protections, and I would like to see other checks and balances put in place to ensure that there is respect for people, that they have the choice that this scheme's designed to give them and that they have control.

I want to talk about some of the circumstances that we're seeing right now with the NDIS. I'm going to talk about a couple of screaming flaws that this legislation certainly doesn't go anywhere near addressing. This really goes to the fear of the consequence of missing a review or failing in a piece of paperwork that's required. The system is so heavily dependent on forms being filled in, procedures being followed that can seem so opaque to people, reports being made and reports that are missing.

I want to give you an example that Sandy has shared with me. Sandy is an incredible advocate for people with disabilities, for carers and for children with disabilities. She has a nine-year-old daughter, Imogen. Imogen has multiple diagnoses, including autism and ADHD. It is a very complex mix of things. Imogen communicates using words and picture cards. She's mostly non-verbal, but she has a very fierce routine that she relies upon and that Sandy relies upon. Recently, Sandy talked to me about the fact that their plan was due for renewal. She was thrilled to be told by the NDIA that she wouldn't require a full review and that she would be able to roll her plan over. It would just be a phone interview and some basic documents that she would need to upload. She was told that this was a formality only and that the plan would be approved on a like-for-like capacity.

Then, on the very day that the plan was to expire, she was told that the NDIA did not think the supports Imogen relied on last year were reasonable, necessary or good value and that a behavioural plan had to be in place before any decision could be made. This is on the very day that her plan was about to run out. A mother who has gone through this year after year was, for the first time, being told that it could roll over, and she knew the progress her daughter was making. What's more, her doctors knew the progress her daughter was making; it was all documented. And, as it turns out, there was a behavioural plan in place—a 49-page document that had been facilitated through Imogen's school. The NDIA were unaware that it even existed because they had failed to provide funding for it in previous plans. So there you go; that's what a mother was facing.

We've been able to ensure that Imogen's plan has been provided for the next three months. It has been extended so that further evidence can be given to the NDIA. To put parents through this sort of agony as their child's plan expires is an absolute disgrace and a fundamental flaw in the way the system is working—or, quite frankly, not working. Sandy's case is not the only one; I get these situations happening time after time. While we welcome the legislation today, what we need to see is a far greater review of how the NDIS is working to ensure that parents are not put through absolute agony time after time and are not asked to film their children's behaviour as evidence. When a child is suffering, the last thing a parent needs to do is get out the camera on their phone and film it. They need to have the freedom to comfort their child.

It's about time the NDIS was designed to support people with disabilities and their carers so they are able to do what's right for those people, whether they're young children or older children. The legislation today is welcome, but it falls well short of what we need to see this government doing to bring decency to the treatment of people with disabilities.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Vasta ): The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour.

Mr GEE (Calare—Minister Assisting the Minister for Trade and Investment and Minister for Decentralisation and Regional Education) (16:15): by leave—I move:

That Dr Allen be appointed a supplementary member of the Standing Committee on Health, Aged Care and Sport for the purpose of the committee's inquiry into approval processes for new drugs and novel medical technologies in Australia.

Question agreed to.

Mr WALLACE (Fisher) (16:15): On behalf of the Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs, I present the committee's report entitled Shelter in the storm—COVID-19 and homelessness: Interim report of the inquiry into homelessness in Australia, together with the minutes of proceedings.

Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e).

Mr WALLACE: by leave—I'm pleased to present Shelter in the storm—COVID-19 and homelessness. This is an interim report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs inquiry into homelessness in Australia.

According to the 2016 census data, more than 116,000 people are homeless or living in insecure or substandard housing in Australia. That's a rate of 49.8 homeless persons for every 10,000 of our population. Homelessness is not distributed evenly either. Certain geographic, demographic and social groups are particularly vulnerable to homelessness and are overrepresented among the homeless. At the outset, it is important to recognise that housing and homelessness is the principal responsibility of the state and territory governments. That said, the federal government provides some $6.2 billion in assistance to the sector in the form of $4.6 billion a year in a Commonwealth rent assistance, and $1.6 billion to the states under the National Housing and Homelessness Agreement. It provides concessional loans for community housing providers and housing development infrastructure, to name just a few. I note the Treasurer announced last night in the budget that an additional $1 billion of low-cost finance will support the construction of affordable housing, taking the concessional finance available to CHPs to $3 billion.

Even as the committee's inquiry commenced in February 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic was arriving in Australia. As the virus spread, the committee quickly realised it would have major implications for people at risk of or experiencing homelessness and the governments and organisations who work with them. After suspending the inquiry briefly in response to the virus in May 2020, the committee reopened submissions and called for evidence, particularly on the impact of COVID-19 on homelessness. We encouraged community groups and others to share their experiences in responding to the pandemic. By the beginning of October, the committee had received close to 200 submissions, most of which discussed the COVID-19 situation, some in great detail.

Between June and August, we spoke to 40 government and non-government organisations at five public hearings, many which were held by teleconference. I'd like to express the committee's great appreciation to the many people and organisations who have taken the time and made the effort to engage with us and contribute to this inquiry at a time when they had much more to deal with on their plates.

The evidence received by the committee shows the COVID-19 pandemic has affected those at risk of or experiencing homelessness in a range of ways, most of them negative. COVID-19 has increased and complicated demands for services and responses from all levels of government. It has imposed new challenges and additional pressures on the numerous hardworking community organisations that support and assist people facing homelessness and housing insecurity across Australia.

This report summarises the issues and perspectives raised in the evidence received by the committee in relation to COVID-19 and homelessness in Australia. The committee considered it was important to present this interim report now so that the evidence could be considered by the executive in a timely way, even though the pandemic and its effects are yet to be fully realised. The interim report does not make recommendations, as both the COVID-19 situation and government's response to it continue to evolve. Rather, the committee encourages the Australian government to consider the evidence offered in this report and take it into account as it continues to formulate its immediate and long-term responses to the pandemic, including in cooperation with the states and territories.

I hope this report can contribute to the efforts of governments at all levels to respond appropriately, compassionately and wisely to the problem of homelessness in the time of COVID-19. Homelessness existed before the pandemic and will sadly, surely, endure beyond it. However, the current circumstances create a particularly urgent challenge and opportunity to ensure that as many Australians as possible are safely and securely housed—that they can find shelter in a storm.

The committee's inquiry is not complete and we will continue our work of examining the problem of homelessness in Australia, in accordance with the full terms of reference. We will present a final report, including recommendations, at the conclusion of the inquiry. I'd like to take the opportunity to thank my deputy chair and all members of the committee for their hard work. It has been a challenge doing most of this inquiry over videoconference and teleconference, but, hopefully, we'll get some good outcomes as a result of it. Until then, I commend this report to the House.

Ms CLAYDON (Newcastle) (16:22): by leave—As deputy chair of the Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs, I appreciate the opportunity this afternoon to say a few words on the interim report that the committee has today tabled in the Australian parliament. This is the first opportunity we've had to respond to the interim report. I thank the chair, the member for Fisher, and I would like to join him in thanking colleagues for their contributions to this important inquiry, with a shout-out to the secretariat, as well as everybody who took the time to make a submission and/or appear as a witness before this inquiry. We certainly note and appreciate that you were asked to make a contribution to a really critical issue in Australian social policy at a time you were probably most stretched and most pushed as providers of housing in Australia—during the COVID-19 pandemic.

We certainly had a housing crisis before COVID-19, but the pandemic has left so many more Australians vulnerable and exposed. Veterans; young Australians; First Nations people; older single women; and women and children fleeing violent relationships are all groups of people who have experienced shamefully high levels of homelessness. And we now have a shortage of almost half a million social housing dwellings in Australia. Add to this the perilous state of the economy and the fact that the moratoriums on rental evictions are now drawing to a close at the same time that income support is being reduced, and you have a recipe for the rapid deterioration of what was already a crisis situation. The problem is urgent and it demands an urgent response.

Given this, I will put on record Labor's disappointment that the interim report on homelessness has been released today without any recommendations. I note that the chair made the comment that there will be a final report with recommendations later in the year, but this is budget week. This is the week when governments very clearly set out for the nation the priorities of government. This report is silent on recommendations to address homelessness in this very important week, and I think that is a missed opportunity. But make no mistake: submitters and witnesses to our inquiry have had a very clear and consistent message for the committee and for the federal government, which is: 'Invest in building new social housing and repair existing stock. And do it now.'

One particular proposal identified as the Social Housing Acceleration and Renovation Program, or SHARP, had the support of many submitters. We know that investment in social housing works because we've already done it. Indeed, the former Labor government invested more than $5 billion in the construction of nearly 20,000 new social housing dwellings and repaired a further 80,000 existing public housing properties as part of its response to the global financial crisis. As Ms Wendy Hayhurst from the Community Housing Industry Association said, SHARP, the Social Housing Acceleration and Renovation Program, offers 'an immediate opportunity to kickstart both our country's post-COVID recovery and reductions in the social housing shortfall'. But, despite this clear message, yesterday's federal budget offered nothing to address this diabolical social problem.

I note the chair's mention of the budget measure around NHFIC and being able to extend the cap to—from memory—$3 billion, but I note that the next dot point immediately after that in Budget Paper No. 2 said that the government was now going to spend some money doing an independent review of NHFIC in order to see if it was in fact meeting the aims of Australian housing and obligations in that regard. That worries me. It worries me greatly if the government doesn't have confidence right now that that fund is doing what it is meant to be doing. I think that is a matter that this committee may need to explore further.

As I said, there wasn't a single dollar in the federal budget last night for social housing, despite the fact that we know it would deliver some of the biggest impacts that we could get for our budget dollars right now. Rather than increasing the common wealth and building homes for vulnerable Australians, the Morrison government instead focused on giving money to existing property owners to undertake very expensive renovations in their homes—renovations that were probably already going to take place, if truth were told. That does raise a question for me around the priorities that were mapped out. If a budget sets out the government's priorities, I have concerns now about what those priorities are.

If there's one thing we've learned from COVID-19, it's that, when there is political will, we can move mountains, so I remain forever optimistic that, notwithstanding what appear to be some insurmountable policy problems, we can put ideological objections to one side and do what is good for Australian citizens. There can be no more important job for a government than to ensure safe, secure, and affordable housing for its citizens. It is a very base need for every person in this country, and it is the responsibility of governments from all jurisdictions. Indeed, that is an issue that the committee will need to tackle. Housing and homelessness is everybody's problem. We've heard that repeated by witnesses again and again. The Commonwealth has a leading role to play in that. Perhaps there is an opportunity to make better use of the national cabinet to devise a framework that might find sustainable solutions to housing and homelessness in Australia. We need the government to really take that leadership role and see if it can make some serious inroads into what has been a truly wicked and complex problem across multiple jurisdictions in Australia. As such, the Commonwealth needs to step up, do the heavy lifting and take a leadership role in bringing the states and territories along with it.

Everybody needs a home. It's time really for the government to ensure that that is a lived reality for the Australian people.

Mr WALLACE (Fisher) (16:30): I move:

That the House take note of the report.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr S Georganas ): The debate is adjourned. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.

Mr WALLACE (Fisher) (16:30): I move:

That the order of the day be referred to the Federation Chamber for debate.

Question agreed to.

Mr HASTIE (Canning) (16:30): On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security I present the following reports: A review of regulations listing the Islamic State West Africa Province and re-listing Boko Haram, Islamic State and Islamic State East Asia as terrorist organisations under the Criminal Code Act 1995 and the Annual report of committee activities 2019-20.

Reports made parliamentary papers in accordance with standing order 39(e).

Mr HASTIE: by leave—I rise today to present a statement of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security for the review of regulations listing the Islamic State West Africa Province and relisting Boko Haram, Islamic State and Islamic State East Asia as terrorist organisations under the Criminal Code Act 1995. Regulations that specify an organisation as a terrorist organisation cease to have an effect on the third anniversary of the day on which they take effect. Organisations can be relisted provided the minister is satisfied on reasonable grounds that the organisation continues to directly or indirectly engage in terrorism or advocate the doing of a terrorist act. Boko Haram and Islamic State were last listed in 2017. The regulations to relist them and to list Islamic State West Africa Province were tabled in the parliament on 24 August 2020. A regulation to relist Islamic State East Asia was tabled in parliament on 6 October 2020.

The committee's review examined the minister's decision to list and relist these organisations. Section 102.1A of the Criminal Code provides that the committee may review a regulation that lists or relists an organisation as a terrorist organisation and report its comments and recommendations to each house of the parliament before the end of the applicable 15 sitting day disallowance period. This statement serves this purpose and is being presented within the required period.

In determining whether the regulations listing or relisting these four organisations should be supported, the committee reviewed the merits of each in accordance with the Minister for Home Affairs's explanatory statement, ASIO's statement of reasons for each organisation and other publicly available information. In its deliberations, the committee determined that Boko Haram still follows an extreme interpretation of Islam which is anti-Western, promotes sectarian violence, and targets those who do not agree with its interpretation. Although no Australian citizens have been killed by Boko Haram, the group has repeatedly issued statements threatening Western interests, which includes Australia.

Islamic State continues to be a Sunni extremist group that adheres to an extreme interpretation of Islam and promotes a global jihadist ideology. Following a loss of territory in Syria and Iraq, Islamic State has reverted to a clandestine insurgency and remains one of the world's deadliest and most active terrorist organisations. Islamic State West Africa Province was previously known as an alias for Boko Haram. In March 2015 Boko Haram leader Abubakar Shekau's pledged allegiance to Islamic State was accepted and the group commenced operations under the name ISWAP. A dispute over the leadership of ISWAP in 2016 resulted in the emergence of two factions of the group. Although Boko Haram has not officially split from ISWAP, the groups are assessed to operate independently.

