Mr O'DOWD (Flynn—Deputy Nationals Whip) (10:01): I present the 29th report of the Petitions Committee for the 46th Parliament.

The report read as follows—

House o f Representatives Petitions Committee

Report no. 29

Petitions and Ministerial Responses

23 August 2021

MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE

Chair Mr Ken O'Dowd MP

Deputy Chair Hon Justine Elliot MP

Mrs Bridget Archer MP

Ms Lisa Chesters MP

Ms Gladys Liu MP

Mr Julian Simmonds MP

Mr James Stevens MP

Ms Susan Templeman MP

Report summarising the petitions and Ministerial responses being presented.

The committee met in private session on 15 July and 11 August 2021

1. The committee resolved to present the following petitions in accordance with standing order 207:

Petitions certified on 15 July

From 86 petitioners - requesting a ban on the use of certain toxins (EN2801)

From 29 petitioners - requesting dedicated federal quarantine facilities (EN2802)

From 41 petitioners - regarding foreign interference in Australian research institutes and think tanks (EN2804)

From 3412 petitioners - regarding the use of the name 'Persian Gulf' (EN2805)

From 12 petitioners - requesting a clear COVID 19 roadmap to international travel (EN2807)

From 478 petitioners - requesting access to Omnipod insulin pump technology (EN2808)

From 249 petitioners - requesting more regulations for the solar technologyindustry (EN2809)

From 341 petitioners - requesting the Shoalhaven region be designated a distribution priority area for GPs (EN2810)

From 7 petitioners - requesting mandatory organ donation for everyone 18 years of age and over (EN2811)

From 300 petitioners - regarding international travel for vaccinated citizens (EN2812)

From 3408 petitioners - requesting Operation Vest Australia be introduced Australia wide (EN2816)

From 14 petitioners - requesting a stop to mandated English language tests for immigrants (EN2820)

From 6 petitioners - requesting the name of Australia be changed to Royston Vasey (EN2822)

From 14 petitioners - requesting easier terms for fully vaccinated Australians to travel overseas (EN2824)

From 15 petitioners - requesting zero tolerance for violence and gang related fighting (EN2825)

From 7754 petitioners - requesting the cessation of medical coercion (EN2828)

From 33 petitioners - requesting an investigation into epidemiological literature as per the Veterans' Entitlement Act 1986 (EN2829)

From 37 petitioners - requesting an amendment to the Veterans' Entitlement Act 1986 (EN2832)

From 5730 petitioners - requesting taxation changes to residency rules (EN2834)

From 33 petitioners - requesting changes to the Veterans' Entitlement Act1986 (EN2835)

From 60 petitioners - requesting the COVID-19 support supplement be reintroduced (EN2837)

From 2082 petitioners - requesting international travel be allowed for vaccinated citizens (EN2839)

From 53 petitioners - requesting the donation of AstraZeneca vaccines to Sri Lanka (EN2841)

From 37 petitioners - requesting a travel exemption for holders of the Prospective Marriage Visa (EN2842)

From 95 petitioners - requesting a ban on genetically modified agricultural crops (EN2846)

From 25 petitioners - regarding the cost of education (EN2847)

From 4847 petitioners - requesting that vaccines not be made mandatory (EN2849)

From 31 petitioners - requesting further action to protect children from COVID-19 (EN2850)

From 54 petitioners - requesting for off-grid, modular, foundationless homes to be legal on all urban lots (EN2854)

From 96616 petitioners - requesting alternate treatment options for COVID-19 (EN2855)

From 8240 petitioners - requesting that the reuniting of families be prioritised in any international travel roadmap (EN2856)

From 156 petitioners - requesting equality for approvals of international travel exemptions (EN2857)

From 3559 petitioners - requesting a stop to COVID-19 vaccines without informed consent (EN2858)

From 242 petitioners - requesting free emergency and compassionate travel for Australians fully vaccinated against COVID-19 (EN2859)

From 2288 petitioners - requesting official recognition of national missing persons week (EN2862)

From 53 petitioners - requesting that bus drivers be included as frontline workers and prioritised for COVID-19 vaccines (EN2863)

From 24 petitioners - requesting the Australian Dollar be renamed to 'dollarbucks' (EN2864)

From 150 petitioners - requesting a withdrawal of the COVID Safe app (EN2865)

From 4712 petitioners - regarding passenger caps on international travel (EN2867)

From 7048 petitioners - requesting that the AstraZeneca vaccine be donated to Bangladesh on humanitarian grounds (EN2869)

From 35 petitioners - requesting