ISWAP follows an extreme interpretation of Islam and continues to achieve their means through violence. Islamic State in East Africa continues to be affiliated with Islamic State and is comprised of members who were previously aligned with other Islamist extremist groups, including the Abu Sayyaf Group. It is probable that Australians could be harmed, in the future activities of the group, due to the considerable Australian business interests and the number of Australians in the Philippines. These organisations remain a real threat to Australia. There is strong evidence that each has, and continues to engage in, terrorist activities that are targeted at countries with Western values.

In examining the evidence that has been provided, the committee is satisfied with the relisting and listing processes and considers that they have been followed appropriately for these four organisations. The committee therefore supports the listing of the organisations, under division 102 of the Criminal Code, in order to protect Australians and Australia's interests, and finds no reason to disallow the regulations.

I will now speak to the Annual report of committee activities 2019-2020. I present the committee's annual report of its activities for 2019 and 2020. This report details the activities that the committee has undertaken during the last financial year. Transparency is important to the Australian people and so we aim to conduct our oversight of the national intelligence community in public as much as we can. This year the committee has adapted to the challenges brought by COVID-19. We welcome the patience shown by the intelligence agencies as we have incorporated a new level of technology into our work. This has enabled us to continue our oversight despite the separation imposed by the coronavirus pandemic.

From June 2019 the committee undertook 15 inquiries and tabled seven reports. We have conducted inquiries into a variety of proposed legislation, including identity-matching services as well as amendments to passport and counterterrorism legislation. Inquiries into citizenship cessation, the expansion of ASIO powers and international production orders continues to progress into the next financial year. The committee also undertook statutory reviews into existing legislation covering telecommunications, mandatory data retention, citizenship loss and declared area provisions. In addition, the committee reviewed and supported the listing of one terrorist organisation and the relisting of 10 terrorist organisations pursuant to section 102 of the Criminal Code. The impact of COVID-19 was unavoidable, so the committee has postponed the Review of administration and expenditure: No. 18. We will include this in the next administration and expenditure review towards the end of the year, where we can gather, hopefully, and have classified hearings to that end. Despite the challenges of 2020 I am pleased with the work completed by the committee, which is summarised in this report. As the security environment continues to change, the scope and the role of the committee has expanded, as has the workload. A case in point was the unique inquiry into press freedoms, which was a first for the committee.

Given the changes of the past decade I think it's time to review the Intelligence Services Act and consider the role, powers and resources invested in this committee. I also look forward to the publication of the Richardson review, which will shape the framework of both the Australian intelligence community and its oversight bodies, including this committee. The responsibility and functions of the PJCIS are important. They bring legislative accountability and oversight of our intelligence agencies and we as a committee take this role very seriously. It's a privilege to serve the Australian people in this way. I commend this report to the House.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr S Georganas ): I thank the member for Canning for his statement.

Mr SHARMA (Wentworth) (16:39): On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties I present the following reports: Matters relating to two treaties with Hong Kong and IMF-NAB; IMF-BBA; IMF-PRGT relating to three separate treaties with the International Monetary Fund.

Reports made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e).

Mr SHARMA: by leave—Today I am pleased to make some very brief remarks in relation to the two reports presented today. Report 190 considers matters relating to actions being taken by the Australian government, which will effectively suspend the extradition treaty with Hong Kong and the mutual legal assistance treaty with Hong Kong.

The committee was recently made aware of the actions proposed by the Australian government, and agreed to a request from the Attorney-General to consider these matters urgently. The evidence gathered by the committee established that a strong public foundation existed for the actions of the Australian government.

The committee heard that the imposition by China of its national security law in Hong Kong had fundamentally altered Hong Kong's status and raised serious concerns about the independence of the judiciary in Hong Kong, the continued application of the rule of law in Hong Kong and other fundamental principles of justice. The committee heard that this constituted a fundamental change of circumstances.

As a result, the committee unanimously endorsed the actions of the Australian government to protect the integrity of our international law enforcement arrangements and uphold the rights of our citizens by suspending these two treaties. The committee will continue to take a close interest in political developments in Hong Kong.

Regarding report 191, this considers three separate arrangements relating to Australia's commitments and involvement with the International Monetary Fund. The committee has recommended that Australia agree to the IMF reform proposals to better combat the global economic impact of COVID-19.

Report 191, released today, supports three treaties that will give the IMF access to the funds it needs to support countries dealing with the severe economic downturn that has accompanied the pandemic. Two of the treaties involve the direct transfer of a portion of Australia's commitments from the third line of defence supporting IMF lending, called bilateral loan agreements, to the IMF's second line of defence, called new arrangements to borrow. The third treaty is a commitment by Australia to the IMF's Poverty Reduction and Growth Trust. The trust is already involved in supporting the COVID-19 response in lower income countries by providing the funds needed to purchase essential medical equipment. None of the three treaties involves additional financial commitments by Australia.

COVID-19 has had a massive global economic impact, and this is being felt in Australia. For Australia's sake, we need to be doing all we can to support global economic recovery, and these reforms to the IMF will help do just that.

I'd like to acknowledge the work of the deputy chair and other members of the committee in allowing prompt consideration of these important and urgent treaty actions, and their cooperation in producing these reports in a timely manner. I commend the reports to the House.

Mr KHALIL (Wills) (16:42): [by video link] by leave—I echo the statements made by the chair of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties, the member for Wentworth, on report 190 Matters relating to two treaties with Hong Kong. As the member for Wentworth noted, there was agreement on the report. The opposition, and myself as deputy chair, supported the government's decision to suspend the two treaties with Hong Kong, namely the Agreement for the Surrender of Accused and Convicted Persons between the Government of Australia and the Government of Hong Kong, the extradition treaty, and also the Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of Hong Kong concerning Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters—the MLA treaty.

It is critical that, when situations change that cause us to re-examine our treaty arrangements and their integrity, the JSCOT, the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties, is able to seek views widely and to consider the impacts before any suspensions come into effect, and I thank the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Attorney-General and the government for affording the committee the opportunity to make this examination and this inquiry possible. And thank you to all of those who made submissions and those who attended the public hearings at very short notice as well.

The substance of this is very important because, following the passage of the national security laws that eroded Hong Kong's independent legal status, there were calls for the urgent review of Australia's extradition treaty with Hong Kong. I believe the inquiry was necessary, given the need to ensure the funding and integrity of Australia's international law enforcement cooperation and our extradition frameworks for this inquiry to proceed, and for us to table this report. I thank the JSCOT chair, the member for Wentworth, and all the members of the JSCOT secretariat for their hard work and assistance.

Mr SHARMA (Wentworth) (16:44): I move:

That the House take note of reports Nos. 190 and 191.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr S Georganas ): The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.

Mr SHARMA (Wentworth) (16:45): I move:

That the order of the day be referred to the Federation Chamber for debate.

Question agreed to.

Mr PERRETT (Moreton) (16:45): On behalf of the Joint Select Committee on Australia's Family Law System, I present the committee's interim report, incorporating a dissenting report, entitled: Improvements in family law proceedings. I do so on behalf of the chair, the member for Menzies, and indicate that I will seek leave of the House to make a short statement in connection with the report following on from the member for Menzies appearing virtually from Melbourne.

Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e).

Mr ANDREWS (Menzies) (16:45): [by video link] by leave—The Joint Select Committee on Australia's Family Law System was established in September 2019 and initially had a final reporting date of today, 7 October 2020. Submissions were due on 18 December 2019 and extensive rounds of public and in camera hearings were planned over the first half of this year. Like many in the community, the work of the committee has been delayed by travel and other restrictions imposed through the COVID-19 pandemic. As a consequence the committee was unable to travel after the first five hearings in February and March of this year.

The committee continued to receive a large number of requests, particularly from individuals, to provide late submissions and appear before the committee, to provide evidence of their experience of Australia's family law system. To ensure that the committee heard from a wide cross-section of the community on these issues the committee has continued to accept submissions and has held an additional six public and 10 in camera hearings by video and teleconference since May this year. In all, the committee has received over 1,600 submissions and heard from 67 organisations and individuals in a total of 11 public hearings and 85 individuals during 13 in camera hearings.

On 31 August this year both houses of parliament agreed to extend the reporting date for this inquiry to the last sitting day of February 2021. This extension has provided the committee with additional time to comprehensively consider the significant body of evidence that has been received. The first stage of that consideration has been the development of this interim report. The report summarises the wide range of issues and viewpoints raised during the inquiry. Importantly, the committee has included quotes from de-identified individual submitters and witnesses whose evidence was received in camera. The committee thanks all those individuals for agreeing to the publication of this material.

The committee has not arrived at any conclusions or made any recommendations in this interim report about the information provided, however, believed it was important to make public the wide range of issues that have been raised with it during the course of the inquiry. The committee's final report will contain detailed consideration of matters relevant to the terms of reference and the committee's recommendations.

The interim report is comprehensive, running to 12 chapters and over 300 pages. This is reflective of the breadth of the issues that have been raised with the committee. The interim report has been arranged thematically into chapters and covers the following areas. First: systemic issues such as perceptions of bias within the system, the role of family consultants and expert witnesses, whether the adversarial nature of the family courts could be improved, misuse of systems and processes and professional misconduct. Secondly: legal fees and other costs of the family law system. Thirdly: delays in the Family Court. Fourthly: issues in relation to family violence and the family law system. Later chapters examine issues arising in parenting and property disputes, alternative dispute resolution mechanisms and support services available in the family law system, as well as interaction between the child support and the family law systems.

I would like to thank the members of the committee for their commitment and engagement in this very broad ranging, complex and at times emotional inquiry. The committee has heard some very personal and heart-wrenching accounts of people's experience of family separation and their navigation of the family law system. The committee expresses its thanks to all those individuals and organisations that have made written submissions. The opportunity to hear directly from so many people about their experiences with the family law system has significantly enhanced the committee's work, and the committee thanks all submitters for sharing their personal stories. The committee wishes to acknowledge those individuals who shared their private circumstances and experiences with the family law system at the committee's in camera hearings. The opportunity to speak with so many people, to hear a diverse range of experiences, to ask questions about the failings in the system from the viewpoint of those most affected and to receive proposals for improving the system will greatly assist the further deliberations of the committee.

The committee appreciates that the recounting of those experiences can be difficult and traumatic, and the committee thanks those individuals for bringing such a candid and personal perspective to the inquiry. Similarly, the committee extends its thanks to the organisations, academics and professionals who provided submissions and appeared at public hearings. This evidence has greatly enhanced the committee's understanding of the various elements of the family law system and identified a number of areas of further interest for consideration in the final report.

The committee proposes to hold at least one further private hearing prior to the completion of the final report. To date, the committee has not heard from a significant stakeholder—namely, the family courts—having resolved to first hear from individuals and organisations of their experience of the system. The committee will then have a significant body of evidence to consider in developing its final recommendations, and I look forward to presenting on behalf of the committee the final report by the end of February next year. I take this opportunity to thank not only all the members of the committee but indeed the members of the secretariat for their significant efforts during the course of this inquiry. I commend the interim report to the House.

Mr PERRETT (Moreton) (16:51): by leave—I join the member for Menzies in thanking the secretariat for the way they have handled what has been a very difficult process. I particularly thank the chair for the great work—the way he has handled people who come to this inquiry with a lot of issues, sometimes. The committee's interim report documents the extensive work undertaken thus far, as detailed by the chair. The committee has received more than 1,500 individual submissions and 163 submissions by organisations. Although hearings have continued by teleconference and videoconference, the COVID-19 pandemic has impacted on the work of the inquiry. In these circumstances it was perfectly reasonable to extend the reporting date to the last sitting day in February 2021.

I admit that I commenced this inquiry with some genuine concerns about yet another inquiry into family law being instigated while many recommendations from recent previous inquiries had not been acted upon and in some cases not even responded to by the Morrison government. The two most recent reports—the report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs inquiry into a better family law system to support and protect those affected by family violence, chaired by Senator Henderson, which was tabled in December 2017, and the report of the Australian Law Reform Commission inquiry into the family law system, Family law for the future: an inquiry into the family law system, tabled in March 2019—have a combined 93 recommendations to the government to improve the family law system. The vast majority of these recommendations have not been acted on.

Despite these concerns, I've taken my role in this committee seriously. I've engaged with the inquiry process in good faith and have diligently participated in the conduct of this inquiry so far. The committee has heard from many submitters. We've heard personal stories of pain and anguish when navigating a family law system that is at breaking point. We have heard from frontline workers who do incredible work with very little government support. And we have heard some interesting ideas for reform that should be given due consideration by this committee. Labor members of this committee have included some additional comments in the interim report, including some interim recommendations. While this inquiry continues to its conclusion early next year, the family law system continues to buckle right now through neglect. Families are suffering because of the inaction of the government to implement changes that have already been recommended in report after report after report.

There are recommendations for reform, common to many previous inquiries and reports, that have established and continued support, including from witnesses and submitters to this inquiry. These reforms should not need to wait for this inquiry to be finalised before being implemented. Labor members have made seven recommendations for urgent reforms that the government could implement right now. The eighth recommendation by Labor members is for the government's bills that would merge the Family Court and the Federal Circuit Court to be abandoned.

It is ironic that there are plenty of reform ideas that have been recommended time and time again by various inquiries, even with majority Liberal numbers on those inquiries, and reports that the government ignores, but the one reform it is doggedly pursuing has not been recommended by any parliamentary inquiry and has not been recommended by any academic paper. It has only been recommended by a six-week desktop accounting review, which qualified its recommendations to say that, if the Australian Law Reform Commission review did not make the same recommendation, then any decision for reform should only be made on the advice of court stakeholders, who should consider what would bring about the greatest positive outcomes. Of course, the ALRC review actually did not recommend merging the courts. This inquiry has heard witness after witness tell the committee that the government's plan to merge the courts is a terrible idea; it will hurt families. The merger bills should be abandoned and should be abandoned right now.

I implore members on the government benches to consider the additional comments by Labor members and the eight recommendations for reform. The safety and wellbeing of families and children should be a priority of the Morrison government. I hope that the Attorney-General hears this plea. At the conclusion of my submission, I move:

That the House take note of the report.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr S Georganas ): The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.

Mr PERRETT (Moreton) (16:56): I move:

That the order of the day be referred to the Federation Chamber for debate.

Question agreed to.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr S Georganas ) (16:56): The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Barton has moved as an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. If it suits the House, I will state the question in the form that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question.

Ms TEMPLEMAN (Macquarie) (16:57): In my last remaining moments I just want to talk about the carers who are part of this system. Carers Week runs from 11 to 17 October and it's a time to recognise the more than 2.65 million Australians who provide care and support to a family member or friend with a disability, a mental health condition, a chronic condition, a terminal illness, an alcohol or drug issue, or those who are frail and elderly. Think about that. If you're not an unpaid carer some of the time, your neighbours probably are. Anyone at any time could become a carer.

A recent report by Mental Health Australia illustrates just how COVID has hit carers very hard. It shows that support for carers and participants in the NDIS fell away. It also shows that families stepped into the breach when carers weren't able to be there and when providers dropped off. Carers were an at-risk cohort, so they carried a really huge load throughout COVID and continue to today. This parliament says thank you to all the carers, who have given up hours of their time and who save taxpayers so much money, but they do it because they love and care for the person that they want to spend time with. So thank you to everyone in the electorate of Macquarie who is a carer.

Mr HAYES (Fowler—Chief Opposition Whip) (16:58): I would like to join my colleagues in making a contribution to the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Strengthening Banning Orders) Bill. I should say from the outset that Labor is supporting the passage of the bill. We certainly welcome the measures in this bill to the extent that they aim to strengthen the powers of the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission. By the way, what is in this bill is not the panacea for issues that confront the NDIS. It doesn't resolve all the problems associated with the administration of the NDIS, but it's certainly another step to rectify some of the ongoing issues and, in this case, problems that have led to drastic and devastating outcomes in the delivery of care itself. We welcome the measures in the bill and, as I say, Labor will be supporting them. Nevertheless, we're not going to let the government simply say, 'This is it.' This is, as I say, just one more step in a long process of rectification. The bill does not even come close to fixing the mess that this government has made in respect of the NDIS, and, to that extent, the NDIS safeguard framework in its ability to prevent abuse.

I noted, as my colleagues have, the words that the Treasurer used last night when he spoke about the NDIS. He said: 'Funding of the NDIS is guaranteed. Government is spending a further $3.9 billion, ensuring that Australians eligible for the NDIS have access to support they need now and into the future.' I would have thought that would've been universally welcome. But those on the opposite benches should recall back to the previous budget. Remember that the government took $4.6 billion out of the NDIS, and not because it wasn't needed to help people with special needs or to assist people with disabilities. It was taken out to prop up a failing budget. It helped improve the budget bottom line. It was a 'book entry', as someone wanted to refer to it. This is money that should've been retained within the system. So I'm not sure that people are going to be on all fours thanking the Treasurer for simply putting some of that money back.

We are talking about the most vulnerable in our community. And it beggars belief that we have a situation where we get step-by-step adjustments when it comes to the administration of the NDIS itself. We have seen 1,200 Australians with a disability tragically die while waiting to be funded under the NDIS—and under this government's watch. This is simply not good enough for the standards of a country such as ours, a developed country and a country, I would have thought, that is made up of members on both sides of the House who have some element of care for such a vulnerable group as those with a disability.

Essentially, this bill makes two fundamental changes to the NDIS commissioner's ability to make banning orders against a worker. Firstly, it gives the commissioner the power to issue a banning order against a person who is no longer employed or engaged by the NDIS, and, secondly, it gives the commissioner the power to make a pre-emptive banning order against a person, whether individual or otherwise, who has been identified as unsuitable to work with people with a disability as a result of their actions in another field, such as in aged care or in child care. On the face of it, that's a good thing: to be proactive and to ensure that people who have such extraordinary responsibilities as carers are people of good character and are competent and committed to the task.

The amendment will also empower the commissioner to include details of the order, including enough information to identify the person, in the publicly available NDIS provider register. I note that highly sensitive information or details about the nature of the incident that has prompted the response will not be included in the register, because of various privacy issues.

But this bill is a direct response to an actual issue. It's a direct response to the death of Ann-Marie Smith. Mr Deputy Speaker, you'll know this intimately, because it occurred in your state. Ann-Marie Smith was a 54-year-old Adelaide NDIS participant who died on the 6 April from severe septic shock, multiple organ failure, severe pressure sores, malnutrition and other issues connected with her cerebral palsy, after being confined to a cane chair for 24-hours a day for more than a year. I think I probably speak for everyone in this House when I say that, when we read those accounts, none of us could believe this occurred under our collective watch. Why would it? We have an organisation. We have the NDIS. We have a regulatory framework. How did this pass muster? And yet, it did, with deadly consequences.

Ann-Marie Smith's NDIS package included six hours of support per day. Reports said that she only received two hours a day and had not been seen outside her house for years. That should have rung a few alarm bells, I would have thought, particularly for those responsible for overseeing the conduct within the system. Ann-Marie's tragic death is nothing short of unbelievable neglect. If there's one positive out of this dreadful situation, it's that the case has prompted this government to come to terms with the failures of the system and identify the gaps which this bill now seeks to address.

Unfortunately, even with the changes outlined in the bill, the death of Ann-Marie Smith would not have been prevented. This is because the carer was an employee at the time of the abuse. This means there was something else still at play and is yet to be addressed. It goes to the heart of the issue—that is, the failure of the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission to ensure it is monitoring and exercising the punitive powers where appropriate. In other words, it's got to do its job.

We expect those on the Treasury benches to ensure the commission is sufficiently charged with its legal responsibility to do its job. On the measures in this bill, El Gibbs from People with Disability Australia said:

The recent death of Ann Marie Smith, and other abuse of people with disability, have exposed the many gaps that exist in the current system …

The next steps need to ensure the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission has the power and resources to proactively investigate the conduct with random spot checks on disability support providers. Essentially, that's the same sort of thing we have demanded and now have in aged care. To that extent, we have random spot checks taking place now. It's absolutely cold comfort to think we were relying on the South Australian Police force to actually do an investigation and eventually lay charges, in relation to manslaughter, against a carer due to criminal neglect that occurred. This is not simply a matter of law enforcement; this is a matter that should not have occurred. We need a system that works and works for people with disability.

The number of times that the commission has used its monitoring powers is not recorded. However, consultation with unions and advocacy groups confirmed that most of the work undertaken by the commission is reactive and focuses on incidents that have already happened. We need to do better than that. Likewise, the minister has stated there's only been 13 banning orders issued to providers in the last 18 months, despite 1,422 complaints that have been made over the same period. I ask those opposite: if the commission has real regulatory powers and functions, why isn't it overseeing the care of people, and why is it that nothing occurred in looking after the needs of Ann-Marie? This is an indictment not on our system but on the exercise of these regulatory powers. The government must provide answers to these and ensure that there are proper plans in place of what it intends to do to ensure the commission's powers are being used properly and administered appropriately. Everything should be directed to preventing abuse and neglect in the first place. A slap on the wrist is not sufficient. Ann-Marie's service provider received a fine of $12,600 after allowing her carer to neglect her so severely and for so long. That is not satisfactory. It is highly offensive and it is disrespectful to the families who have endured a similar fate. And it is not appropriate to think: 'We have the men and women in blue. They can go out and conduct the investigations and, if they think there is neglect, lay criminal charges.' This is something that we must get on top of, and not just in terms of the bill that's before us. We must do this very, very thoroughly.

The National Disability Insurance Scheme is a vital service. After seven years of Liberal neglect, it has been slashed and mismanaged to such an extent that people are dying of neglect in their own homes. While we are supportive of the amendments in this bill, we call on the minister and the government to start taking seriously the interests of all Australians, particularly the most vulnerable Australians—those with a disability. Our approach must be focused on ensuring that we never again see a case like what happened to Ann-Marie Smith. All of us in this place have a responsibility to ensure that the kind of system failure that resulted in death by neglected needs doesn't happen again. Government must work beyond the measures of this bill. It owes it to all Australians living with a disability, and their families, to ensure that it is overseeing to the utmost the best system of care that can be provided to vulnerable Australians.

I also note that next week is Carers Week, and I would like to note for the record not only our support but our thanks for carers. The truth of the matter is that carers make an extraordinary difference for the better in our community, and we owe it to them to support them and, above all, to thank them for their service. As a community, we are indebted to them for their efforts.

Ms STEGGALL (Warringah) (17:12): I would also like to start today by acknowledging that it is Carers Week next week and, along with many other members of this House, express my thanks to the carers for the really diligent work they do for those more vulnerable in our society.

The NDIS is now a foundational pillar of Australian society and a symbol of our fair go for all. The NDIS provides over 360,000 Australians with the support they need to maximise their opportunities, their happiness and their prosperity. It's therefore essential that we are constantly striving to improve and reach these ideals and ensure that the system is working to the best of its ability. This bill, the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Strengthening Banning Orders) Bill 2020, will make technical amendments to ensure that the scheme's participants are safe and looked after. In many cases, we've dropped the ball on this. While the system helps many, there are still many who become victims of callous indifference. This bill amends the National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013 to broaden the circumstances in which the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commissioner may make a banning order against a National Disability Insurance Scheme provider or other persons, and it clarifies the commissioner's related powers.

This is an important amendment. Firstly, of course, it is about thanking the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission for working under the exceptional circumstances we've had over the last few months. It hasn't been easy to adapt and provide the same level of care, with the added anxiety, safety conditions and regulations, so I commend the commission for that. The NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commissioner may already make banning orders. A banning order can be made against providers or persons employed by providers, and it restricts specific activities. It is usually a remedy that's a serious response to very serious and dangerous conduct. According to the commission, it is intended to apply to an NDIS provider or person employed or otherwise engaged by an NDIS provider in circumstances where it's the most appropriate regulatory option available to prevent people with disability from experiencing harm arising from poor quality or unsafe services provided under the NDIS.

A banning order may only be made in accordance with natural justice principles, of course, where the person has been given an opportunity to make submissions to the commissioner on the matter, except in the following circumstances: where there is immediate danger to the health, safety or wellbeing of a person with disability and where the commissioner has revoked the registration of the NDIS provider. The evidence brought before the disability royal commission and the various media investigations indicate that this kind of power is necessary.

We've heard in this place of horrendous events—the death of Ann-Marie Smith, who suffered from severe pressure sores and malnutrition after being left in a cane chair every day for more than a year. It's hard to imagine or contemplate that as a society we failed so badly. This is such a serious example of the kind of misconduct that must be addressed and now will be addressed with this amendment. Two weeks ago the commissioner used these powers and banned disability care agency Integrity Care for the appalling circumstances leading to her death. We must do all we can to stop negligent behaviour that can leave lasting, and potentially fatal, impacts on individuals and their families.

The problem with the current provisions is that, once an individual leaves their place of employment, the commissioner is not able to issue a banning order preventing their return to the scheme. Leaving or being terminated from a place of employment is common in individuals who are prone to these kinds of behaviours, and it's a loophole that must be closed. The bill amends provisions to ensure that the commissioner can make a banning order and stop an individual from re-entering the disability workforce. Importantly, the bill allows data from outside the NDIS to form the evidence for banning orders, so preventing unsuitable persons from entering the NDIS in the first place.

NDIS providers in Warringah have been doing a phenomenal job in the circumstances. I am sensitive to any arrangements adding further complications to their day-to-day operations. After reaching out to them, they wish to raise some operational considerations for this bill's provisions: the need for a confidential process to be in place to enable providers to confirm the identity of a person named on a register due to insufficient data on the summary provided by the NDIS register; the need for flexibility in arrangements for banning orders to apply to individuals who have changed name or gender; and consideration of the interaction with employee record exemptions under the Privacy Act 1988 and how providers will have to update their privacy policies, which could take some time. I urge the government to be generous in their extension of time to providers to update their system and work with them to ensure the best care possible is available.

In the past two years certain providers have also noticed a significant push from NDIS planners for NDIS recipients to utilise their packages under self-managed funding, with planners identifying this option as having more choice and control. Participants utilising self-managed funding are more vulnerable to providers or persons who don't meet NDIS standards or have been banned under the requirements of the proposed bill. The commission has been talking about implementing its national approach to worker screening arrangements, including the development of a worker screening database, which is currently in transition. This means all the various state based arrangements remain in place. I urge the commission to accelerate the implementation of the database so that individuals who opt for self-managed funding will still have the quality of care they are entitled to and are safe from negligent and predatory individuals.

This has been a hard period for the disabled and their families. The lockdown has stretched their capacity to cope. Some have come close to breaking point. In May and June this year, Every Australian Counts surveyed over 740 people with disabilities, about their experiences of the first wave of the pandemic, and their experiences are significant and need to be heard. In the report Left out and locked down some said they felt forgotten and ignored by the government and community during the pandemic. Thirty-two per cent said their costs had increased and many were under water, financially. They cited a complicated NDIS process and lengthy delays that were exhausting and threatening to their health and wellbeing.

The survey participants have six clear requests for the government. The first is recognition of the additional costs incurred as a result of their disability and the provision of additional financial support. This includes additional PPE, additional technology and data to attend telehealth and phone planning services, and the added expenses of online shopping. The second is clear, simple communication, which was a strong request. They want to know what is happening, when it is happening and what any change means for them. This includes information in all accessible formats, like Auslan and Easy Read, and translation into other languages. The third is that participants want extra support from the NDIS. This includes additional funding but also assistance to help reorganise supports or find additional services and being able to use the funding in the way that works best for them, to not have to ask for reviews every time they want to move funds from one item to the next. The fifth is simpler, easier and quicker processes. Participants found that in the middle of a pandemic they could not maintain the number of phone calls, emails or follow-ups to get an outcome. They found it frustrating and, in some cases, life-threatening. The sixth is that they need simpler resources for actions and better training for LACS and NDIS staff.

The report states:

Good intentions are no substitute for the experience and knowledge necessary to work effectively and respectfully with people with disability and their families.

This goes to similar feedback I've heard from disability advocacy groups in Warringah. They've found that in general there has been a steady improvement to the quality of plans and there is a greater consistency and quality. But some families and participants are often desperate to get a planner who has expertise and understanding. They are calling for a system where there can be confidence in all planners to deliver consistent high-quality plans. I agree. No participant should be negatively impacted by a plan that is produced by a planner who does not have the skills to provide this essential service at an appropriate level. This means having relevant qualifications, communication skills and continued comprehensive training and support across the country. I hope that the extra $800 million over four years, provided for the last night's budget for the NDIS, will go some way to addressing some of these concerns. It would assist stakeholders and decision-makers if there were a more detailed breakdown of what this extra funding will go towards.

I welcome the measures announced in last night's budget. The $125 million, over three years, for the new disability support for older Australians will allow disabled elderly Australians to access the same services as covered under the NDIS, if they're not eligible for that scheme. The $27.9 million, over two years, for extra community support for these individuals will assist with this. This is a compassionate response. I have certainly received a lot of feedback from constituents in these situations. This will give them confidence that they can still enjoy a quality of life in their later years.

However, industry associations, like People with Disability, have provided feedback on some of the more substantial measures in the bill, including the wage subsidy. They stated that they would like to see more incentives for young people with disabilities. These young people already face large barriers to enter the workforce. They also have concerns that the two $250 payments for people on allowances like the disability pension are insufficient to compensate for the increasing costs they face during COVID-19. These people have already missed out on both the JobKeeper and JobSeeker supplements. This bill is an important amendment that will protect families and participants from negligent behaviour, and I certainly welcome it.

I commend this bill, but I urge the government to consider the implementation of obstacles and constructive feedback on budget measures, and to listen to those stakeholders and people in our community that have feedback on how we can do better. I urge the government to consider adopting the recommendations fromEvery Australian Counts in their recent report as it will go to supporting participants and ensuring they maximise their prosperity opportunities and happiness. In a country like Australia, which we often say is all about the fair go, we should make sure that it is in fact a fair go for all.

Ms SHARKIE (Mayo) (17:25): Earlier this year, I made a speech in this place where I outlined a number of failings with respect to the operation of the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission in South Australia. The ongoing revelations in the matter of Ann-Marie Smith and the actions of her registered provider, Integrity Care, have done little to alleviate my concerns. Two subsequent independent reports on the matter prepared by the South Australian government task force and the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission respectively have only confirmed the views of the whistleblowers who have approached my office—namely, that structural impediments are placing those who are living with a disability at serious risk of harm and neglect.

While both reports made a number of recommendations, of particular note is the need for the commission to act earlier to identify those people with disability who are vulnerable to harm or neglect, the importance of ensuring that no one person is responsible for the care needs of a participant and the need to appoint a specific person with overall responsibility for that participant's safety and wellbeing. I understand these recommendations have received the support of National Disability Services, the Australian peak industry body for non-government disability service providers, and I look forward to working with the NDS and others to ensure that these recommendations do not fade into the ether. In the meantime, I welcome the government's attempt to improve the safeguard arrangements for NDIS participants through the measures contained in this bill, and I note the strengthening of banning order provisions were also the subject of a recommendation by the independent review conducted on behalf of the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission.

The National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Strengthening Banning Orders) Bill 2020 will expand the powers of the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission to ban unsuitable providers and workers from working with NDIS participants, regardless of whether they are active in this sector or not. The NDIS commissioner, who is responsible for regulating NDIS providers and enforcing the NDIS code of conduct, will be granted additional banning orders to prevent people entering or re-entering the NDIS who may pose a risk of harm to participants. Therefore, the NDIS commissioner will be able to apply banning orders to people even if they are not currently working in the NDIS. The amendments also mean the NDIS commissioner can use information from sources outside of the NDIS such as a person's conduct in aged-care or childcare work to ban an unsuitable person from entering the NDIS in the first place. This means workers who have left the NDIS, including those who have been fired for unsuitable behaviour, can be banned from re-entering the field, and this is a very good thing.

The NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission will also make details to providers and workers who have been banned publicly available in the NDIS provider register. Importantly, people with disability, their families and their providers can use the register to check that people they are engaging to deliver NDIS services have not had a banning order against them. This measure will provide some comfort to those who are dependent upon the care of others for their day-to-day needs; however, I again stress, and I believe, that much more needs to be done to ensure that vulnerable NDIS recipients are protected, and that unscrupulous providers are called to account in a very timely manner. I thank the House.

Mr ZAPPIA (Makin) (17:29): In my contribution to this debate on the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Strengthening Banning Orders) Bill 2020 I want to highlight some of the matters that were raised by the independent review of this matter by Alan Robertson SC. But, before I do, I preface my remarks by noting that the NDIS was a Labor government initiative. In fact, it was back in 2011 that the concept evolved in this parliament. By the time the legislation passed this parliament in 2013, it was the year of an election, and, ultimately, the actual implementation of the NDIS rested with the coalition government that was elected at the time and that continues in office to this day. I understand the NDIS today supports about 400,000 Australians, 35,000 of whom are in our state of South Australia, Deputy Speaker Georganas. It is a concept that, at the time, was reluctantly supported by the coalition opposition. That reluctance seems to have permeated the implementation of the scheme once they came to office. Therefore, I'm not entirely surprised that the scheme has been very poorly rolled out under this coalition government. Indeed, some have referred to it as being a sham in terms of the way it has been implemented.

Those are comments that I cannot disagree with, because in my own electorate I have seen time and time again—and I might come back to that—the problems experienced on a regular basis by the people out there in the community who want to be part of the scheme and get supported by it. We see long delays; confusion; inconsistencies in the services being provided; a very complicated process which people often simply do not have the ability to deal with; and rorting of the scheme, which I suspect is much more prevalent than we might understand right here and now. Also, there is questionable delivery of services, where quite often too much of the money that is allocated goes to the service deliverer rather than the recipient of the service. Indeed, many recipients appear to get very poor value for the dollars that the government is expending on their behalf. That is one of the concerns that I have detected time and time again when I speak to people who are beneficiaries of the NDIS here in Australia. We saw all of that manifest itself in the $4.6 billion underspend in the scheme by this government—$4.6 billion that I suspect was underspent in order to allow the Treasurer to claim that he had gotten the budget back into balance. But the reality is that the balancing of the budget came at the expense of a lot of vulnerable people in this country who needed the services they had applied for and either didn't get them or had to wait a long time for them.

My office frequently deals with issues on behalf of families, and on many occasions it has been my office that has had to sit down with all of the different parties and pull them together in order to work through all the difficulties that were being experienced and come to a plan that was agreed to by all the parties. That isn't a role that my office—or the offices of other MPs in this place—should be doing. Nevertheless, that's how difficult it had become. That in itself highlights the failings in the very implementation of the scheme by the coalition government.

Nothing more clearly highlights the failings of this government than the tragic death on 6 April this year of Ann-Marie Smith, a death that both shocked and angered the Australian people. As a South Australian, I can tell you that, from listening to talkback radio and reading the local daily newspaper, the anger in respect of the death of Ann-Marie Smith was incredibly widespread. People saw the circumstances surrounding her death as inexcusable. We've heard about the septic shock, the multiple organ failure, the severe pressure sores and the malnutrition of a person already afflicted by cerebral palsy, who, it appears from all the evidence I've been able to read, was left in a cane chair with no visitors for months on end, other than the carer who was entrusted with her care. I found nothing to suggest that any other person had visited her during the almost two years that she was under NDIS care. Where was the comprehensive care plan? Where was the oversight of her care? Where was the medical care that she needed? How could a society and a government funded program fail her so badly?

Those are the questions that the public and the community I represent continuously ask. Those questions resulted in three or maybe four inquiries—I believe the South Australian coroner might be conducting an inquiry into the matter as well. They resulted, through the federal government inquiry, in the Robertson report. The South Australian government had a task force review of the matter, and there's a South Australian police investigation underway. All of those investigations were in response to trying to answer those very questions that were raised when the death occurred.

The death of Ann-Marie Smith was avoidable. It was the result of no oversight of a poorly administered scheme, which this coalition government now, belatedly, attempts to rectify through this inadequate legislation. The neglect of Ann-Marie Smith is symptomatic of the neglect of older Australians in aged care, exposed time and again, most pointedly by the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety. We have seen neglect of vulnerable people in publicly funded care—people who are out of sight and out of mind—time and time again through numerous inquiries, both in the aged-care sector and in the disability sector, and there is a royal commission into disability right now as well. I expect the findings of that commission to be equally as abhorrent as those we have already seen with the interim reports and recommendations of the royal commission into aged care. I note that both Alan Robertson and the royal commission into aged care have used the word 'neglect' in their reports, a word that I believe is starting to sink in to the minds of people who have responsibility for looking after these very people.

Older people are not part of the NDIS, simply because of their age, but the reality is that many of them are just as vulnerable as Ann-Marie Smith was. In the aged-care sector, almost half of the people suffer from dementia or Alzheimer's disease, and that effectively means that they are incapable of caring for themselves. They, too, would be on the NDIS were it not for their age. So it is people like that that we should also be incredibly concerned about. Only last week I was contacted by a constituent in my electorate. In the midst of the royal commission into aged care, when there is sufficient publicity about the poor care being received by so many older Australians, I was still receiving concerns from residents about the care that their loved ones were getting in facilities in my part of Adelaide. It's almost unfathomable that, even with all the publicity, people are still being neglected.

Alan Robertson, in his report, made 10 recommendations. His report was non-statutory—that is, he had no power to compel anyone to produce documents or to answer questions—but nevertheless he came up with 10 recommendations. I won't read them in full, but I want to outline the 10 recommendations for the benefit of anyone who is following this debate, which are:

(1) The Commission should act to identify earlier those people with disability who are vulnerable to harm or neglect …

(2) No vulnerable NDIS participant should have a sole carer providing services in the participant's own home …

(3) For each vulnerable NDIS participant, there should be a specific person with overall responsibility for that participant's safety and wellbeing …

(4) Consideration should be given to the Commission establishing its own equivalent to State and Territory based Community Visitor Schemes to provide for individual face-to-face contact with vulnerable NDIS participants …

(5) … the Commission should conduct occasional visits to assess the safety and wellbeing of selected individual NDIS participants, whether or not a complaint has been made or a "reportable incident" notified …

(6) The statutory definition of "reportable incident" in s 73Z of the NDIS Act should be amended to make it clear that it includes a real or immediate threat of one of the listed types of harm …

(7) The Commission must at all times be able to know whether a person is or is not an NDIS participant …

(8) There should continue to be improvements to the exchange of information and more formal lines of communication between those running the State and Territory emergency services (including police) and schemes for people with disability and the Commonwealth agencies, being the Commission and the NDIA, and vice versa.

(9) To this end, s 67A(1)(e) of the Act should be amended so that the word "serious" is deleted. A threat to an individual's life, health or safety should be enough to authorise the use of the protected Commission information …

(10) The Commissioner should have statutory power to ban a person from working in the disability sector even where that person is no longer so employed or engaged …

In regard to recommendation 4, I note that the community visitor scheme was not in operation in South Australia at the time because the scheme applied only to government institutions or people in private institutions. It didn't apply to people living in their own homes, as Ann-Marie Smith did. That is a matter that I believe needs to be immediately rectified because, had that scheme been in place, there would have been someone other than the carer calling in and checking on Ann-Marie on a more regular basis, and I suspect the end result would have been very, very different.

However, my question to the government and to the minister is simple. There are 10 recommendations and there are many other comments in Mr Robertson's report. Why is the government not implementing all of those 10 recommendations? I note that, in the minister's response to that report, there was no commitment to do so. Those recommendations all need to be followed up and should all be part of this legislation or, at least, future legislation, and we should get a commitment from the government that that will be the case. You don't have an inquiry into a matter if you're not prepared to accept the recommendations. In my view, they are all quite reasonable and proper recommendations that would prevent a similar occurrence in the future.

I conclude with these comments. The NDIS was a new scheme and there was always an expectation that there would be some initial implementation problems. I don't believe anybody would ever have expected that it would sail through absolutely smoothly. But, after seven years in office, the coalition government have clearly mismanaged the scheme. They have had seven years to rectify the problems, to roll it out, to implement the changes that were needed and to listen to the feedback that I have been getting for years now about the problems that exist that still have not been rectified, which I'm sure you, Madam Deputy Speaker, have been getting, along with all the other members of this House. They've had plenty of time to do so. Sadly, what's happened is that we've seen the issue come to a head only because of the death of Ann-Marie Smith. As I said earlier on, there is no excuse for Ann-Marie's death or for the failures and problems that continue under this government's oversight of the NDIS.

Ms PRICE (Durack—Minister for Defence Industry) (17:43): The National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Strengthening Banning Orders) Bill 2020 strengthens the existing powers of the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commissioner, the NDIS commissioner, to ban a worker or provider from delivering services in the NDIS market. This bill aims to protect people with disability and to prevent people with disability from experiencing harm from service provision and the people who work closely with them. As an independent national regulator with integrated functions, the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission, the NDIS commission, plays a key role in building confidence in the NDIS through its regulatory and compliance functions. It is, therefore, important that the NDIS commission has robust investigation and regulatory powers, and can take strong action where serious matters arise that affect the safety of NDIS participants.

As at 30 June 2020, 17,253 NDIS providers were registered with the NDIS commission. Of those registered, 45 per cent were individuals or sole traders. Although the National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013, the NDIS Act, already empowers the NDIS commissioner to make banning orders, it has become apparent that the provisions under which these banning orders can be issued are too narrow. In short, this bill will strengthen the banning provisions of the NDIS Act and allow the NDIS commissioner to ban a worker or provider they believe is unfit to deliver NDIS services, even if they are no longer delivering NDIS services. It will also enable a banning order to be issued pre-emptively to prevent a worker or provider who is not yet working in the NDIS sector from doing so in the future based on information from another sector.

This bill will also make it clear the NDIS commissioner must use the existing NDIS provider register to include details of any current banning orders. This information will generally be publicly available, and people with disability and their representatives may search the NDIS provider register to ensure that providers or workers they are using are not subject to a banning order. The strengthened banning order provisions support the aim of ensuring unsuitable people who should not be delivering services under the NDIS cannot do so. This is an important part of developing trust in the NDIS market. Our paramount consideration is the right of people with disability to live lives free from abuse, violence, neglect and exploitation. We need to close these gaps in the banning order provisions, and the bill before us will do this.

I would also like to thank the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills for their consideration. As requested by the committee, an addendum to the explanatory memorandum has been tabled to provide further clarification on the exercise of the banning order power. Once again, I thank all members for their contributions. I commend the bill to the House.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Claydon ): I thank the minister for her contribution. The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Barton has moved an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The immediate question, therefore, is that words proposed to be omitted stand as part of the question.

Question agreed to.

Original question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Ms PRICE (Durack—Minister for Defence Industry) (17:48): I present a supplementary explanatory memorandum to the bill. I seek leave to move government amendments (1) to (7) as circulated together.

Leave granted.

Ms PRICE: I move government amendments (1) to (7):

(1) Schedule 1, page 3 (after line 6), after item 1, insert:

1A Subsection 73ZN(1)

After "by an NDIS provider", insert ", or by a person who was an NDIS provider,".

1B Subparagraph 73ZN(1 ) ( b ) ( iv)

Before "there is", insert "in the case of an NDIS provider—".

(2) Schedule 1, page 3 (after line 27), after item 4, insert:

4A After subsection 73ZS(2)

Insert:

Banning orders

(2A) The NDIS Provider Register must include each of the following in relation to a person against whom a banning order is in force:

(a) the name of the person;

(b) the person's ABN (if any);

(c) information about the banning order;

(d) any other matter prescribed by the National Disability Insurance Scheme rules for the purposes of this paragraph.

(2B) The NDIS Provider Register may include each of the following in relation to a person against whom a banning order was in force:

(a) the name of the person;

(b) the person's ABN (if any);

(c) information about the banning order;

(d) any other matter prescribed by the National Disability Insurance Scheme rules for the purposes of this paragraph.

4B Paragraphs 73ZS(3 ) ( i), (4 ) ( e) and (5 ) ( d)

Repeal the paragraphs.

(3) Schedule 1, item 5, page 3 (line 28) to page 4 (line 9), omit the item, substitute:

5 Paragraph 201A(1 ) ( p)

Omit "73ZS(3) (l), (4) (h) and (5) (f)", substitute "73ZS(2A) (d), (2B) (d), (3) (l), (4) (h) and (5) (f)".

(4) Schedule 1, item 6, page 4 (lines 10 to 12), omit the item, substitute:

6 Subsection 209(8) (cell at table item 4, column headed " Description " , paragraph (r))

Omit "73ZS(3) (l), (4) (h) and (5) (f)", substitute "73ZS(2A) (d), (2B) (d), (3) (l), (4) (h) and (5) (f)".

(5) Schedule 1, item 8, page 4 (before line 18), before subitem (1), insert:

(1A) The amendment made by item 1A applies in relation to a person who ceased to be an NDIS provider before, on or after the commencement of this item, whether conduct to which paragraph 73ZN(1) (a), (b), (c) or (d) of the National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013 relates occurred before, on or after that commencement.

(6) Schedule 1, item 8, page 4 (line 21), at the end of subitem (1), add ", whether conduct to which paragraph 73ZN(2) (a), (b) or (c) of that Act relates occurred before, on or after that commencement".

(7) Schedule 1, item 8, page 4 (lines 30 to 32), omit subitem (3), substitute:

(3) Subsection 73ZS(2A) of the National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013, as inserted by this Schedule, applies in relation to the following:

(a) a banning order made on or after the commencement of this item;

(b) a banning order made before that commencement and that was in force immediately before that commencement.

(4) Subsection 73ZS(2B) of the National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013, as inserted by this Schedule, applies in relation to a banning order that was in force before, on or after the commencement of this item.

(5) The amendments made by this Schedule do not affect the validity of an entry in the NDIS Provider Register made before the commencement of this item.

Question agreed to.

Bill, as amended, agreed to.

Ms PRICE (Durack—Minister for Defence Industry) (17:49): by leave—I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Ms CATHERINE KING (Ballarat) (17:51): I rise to speak on the Transport Security Amendment (Serious Crime) Bill 2019, and I flag that we will be moving a second reading amendment, and there are also a series of substantive amendments that I wish to move in the consideration in detail.

Our ports and our airports provide the lifeblood of our country. Australia could not have got through or be getting through this global crisis without them. Throughout this crisis port workers have been hard at it: keeping our trade moving; importing the goods that we all rely on, including medical devices; exporting to the world; and ensuring that our shelves remain stocked with imported medicines and other essentials. And our airports have been at the front line in getting Australians home from overseas, getting key medical staff to where they are needed and reuniting Australians who've been separated from loved ones. Of course, with ports and airports playing such an important role in our nation, it is absolutely essential that they are secure. Like everyone in this House, Labor is committed to ensuring that our ports and airports are secure from criminal organisations and those who seek to do our nation harm. Our record in government attests to that.

The Aviation Security Identification Card, or the ASIC, and the Maritime Security Identification Card, or the MSIC, are an important part of securing the aviation, maritime and offshore oil and gas sectors from acts of terrorism and unlawful interference. The vast majority of Australian port workers do a great job. But, just as in every workforce, there will always be a small minority who will put their own interests ahead of the greater good and ahead of the law. Those who use our aviation and maritime transport systems as means to distribute drugs and other contraband into, out of and within Australian commit crimes. We know it happens, and Labor will of course support sensible measures to minimise this trade, to detect the perpetrators and to bring them to justice.

But unfortunately this bill is not fit for purpose, and in some parts it's frankly not even sensible or workable. A quarter of a million Australian workers currently hold an ASIC or an MSIC. These Australians deserve a system that treats them with respect and allows them to do their jobs while also protecting our national security. And to protect our national security it must apply to everyone working in our ports, including foreign workers. However, we already know that the ASIC and MSIC system is plagued with bureaucratic bungling and, frankly, delays as people try to get or renew their passes. Too often workers can't attend work because their cards have not been completed on time by the Department of Home Affairs contractors. This is not because of any poor paperwork or missed deadlines by these hardworking Australians.

Take the case of Brendan, a seafarer, whose only conviction is that he got into a fight in a pub 31 years ago, yet every time he needs to renew his MSIC he faces up to a 90-day wait, never sure whether his card will arrive on time for his next shift. This is his livelihood.

The government now seeks to expand this failing system without first fixing the problems that exist within it at the moment. When we take a look at the legislation itself, we see that this bill, which is about serious crime, lacks an important detail. Incredibly, this bill contains no definition of 'serious crime'. How can this bill be about serious crime when it doesn't even define, for the purposes of this bill, what serious crime actually is? There are at least 12 different definitions of 'serious crime' in different Commonwealth acts and regulations. This bill provides no detail about which definition will apply in this case. The bill is about people's livelihoods—their careers, their ability to go to work—so it absolutely deserves clarity.

Next we find that the bill imposes stricter conditions on Australian workers in Australian ports than it does on foreign crews working on our shores. With more and more foreign ships with foreign crews plying our coastline under licences issued by this government, how is the government screening these foreign crew members? Under this government's watch, we are now in a situation where less than half of one per cent of our seaborne trade is carried by Australian ships. That percentage is rapidly heading towards zero. Under this government's watch, the number of Australian flagged vessels has fallen to barely being in the double digits. For six years the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison government has stood by, when they should have been supporting and building our shipping industry. The government's own bureaucrats have pointed out the risks in relation to foreign crew working in Australia. But, rather than addressing these concerns in this bill, the government has chosen to target only Australian workers with ill-defined laws.

The then Department of Immigration and Border Protection could not have been clearer in 2017 when it said that foreign vessels and their crews, which use flag-of-convenience registration to operate in Australia, are likely targets for organised crime syndicates and terrorists. The department said that the reduced transparency and secrecy surrounding the complex financial and ownership arrangements of these vessels make them and their crews attractive for use in illegal activity, including by organised crime or terrorist groups. The department went on to say that these ships may be used in a range of illegal activities, including illegal exploitation of natural resources, illegal activity in protected areas, people smuggling and facilitating prohibited imports or exports. You'd think that this would be something that the government would follow up, but, no, they've done nothing to ensure that these workers are subject to any robust background checking.

So we have, in effect, one set of tough rules for Australians, which are about to get tougher through this legislation, and next to no background checks for foreign workers. How is that fair? How does that protect our borders and protect our national security? Labor does support measures to stop serious crime, but serious crime deserves serious responses, and this legislation needs improvement before Labor can support it.

To improve this bill, I will be moving amendments to define 'serious crime' to ensure the scope of crimes covered under this legislation is targeted and is not so unfairly broad that a range of workers are unnecessarily disqualified from the maritime and aviation industry, when they do not present a specific security threat. I will also move amendments to ensure that there is a legislative avenue of appeal for those who've been determined to have an adverse security status. People deserve to know why they cannot get to do their job. I will also move amendments to mandate processing times for ASIC and MSIC cards. This is a system that, as I said, has been plagued by delay, and it absolutely needs to be improved. I will also move amendments to take steps to ensure that foreign crew members are subject to similar background checking to Australian workers. The opposition will also ensure that workers cannot be denied access to an ASIC or MSIC on the basis of intelligence only. The legislation must not be a backdoor way for the government to remove aviation or waterside workers' rights to work, and they must make commitments to that effect. They've told us that that's the case, but we want to make absolutely sure that that is very clear and very explicit within this legislation.

This is a government that has been much more interested in getting a headline than actually delivering and helping people. And, of course, this bill comes from a government which has repeatedly failed when it comes to our borders. On 15 March, the Prime Minister said, 'The Australian government will also ban cruise ships from foreign ports arriving in Australian ports.' Four days later, at 6.30 am on 19 March, the Ruby Princess was allowed to disembark in Sydney, with 2,700 passengers, including sick passengers, allowed to spread COVID-19 across Australia and across the globe. When it comes to the borders, the buck stops with the Commonwealth, and, on that matter, they resoundingly failed.

But, while the government let passengers with COVID spread across the country, they still have no plan to assist stranded Australians across the world. The Prime Minister made the announcement about further travel restrictions and caps on international arrivals but didn't have a plan for what would happen next, and he doesn't care, frankly, for those many Australians who are left overseas. Members of parliament are being inundated with pleas for help from Australians stranded overseas, and the Prime Minister needs to come up with a realistic, sustainable plan to help them now.

We are hearing stories, of course, of Australians separated from their families, forced to live in caravans, drawing down on their superannuation or missing the funerals of loved ones because the government doesn't have a plan. This is a government that has failed on its borders. There are 27,000 Australians who want to return home but can't because the Morrison government won't assist. We know that the Commonwealth does have capacity here and there is plenty they could be doing. Australians are sick of a government which sees protecting our borders as nothing more than cheap headlines but doesn't care for Australians overseas and doesn't care for our maritime and aviation workers.

That being said, I do want to move the second reading amendment that I will circulate in my name. I move:

That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:

"whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House:

(1) notes that:

(a) serious crime deserves a serious response;

(b) the Coalition Government has failed to bring appropriate legislation to the Parliament to solve issues involving serious crime at our airports and seaports;

(c) instead, the Coalition Government has rehashed the same flawed legislation that was introduced in—and ultimately rejected by—both the 44th and 45th Parliaments;

(d) the Opposition will move substantive amendments to fix the myriad issues with the bill; and

(e) the Opposition's amendments will address concerns relating to the bill's failure to:

   (i) define 'serious crime';

   (ii) provide an avenue for appeal for those with adverse security status judgments; and

   (iii) legislate timeframes around the approval and renewal of Aviation Security Identification Cards and Maritime Security Identification Cards;

(2) is of the opinion that Australians can no longer trust the Coalition Government on border security; and

(3) calls on the Coalition Government to support the Opposition's amendments to the bill".

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Claydon ): Is the amendment seconded?

Mr Thistlethwaite: I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.

Mr WALLACE (Fisher) (18:04): I rise in support of the Transport Security Amendment (Serious Crime) Bill 2019. I was looking forward to speaking in the chamber today and listening to the honourable member's contribution about how Labor would support this bill. But, unfortunately, that does not appear to be the case, at least in its current form.

The Transport Security Amendment (Serious Crime) Bill 2019 amends the Aviation Transport Security Act and the Maritime Transport and Offshore Facilities Security Act 2003 to address criminal activity at Australia's borders. The bill does this by changing the eligibility criteria under the aviation and maritime security identification card schemes, the ASIC and MSIC schemes, to exclude persons with a serious criminal history or with known links to organised crime. At present, the background check for ASIC and MSIC cardholders establishes whether an applicant poses a security threat but does not consider if the individual may pose a criminal threat. This bill will address that shortcoming. The bill has been reviewed by the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, which recommended that the bill be passed with an amendment to allow applications to be refused on the basis of an adverse criminal intelligence assessment. An amendment to the bill has been developed to implement this recommendation.

The member for Ballarat talked about there not being a sufficient definition in the bill of what a serious crime is. Providing a definition of a serious crime in the bill, in my respectful submission, could inadvertently lead to serious offences not being captured in the regulations. Regulations made under the new powers being inserted by the bill will indicate categories of offences that are considered to be serious crimes. By specifically outlining categories of offences that are considered serious in relation to Australia's transport system, it ensures that we accurately capture offences most related to aviation, maritime and offshore facility security. Under this definition, serious criminal activity includes the sexual exploitation and abuse of children with lifelong impact on victims and families. It includes illicit drugs on our streets destroying lives and communities. It includes the money-laundering operations destroying our financial markets, the black market firearm shipments fuelling violence, and cybertheft of personal information and online investment scams, which constantly prey on Australian citizens day after day. These activities cause enormous human suffering in Australia, and the measures introduced in this bill will strengthen Australia's ability to combat serious crime.

Serious crime is a major threat to the Australian way of life and, as I suggested a moment ago, it causes enormous human suffering. Serious and organised criminals control illicit markets that can serve to fund a broad range of criminal activities, including terrorism. Organised criminals are gaining a major source of revenue from this illicit drug market. We need to ensure that our airports and our seaports are not safe havens for serious criminal activity. The Australian Institute of Criminology has estimated the cost of serious and organised crime in 2016-17 to be between $23.8 billion and $47.4 billion—huge sums of money at a huge cost to the Australian community. As sure as night follows day, this cost will continue to rise and it is imperative that the government puts in place measures to prevent serious crime, for the safety and security of all Australians.

The ASIC and MSIC schemes have been very effective in protecting Australian airports and seaports from terrorism. However, they are vulnerable to exploitation by serious crime groups. Securing our airports and seaports against infiltration from organised crime is vital in protecting legitimate industries and the Australian community. Airports and seaports are commonly used as entrance points to Australia for illicit goods and for transporting such goods around Australia. Criminals engage in illicit activities to maximise their profits, much to the detriment of all Australians, in areas such as illicit drugs, violence, money laundering, cybercrime, and, importantly, child exploitation. Protecting Australians and our nation's interests from these threats is critical.

The holders of these ASIC and MSIC are trusted individuals, and with that trust comes obligations. Trusted insiders may be any person who can use their knowledge and access to exploit vulnerabilities within an aviation or a maritime facility. The intelligence community has confirmed that trusted insiders remain a significant risk to the aviation and maritime transport sectors. Let me say that again: the intelligence community has confirmed that trusted insiders remain a significant risk to the aviation and maritime transport sectors. Based on intelligence from December 2019, the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission has identified approximately 227 ASIC or MSIC holders currently recorded on the crime commission's National Criminal Target List. That's 227 existing ASIC or MSIC holders. The individuals recorded in the crime commission's criminal intelligence holdings have been identified as posing a significant threat to the security of Australia's borders. This demonstrates the importance in addressing the vulnerabilities in these schemes.

The expanded purpose of this bill will provide for greater safeguards to ensure that ASIC and MSICs are not inappropriately used to facilitate and perpetrate serious crime in security-controlled airports and seaports. The purpose of schedule 1 to this bill is very clear. Schedule 1 to the bill will introduce a new purpose for both the Aviation Transport Security Act 2004 and the Maritime Transport and Offshore Facilities Security Act 2003 to prevent the use of security-controlled airports, seaports and offshore facilities in connection with serious crime. This additional purpose will complement the aviation and maritime security identification card schemes' current purpose of preventing unlawful interference. Schedule 1 will provide for regulations to be made to introduce new ASIC and MSIC eligibility criteria, targeting serious criminal offences and prescribing penalties for offences against the regulations for up to 200 penalty units. This means that penalties relating to the serious crime purpose will align with those relating to the unlawful interference purpose. Schedule 1 will also take care of a number of administrative issues and make some technical amendments.

The new purpose for the Aviation Transport Security Act 2004 and the Maritime Transport and Offshore Facilities Security Act 2003, to be inserted by schedule 1 to the bill, will provide greater safeguards to ensure that ASICs and MSICs are not inappropriately used to facilitate and perpetrate serious crimes at our airports and seaports. But one has to ask the question as to why people who are involved in or have serious criminal convictions or have links to organised crime have access to the most secure areas of our airports and seaports. Surely, in these most critical pieces of infrastructure, we have to maintain a high level of security. That is a priority for the Australian government.

The limited scope of the Aviation Transport Security Act and the Maritime Transport and Offshore Facilities Security Act has enabled people who have serious criminal convictions or links to organised crime and are not considered to pose a security threat to be classified as eligible holders of ASICs and MSICs. This bill will provide greater security outcomes for Australians by ensuring that people with serious criminal convictions or links to organised crime are not able to access secure areas of our airports and seaports.

In my closing four minutes, I want to give the House some case examples of what has gone on in the past. In a matter in 1997, the applicant was convicted of offences of cultivating and trafficking cannabis. For these offences, the applicant was ordered to pay compensation and to perform unpaid community work and was sentenced to six months imprisonment, which was wholly suspended. Some nine years later, the applicant was convicted of two offences: firstly, aid, abet, counsel or procure the importation of a prohibited import, which was cocaine; and, secondly, attempt to possess prohibited imports, which was also cocaine. On the first count, the applicant was sentenced to six years imprisonment, and, on the second count, the applicant was sentenced to five years imprisonment. The applicant was released from prison in 2010. Just three years later the applicant applied to CASA for the issue of an aviation security identification card, the ASIC. CASA rightly refused to issue an ASIC due to the applicant's adverse criminal record. The applicant then applied to the department for a discretionary review. The department knocked him back, due to the nature of the applicant's offences. The matter went to the AAT, and the AAT gave this individual an ASIC, subject to certain conditions. In setting aside the decision to refuse the ASIC, the AAT stated that it must take into account the purpose of the Aviation Transport Security Act, as well as the discretion allowable by the Aviation Transport Security Regulations.

The current framework restricts determinations made with regard to ASICs to purely security risks and not criminal risks. Here's a person who was convicted of three serious offences, served considerable time and, three years later, applied for an ASIC, got knocked back by CASA and knocked back by the department, and the AAT approved it, subject to certain conditions. This bill will ensure that people who have been convicted of those sorts of serious criminal offences will not be entitled to hold important security vetting into our airports and our seaports.

I turn to the second case. In 1991, the applicant was placed on a good behaviour bond after being convicted of cultivating a cannabis plant. In 2007, some years later, the applicant was convicted of trafficking a commercial quantity—40.3 kilograms—of cannabis. The applicant was ordered to pay a fine and was sentenced to three years imprisonment with a non-parole period of 15 months. The applicant was also convicted of possessing an unregistered firearm. In 2011, four years later, the applicant applied to ClientView for a maritime security card and he was refused. He applied for a discretionary review and that was refused. He went to the AAT and, lo and behold, he was given an MSIC, subject to certain conditions.

Clearly the legislation in its current form is not fit for purpose. The amendments in this bill will ensure that the wrong people are not in the right places, and I commend this bill to the House.

Mr CRAIG KELLY (Hughes) (18:19): I rise to speak on the Transport Security Amendment (Serious Crime) Bill 2019. I'd like to pick up on the amendment moved by the member for Ballarat where she asks how we define what is a 'serious crime—and of course, by implication, what is not a 'serious crime'.

It should be put on the Hansard record for this House that it is not a serious crime in this country for a pregnant woman to post something on Facebook protesting a government policy. That is not a serious crime. It is also not a serious crime for a mother to take her children to the beach on a hot afternoon. That is not a serious crime. It is not a serious crime in this country for a grandmother to sit on a park bench in the sun. It is not a serious crime for people to go to Queen Victoria Markets on the weekend to purchase a few fruit and vegetables. It is not a serious crime in this country to hold a protest sign that says 'Casualties of corona: common sense, freedom of speech, human rights and democracy'. And it is not a serious crime in this country for an elderly lady to hold up a sign that merely says 'Open the churches'. These are not serious crimes and they should never be considered serious crimes in any country, let alone our great Australia.

But what is a serious crime? We know that one of the serious crimes that are proliferating during lockdowns is child sexual abuse. We've heard from the Australian Federal Police that the lockdowns provide 'a rich environment' for paedophiles to operate, and they said there had been almost a 100 per cent increase in that online activity during COVID-19. I wonder, if those numbers were run through a great supercomputer, if it could see what damage is being done.

I also put it to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, that a 'serious crime' could also be a breach of article 25(1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, through the denial of medicine and medical treatment. It says:

Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including … medical care …

I would also say it is a serious crime to be in breach of article 12 of the 1966 International Covenant On Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. This specifically applies, and I'll read the relevant sections. It says:

1. The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health.

2. The steps to be taken by the States Parties to the present Covenant to achieve the full realization of this right shall include those necessary for …

…   …   …

(d) The creation of conditions which would assure to all medical service and medical attention in the event of sickness.

So a serious crime in this country would be the denial of medicine and medical treatment, but that is a debate for another day.

In the bill, the minister has clearly set out what a 'serious crime' is. Serious crimes are costing the Australian economy $47 billion per annum. Our airports and our seaports are the transportation points where organised criminals import weapons, illicit drugs and other harmful goods into Australia. Trafficking in illicit drugs puts Australia's security, our prosperity, our welfare and our communities at great risk.

This bill has been reviewed by the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, which has recommended the bill be passed with an amendment to allow applications to be refused on the basis of an adverse criminal assessment. The House should not wait another moment. I commend the bill to this House and I hope it is quickly passed by this House.

Mr DUTTON (Dickson—Minister for Home Affairs) (18:24): I want to thank all of the members for their contributions to the debate on the Transport Security Amendment (Serious Crime) Bill 2019. The bill, as we know, is evidence of the government's commitment to ensuring that Australia's aviation and maritime systems are safe and secure. A number of inquiries and reports have noted that individuals and organised crime groups are exploiting weaknesses in the aviation and maritime security identification card schemes—the ASIC and MSIC schemes—enabling them to conduct serious criminal activity at our airports and seaports, such as the importation of illegal weapons and drugs.

Serious and organised crime causes enormous human suffering in the Australian community. For example, in 2018 alone there were 438 drug induced deaths that involved heroin and a further 407 drug induced deaths that involved amphetamines. The suffering inflicted on the families of these 845 Australians and visitors to Australia from just two of the many illicit drugs imported into Australia by criminal cartels is immeasurable. Serious and organised crime also imposes significant costs on our economy. The Australian Institute of Criminology has estimated that organised crime costs the Australian economy more than $47 billion per annum.

The government introduced this bill in order to address serious criminal influence at airports and seaports. The airports and seaports are gateways for the entry of illicit goods into Australia and it is essential that persons granted access to sensitive and secure areas in Australia's international ports of entry are of sound character. The bill establishes a regulatory framework to achieve this outcome. The reforms in this bill will impact persons involved in serious and organised crime, by allowing applicants for an ASIC or MSIC to have their application refused if they have a serious and relevant criminal history. A less serious or irrelevant offending history will not preclude a person from obtaining an ASIC or MSIC.

I want to thank the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for its work on this bill, through its inquiry and recommendations. The committee's report on the bill made two recommendations. Specifically, the committee recommended that the bill be amended to incorporate a criminal intelligence assessment in the application process of the ASIC and MSIC schemes. The committee recommended that, subject to this recommendation being implemented, the bill be passed. The committee was of the view that our:

… aviation and maritime environments remain vulnerable to infiltration and exploitation by persons with links to serious and organised crime.

The committee stated:

The introduction of a criminal intelligence assessment in the background check process for the ASIC and MSIC schemes would strengthen the schemes by enabling decisions to exclude persons who have links to serious crime, where that person might facilitate or commit crime, from accessing airports and seaports.

The government supports the committee's recommendation, and I'll be moving amendments to this bill in order to implement the committee's recommendation to include criminal intelligence assessments as part of the background check process for ASICs and MSICs. The amendments will establish the regulatory framework to ensure that people with known links to serious and organised crime groups will be ineligible to hold ASICs or MSICs. The amendments will provide the ACIC with the ability to conduct these assessments, as well as providing for merits review of adverse criminal intelligence assessments. The purpose of the bill and the amendments is to ensure that ASICs and MSICs are not issued to individuals who pose a security or serious criminal risk.

The bill gives effect to the government's election commitment to strengthen background-checking regimes in order to ensure that individuals with links to serious crime cannot gain access to our airports or seaports. It will reduce the ability of serious and organised crime groups to engage in illegal activities and, in turn, keep illegal drugs and guns off our streets and our communities safe. I thank members for their contributions and I commend the bill to the House.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Claydon ): The question is that the words proposed to be omitted stand as part of the question.

Question agreed to.

Original question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Ms CATHERINE KING (Ballarat) (18:30): by leave—I move opposition amendments (1) to (8) together:

(1) Schedule 1, page 3 (after line 10), after item 2, insert:

2A Section 9

Insert:

serious crime has the meaning given by section 38AC.

(2) Schedule 1, item 4, page 4 (after line 17), at the end of Division 4A, add:

38AC Definition of serious crime

(1) For the purposes of this Division, serious crime means conduct that if engaged in within, or in connection with, Australia, would constitute an offence prescribed by the regulations.

(2) Regulations made for the purposes of the definition of serious crime must not prescribe an offence unless the offence is an offence against a law of the Commonwealth, a State or a Territory punishable by imprisonment for a period of 3 years or more.

(3) Schedule 1, page 4 (after line 17), after item 4, insert:

Division 4B—Renewal of security passes

38AD Renewal of security passes for access to certain areas and zones

(1) If the regulations provide for a process to issue a security pass (an ASIC) to a person for the purposes of accessing certain areas and zones (whether the security pass is known as an aviation security identification card or otherwise), the regulations must comply with the requirements in subsections (2) and (3).

(2) The regulations must provide that a person who has been issued an ASIC may apply for the renewal of the person's ASIC before it expires.

(3) The regulations, in providing for the renewal of an ASIC, must provide:

(a) that a decision to renew or refuse to renew an ASIC must be made within 60 days of the decision maker receiving the application for renewal; and

(b) that if the decision maker does not make a decision to renew or refuse to renew within 60 days of receiving the application, then the decision maker is taken to have renewed the ASIC at the end of that period.

(4) Schedule 1, page 4 (after line 20), after item 5, insert:

5A At the end of subsection 126(2)

Add:

Note: For a person's notification and review rights in relation to an adverse or qualified security assessment, see section 38 and Division 4 of Part IV of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979.

5B After section 126

Insert:

126A Review of decisions relating to security checking under the regulations

(1) This section applies if regulations are made, for the purposes of any of the following sections, dealing with the security checking (including background checking) of persons who have access to an area or zone:

(a) section 35 (requirements for airside areas);

(b) section 36 (requirements for airside security zones);

(c) section 36A (requirements for airside event zones);

(d) section 37 (requirements for landside areas);

(e) section 38 (requirements for landside security zones);

(f) section 38A (requirements for landside event zones);

(g) section 38AB (requirements relating to access to areas and zones).

(2) The regulations must include provisions allowing a person in relation to whom a security check is carried out to seek:

(a) reconsideration by the relevant Secretary of a decision in relation to a security identification card; and

(b) review by the relevant Secretary of a decision in relation to a security identification card; and

(c) review by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal of a decision by the relevant Secretary on review of a decision in relation to a security identification card.

(3) To avoid doubt, nothing in this section permits:

(a) the relevant Secretary to review an adverse security assessment or a qualified security assessment; or

(b) the Administrative Appeals Tribunal to review an adverse security assessment or a qualified security assessment other than in accordance with the provisions of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979 and the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975.

(4) In this section:

adverse security assessment has the same meanings as in the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979.

qualified security assessment has the same meanings as in the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979.

relevant Secretary means:

(a) the Secretary of the Department; or

(b) the Secretary who is responsible for administering the scheme prescribed for the purposes of section 8 of the AusCheck Act 2007.

126B Regulations may provide for review or reconsideration of additional matters

To avoid doubt, the regulations may provide for the review or reconsideration of matters not provided for in this Part.

(5) Schedule 1, page 4 (after line 31), after item 7, insert:

7A Section 10

Insert:

serious crime has the meaning given by section 113G.

(6) Schedule 1, item 17, page 7 (after line 12), at the end of Division 6, add:

113G Definition of serious crime

(1) For the purposes of this Division, serious crime means conduct that if engaged in within, or in connection with, Australia, would constitute an offence prescribed by the regulations.

(2) Regulations made for the purposes of the definition of serious crime must not prescribe an offence unless the offence is an offence against a law of the Commonwealth, a State or a Territory punishable by imprisonment for a period of 3 years or more.

(7) Schedule 1, page 7 (after line 12), after item 17, insert:

17A At the end of Part 6

Add:

113H Renewal of security passes for access to certain zones

(1) If the regulations provide for a process to issue a security pass (an MSIC) to a person for the purposes of accessing certain areas and zones (whether the security pass is known as a maritime security identification card or otherwise), the regulations must comply with the requirements in subsections (2) and (3).

(2) The regulations must provide that a person who has been issued an MSIC may apply for the renewal of the person's MSIC before it expires.

(3) The regulations, in providing for the renewal of an MSIC, must provide:

(a) that a decision to renew or refuse to renew a MSIC must be made within 60 days of the decision maker receiving the application for renewal; and

(b) that if the decision maker does not make a decision to renew or refuse to renew within 60 days of receiving the application, then the decision maker is taken to have renewed the MSIC at the end of that period.

(8) Schedule 1, page 7 (after proposed item 17A), insert:

17B At the end of Part 12

Add:

201A Review of decisions relating to security checking under the regulations

(1) This section applies if regulations are made, for the purposes of any of the following sections, dealing with the security checking (including background checking) of persons who have access to a zone:

(a) section 105 (requirements for port security zones);

(b) section 109 (requirements for ship security zones);

(c) section 113 (requirements for on-board security zones);

(d) section 113D (requirements for offshore security zones);

(e) section 113F (requirements relating to access to zones).

(2) The regulations must include provisions allowing a person in relation to whom a security check is carried out to seek:

(a) reconsideration by the relevant Secretary of a decision in relation to a security identification card; and

(b) review by the relevant Secretary of a decision in relation to a security identification card; and

(c) review by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal of a decision by the relevant Secretary on review of a decision in relation to a security identification card.

(3) To avoid doubt, nothing in this section permits:

(a) the relevant Secretary to review an adverse security assessment or a qualified security assessment; or

(b) the Administrative Appeals Tribunal to review an adverse security assessment or a qualified security assessment other than in accordance with the provisions of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979 and the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975.

(4) In this section:

adverse security assessment has the same meanings as in the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979.

qualified security assessment has the same meanings as in the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979.

relevant Secretary means:

(a) the Secretary of the Department; or

(b) the Secretary who is responsible for administering the scheme prescribed for the purposes of section 8 of the AusCheck Act 2007.

201B Regulations may provide for review or reconsideration of additional matters

To avoid doubt, the regulations may provide for the review or reconsideration of matters not provided for in this Part.

Protecting our ports and airports is a very serious issue. We do take that matter very seriously. I think that was demonstrated by our actions in government as well. These Labor amendments will make the Transport Security Amendment (Serious Crime) Bill 2019 better, protecting our nation's security at the same time as facilitating Australia's essential workers. It's important that our ports and our workers are still able to operate.

As Labor senators identified in their report to the Senate, this bill fails to define 'serious crime' and instead relies on delegated legislation with minimal parliamentary oversight. Labor welcomes the government's indication that they plan to include in the regulations a tiered scheme of crimes in an attempt to get the balance right between protecting our national security and not wrongly excluding a worker from their work. Without having seen those regulations, it is very difficult to determine whether they do in fact do what we think they should do. Labor has repeatedly asked the government to define 'serious crime' and to introduce a definition into the legislation, but the government has consistently said that it won't do that.

While not seeking to prevent the government from introducing their proposed tiered scheme, Labor seeks to amend this legislation to ensure that minor crimes are not included in the regulations by the government. The amendments will define 'serious crime' as a crime that is punishable by imprisonment for a maximum period of at least three years, which is consistent with the definition of 'serious crime' in the citizenship cessation bill currently before the parliament.

Labor will also amend the legislation to include processing time frames for ASICs and MSICs and a legislated avenue of appeal for the hardworking men and women of our ports and airports who have kept this country going. Every time they apply for an ASIC or MSIC or seek to renew their cards they are constantly worried that they will be rejected or that they will be left waiting for their card to be issued. A quarter of a million Australian workers currently hold an ASIC or MSIC. These Australians deserve a system that treats them with respect and allows them to do their job while also protecting our national security. Too often Australian workers at our ports can't go to work because of long processing delays with their cards.

This proposed expansion of ASICs and MSICs is symptomatic of a government that has not fully understood or taken responsibility for those long processing delays and the impact that that has on the hardworking men and women at our Australian ports and airports who have done nothing wrong. This is why Labor will amend the legislation to ensure that the obligatory processing time frame of 60 days is strictly adhered to by the government when issuing an ASIC or MSIC.

Further, Labor will ensure that there is a legislative avenue of appeal for those who have been determined to have an adverse security status. People deserve to know why they cannot get that job. Workers' rights have been consistently undercut by this government, and moving the right to appeal from regulations to legislation is recommended by the respected Senate Scrutiny of Bills Committee and of course is the right thing to do for those hardworking Australian men and women. As I said, these amendments I've moved will improve the bill and, we think, get the balance right between ensuring that we treat the issue of serious crime seriously in this bill and ensure that our ports and airports are secure, and making sure that we are not putting unnecessary impediments in the way of those hardworking men and women at our Australian ports and airports who have kept this country moving. They have done nothing wrong and are subject to delays or, in fact, because there's not a definition of 'serious crime' contained in this bill, are punished in a way that, frankly, is using a sledgehammer to crack a nut on some occasions.

I commend those amendments to the House.

The SPEAKER: The question is that the amendments be disagreed to.

Mr DUTTON (Dickson—Minister for Home Affairs) (18:43): I present a supplementary memorandum to the bill and ask leave of the House to move government amendments (1) to (3) together.

Leave granted.

Mr DUTTON: I move government amendments (1) to (3) as circulated:

(1) Clause 2, page 1 (line 7) to page 2 (line 6), omit the clause, substitute:

2 Commencement

(1) Each provision of this Act specified in column 1 of the table commences, or is taken to have commenced, in accordance with column 2 of the table. Any other statement in column 2 has effect according to its terms.

Note: This table relates only to the provisions of this Act as originally enacted. It will not be amended to deal with any later amendments of this Act.

(2) Any information in column 3 of the table is not part of this Act. Information may be inserted in this column, or information in it may be edited, in any published version of this Act.

(2) Schedule 1, heading, page 3 (line 1), omit "Amendments", substitute "Serious crime".

(3) Page 7 (after line 18), at the end of the Bill, add:

Schedule 2—Criminal intelligence assessments

Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975

1 Paragraph 46(1 ) ( a)

Before "cause", insert "and subsection 36L(4) of the Australian Crime Commission Act 2002,".

2 Subsection 46(2)

Before "certifying", insert "or subsection 36L(2) of the Australian Crime Commission Act 2002,".

3 Paragraph 46(3 ) ( a)

Before "as the case", insert "or paragraph 36L(2) (a) or (b) of the Australian Crime Commission Act 2002,".

Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977

4 Paragraph (wa) of Schedule 1

After "34D", insert ", or Division 2A of Part II,".

5 After paragraph (y) of Schedule 1

Insert:

(yaa) decisions of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal made on a review that is required by the Australian Crime Commission Act 2002 to be conducted by the Security Division of that Tribunal;

AusCheck Act 2007

6 After paragraph 5(b)

Insert:

(ba) if the background check is conducted for the purposes of paragraph 8(1) (a)—matters relevant to a criminal intelligence assessment (as defined in section 36A of the Australian Crime Commission Act 2002) of the individual;

Australian Crime Commission Act 2002

7 After Division 2 of Part II

Insert:

Division 2A—Criminal intelligence assessments

Subdivision A—Preliminary

36A Definitions

In this Division:

AAT Act means the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975.

adverse criminal intelligence assessment means a criminal intelligence assessment in respect of a person that contains:

(a) any opinion or advice, or any qualification of any opinion or advice, or any information, that is or could be prejudicial to the interests of the person; and

(b) a recommendation that prescribed administrative action be taken or not be taken in respect of the person, being a recommendation the implementation of which would be prejudicial to the interests of the person.

applicant means a person who has applied to the Tribunal for a review of an adverse criminal intelligence assessment.

authorised member has the same meaning as in the AAT Act.

background check has the same meaning as in section 5 of the AusCheck Act 2007.

Commonwealth agency means an agency within the meaning of the Freedom of Information Act 1982 and includes an exempt agency.

criminal intelligence assessment orassessmentmeans a written statement prepared by the ACC expressing any recommendation, opinion or advice on, or otherwise referring to, the question whether it is necessary or desirable for prescribed administrative action to be taken in respect of a person, having regard to whether there is intelligence or information that suggests that the person:

(a) may commit a serious and organised crime; or

(b) may assist another person to commit a serious and organised crime;

and includes any qualification or comment expressed in connection with any such recommendation, opinion or advice, being a qualification or comment that relates, or that could relate, to the question.

exempt agency means a body specified, or the person holding an office specified, in Part I of Schedule 2 to the Freedom of Information Act 1982.

law enforcement interests includes interests in the following:

(a) avoiding disruption to national and international efforts relating to law enforcement, criminal intelligence, criminal investigation, foreign intelligence and security intelligence;

(b) protecting the technologies and methods used to collect, analyse, secure or otherwise deal with, criminal intelligence, foreign intelligence or security intelligence;

(c) the protection and safety of informants and of persons associated with informants;

(d) ensuring that intelligence and law enforcement agencies are not discouraged from giving information to a nation's government and government agencies;

(e) avoiding disclosure of lawful methods or procedures for preventing, detecting, investigating, or dealing with matters arising out of, breaches or evasions of the law the disclosure of which would, or would be reasonably likely to, prejudice the effectiveness of those methods or procedures.

member has the same meaning as in the AAT Act.

officer of the Tribunal has the same meaning as in the AAT Act.

prescribed administrative action means action that relates to or affects:

(a) access by a person to any information or place, access to which is controlled or limited under:

   (i) the Aviation Transport Security Act 2004 or regulations under that Act; or

   (ii) the Maritime Transport and Offshore Facilities Security Act 2003 or regulations under that Act; or

(b) a person's ability to perform an activity in relation to, or involving, a thing (other than information or a place), if that ability is controlled or limited under:

   (i) the Aviation Transport Security Act 2004 or regulations under that Act; or

   (ii) the Maritime Transport and Offshore Facilities Security Act 2003 or regulations under that Act.

President has the same meaning as in the AAT Act.

presidential member has the same meaning as in the AAT Act.

Registrar has the same meaning as in the AAT Act.

security has the same meaning as in the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979.

Tribunal means the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

Subdivision B—Criminal intelligence assessments

36B Conduct of criminal intelligence assessments

(1) The ACC has the function of conducting criminal intelligence assessments for purposes related to background checks required or permitted by any of the following:

(a) the Aviation Transport Security Act 2004 or regulations under that Act;

(b) the Maritime Transport and Offshore Facilities Security Act 2003 or regulations under that Act.

Note 1: The CEO is responsible for conducting criminal intelligence assessments (see subsection 46A(8)).

Note 2: The function of conducting criminal intelligence assessments is separate to, and does not affect, the ACC's function of providing strategic criminal intelligence assessments to the Board (as referred to in paragraph 7A(f)) and the Board's function of disseminating those strategic criminal intelligence assessments (as referred to in paragraph 7C(1) (g)).

(2) The CEO may, by legislative instrument, determine the following in relation to the making of criminal intelligence assessments:

(a) the matters that must be taken into account;

(b) the manner in which those matters are to be taken into account;

(c) the matters that are not to be taken into account.

(3) The CEO must not make a determination under subsection (2) unless the CEO has consulted the Minister.

(4) If the ACC, in conducting a criminal intelligence assessment, considers that making an adverse criminal intelligence assessment in respect of a person would prejudice law enforcement interests, the ACC may decide not to make the assessment.

36C Giving of adverse criminal intelligence assessments to certain Commonwealth agencies

(1) The ACC may give an adverse criminal intelligence assessment in respect of a person to a Commonwealth agencyfor purposes related to a background check of the person that is required or permitted by any of the following:

(a) the Aviation Transport Security Act 2004 or regulations under that Act;

(b) the Maritime Transport and Offshore Facilities Security Act 2003 or regulations under that Act.

(2) If the ACC considers that giving a Commonwealth agency an adverse criminal intelligence assessment in respect of a person would prejudice law enforcement interests, the ACC may decide not to give the assessment to the agency.

(3) An adverse criminal intelligence assessment given to a Commonwealth agency under subsection (1) must be accompanied by:

(a) a statement of the grounds for the assessment (which is taken to be part of the assessment); and

(b) if, under subsection (5), the CEO makes a certificate in relation to information contained in the assessment—a copy of the certificate.

(4) The statement of the grounds for the assessment must contain all information that the ACC relied on in making the assessment, other than:

(a) subject to subsection (6), information in relation to which the CEO has made a certificate under subsection (5); and

(b) information the disclosure of which would be contrary to a law of the Commonwealth, a State or a Territory.

(5) The CEO may certify, in writing, that the CEO is satisfied that disclosing particular information contained in an adverse criminal intelligence assessment, including particular information contained in the statement of the grounds for the assessment, to the person in respect of whom the assessment was made would prejudice law enforcement interests or security.

(6) If the CEO makes a certificate under subsection (5) in relation to information, the ACC may decide not to give the information to a Commonwealth agency under subsection (1). However, the Minister may, after consulting the CEO, direct the ACC to give the information to the Commonwealth agency.

(7) A certificate made under subsection (5) is not a legislative instrument.

(8) If the direction under subsection (6) is made in writing, the direction is not a legislative instrument.

36D Person to be notified of adverse criminal intelligence assessment

(1) If an adverse criminal intelligence assessment in respect of a person is given to a Commonwealth agency under subsection 36C(1), the Commonwealth agency must give written notice of the assessment to the person, unless a certificate made under subsection (4) is in force in relation to the assessment.

(2) The written notice must:

(a) be given to the person within the period of 14 days beginning on the day after:

   (i) unless subparagraph (ii) applies—the day the assessment is given to the Commonwealth agency; or

   (ii) if a certificate under subsection (4) that was in force in relation to the assessment is subsequently revoked—the day the certificate is revoked; and

(b) inform the person of the making of the assessment; and

(c) include the statement of the grounds for the assessment that was given to the Commonwealth agency (other than information in relation to which the CEO has made a certificate under subsection 36C(5)); and

(d) contain information concerning the person's right to apply to the Tribunal for a review of the assessment.

(3) A written notice may be given to the person by delivering it to the person personally, or by sending it to the person by registered post at the person's address last known to the Commonwealth agency.

(4) The Minister may certify, in writing, that the Minister is satisfied that the withholding of notice to a person of the making of an adverse criminal intelligence assessment in respect of the person is essential to either or both of the following:

(a) the protection of law enforcement interests;

(b) the security of the nation.

(5) If the Minister makes a certificate under subsection (4) in relation to an adverse criminal intelligence assessment, the Minister must:

(a) give a copy of the certificate to the Commonwealth agency to which the assessment was given under subsection 36C(1); and

(b) before the end of the following periods, consider whether to revoke the certificate:

   (i) the period of 12 months beginning on the day on which the certificate was made;

   (ii) each subsequent 12 month period.

(6) A certificate made under subsection (4) is not a legislative instrument.

36E Effect of preliminary advice by the ACC

A Commonwealth agency must not take, refuse to take or refrain from taking prescribed administrative action on the basis of any communication in relation to a person made by the ACC not amounting to a criminal intelligence assessment.

Subdivision C—Review of adverse criminal intelligence assessments

36F Applications to Tribunal

(1) Applications may be made to the Tribunal for review of a decision of the ACC under section 36B to make an adverse criminal intelligence assessment.

Note: Paragraph 29(1) (d) of the AAT Act generally requires an application for review of a decision to be made within 28 days after the applicant has been given a copy of the decision.

(2) An application under subsection (1) may be made by the person in respect of whom the assessment was made and who has been given notice of the assessment under section 36D.

(3) At any time after the completion of a review by the Tribunal of an adverse criminal intelligence assessment, applications may be made to the Tribunal for review of the findings of the Tribunal on the ground that the applicant has fresh evidence of material significance that was not available at the time of the previous review.

(4) An application under subsection (3) for review of the findings of the Tribunal on a review of an adverse criminal intelligence assessment may be made by the person who applied for the review in which the findings were made.

(5) If the Tribunal is satisfied that an application under subsection (3) is justified, the Tribunal may review its previous findings and:

(a) this Act; and

(b) the AAT Act;

apply in relation to such a review, and the findings of such a review, as if it were a review of an adverse criminal intelligence assessment.

Interaction with the AAT Act

(6) Subsections (2) and (4) have effect despite subsection 27(1) of the AAT Act.

36G Requirements for applications

(1) An application made to the Tribunal for review of an adverse criminal intelligence assessment must be accompanied by:

(a) a copy of the assessment as given to the applicant; and

(b) a statement indicating any part or parts of the assessment with which the applicant does not agree and setting out the grounds on which the application is made.

Note: See also subsection 29(1) of the AAT Act, which contains other requirements for making an application to the Tribunal.

(2) An application made under subsection 36F(3) must be accompanied by a statement setting out the grounds on which the application is made.

Interaction with the AAT Act

(3) This section has effect despite paragraph 29(1) (c) of the AAT Act.

36H Notice of application

(1) If an application is made to the Tribunal for review of an adverse criminal intelligence assessment:

(a) the Registrar must give the applicant written notice of receipt of the application; and

(b) the Tribunal must cause the following to be given to the CEO, and to the Commonwealth agency to which the assessment was given under subsection 36C(1):

   (i) a copy of the application;

   (ii) a copy of the statement lodged with the application in accordance with section 36G.

(2) If the application relates to an adverse criminal intelligence assessment that contains information in relation to which the CEO has made a certificate under subsection 36C(5), the CEO must lodge with the Tribunal:

(a) a copy of the certificate; and

(b) a copy of the whole assessment.

(3) The CEO must lodge the copies with the Tribunal within the period of 30 days beginning on the day the copy of the application was given to the CEO under subsection (1).

(4) The Tribunal must not, at any time, tell the applicant of the existence of, or permit the applicant to have access to any copy, or particulars of, a certificate of the CEO referred to in subsection (2), or any matter to which the certificate relates.

Interaction with the AAT Act

(5) This section has effect despite section 29AC of the AAT Act.

36J Reviews to be conducted by Security Division of Tribunal

(1) Despite subsection 17B(1) of the AAT Act, the powers of review in respect of applications referred to in section 36F may be exercised by the Tribunal only in the Security Division of the Tribunal.

(2) Despite subsection 19E(2) of the AAT Act, for the purposes of a proceeding in the Security Division of the Tribunal in which the Tribunal is exercising the powers mentioned in subsection (1) of this section, the Security Division is to be constituted by one or more members, at least one of which must be a presidential member.

36K Procedure for review

(1) If an application for a review of an adverse criminal intelligence assessment is made to the Tribunal, the Tribunal is to review the assessment in accordance with this section.

Parties

(2) Despite section 30 of the AAT Act, the parties to the proceeding are the CEO and the applicant, but the Commonwealth agency to which the assessment was given under subsection 36C(1) is entitled to adduce evidence and make submissions.

CEO must present all relevant information used to make assessment

(3) In adducing evidence or making submissions, it is the duty of the CEO to present to the Tribunal all relevant information (whether favourable or unfavourable to the applicant) that:

(a) was used to make the assessment; and

(b) is available to the CEO.

Member may require parties to attend etc.

(4) A member who is to participate, or who is participating, in the hearing may, at any time, require either or both of the parties to attend or be represented before the member at a directions hearing for the purpose of conferring with the member concerning the conduct of the review with a view to identifying the matters in issue or otherwise facilitating the conduct of the proceedings.

Proceedings to be in private

(5) Despite section 35 of the AAT Act, the proceedings are to be in private and, subject to this section, the Tribunal is to determine the people who may be present at any time.

Right of parties etc. to be present

(6) Subject to subsection (9), the applicant and a person representing the applicant may be present when the Tribunal is hearing submissions made or evidence adduced by the CEO or the Commonwealth agency to which the assessment was given under subsection 36C(1).

(7) The CEO or a person representing the CEO, and a person representing the Commonwealth agency to which the assessment was given under subsection 36C(1), may be present when the Tribunal is hearing submissions made or evidence adduced by the applicant.

Certificate regarding prejudice to law enforcement interests or security

(8) The Minister may, in writing, certify that evidence proposed to be adduced or a submission proposed to be made by or on behalf of the CEO or the Commonwealth agency to which the assessment was given under subsection 36C(1) is of such a nature that the disclosure of the evidence or submission would be contrary to the public interest because it would prejudice law enforcement interests or security.

(9) If such a certificate is made:

(a) the applicant must not be present when the evidence is adduced or the submission is made; and

(b) a person representing the applicant must not be present when the evidence is adduced or the submission is made, unless the Minister consents.

(10) A person representing the applicant commits an offence if:

(a) a certificate is made under subsection (8) in relation to evidence or a submission; and

(b) the person is present when the evidence is adduced or the submission is made; and

(c) the person discloses the evidence or submission, or information contained in the evidence or submission, to the applicant or to any other person.

Penalty: Imprisonment for 2 years.

(11) A certificate made under subsection (8) is not a legislative instrument.

Protection of identity of person giving evidence

(12) If the CEO requests the Tribunal to do so, the Tribunal must do all things necessary to ensure that the identity of a person giving evidence on behalf of the CEO is not revealed.

Evidence and submissions

(13) The Tribunal must first hear evidence adduced, and submissions made, by or on behalf of the CEO and any evidence or submissions that the Commonwealth agency to which the assessment was given under subsection 36C(1) may wish to adduce or make.

(14) The Tribunal must next permit the applicant, if the applicant so desires, to adduce evidence before, and make submissions to, the Tribunal.

(15) The Tribunal may, on its own initiative and at any stage of the proceedings, invite a person to give evidence, or cause a person to be summoned to give evidence.

(16) If a person invited or summoned to give evidence under subsection (15) is:

(a) a member of the staff of the ACC; or

(b) a member of the Board; or

(c) an examiner; or

(d) an officer or employee of the Commonwealth agency to which the assessment was given under subsection 36C(1);

subsection (8) applies as if any evidence to be given by the person were evidence proposed to be adduced by or on behalf of the CEO or that Commonwealth agency.

(17) If:

(a) a party presents that party's case to the Tribunal; and

(b) after that case has been presented, the other party adduces evidence; and

(c) the Tribunal thinks that, because of evidence adduced by the other party, the first‑mentioned party should be further heard;

the Tribunal must give the first‑mentioned party an opportunity of adducing further evidence, but must not give to the applicant any particulars of any evidence to which a certificate made under subsection (8) relates.

(18) A member of the Tribunal may ask questions of a witness before the Tribunal, and the presiding member may require a witness to answer any such questions.

Dismissal of application

(19) If the applicant fails within a reasonable time:

(a) to proceed with the application; or

(b) to comply with a direction of the Tribunal in relation to the application;

the President or an authorised member may dismiss the application without proceeding to review the assessment.

36L Certain documents and information not to be disclosed in review

Scope

(1) This section applies to a proceeding to which section 36K applies.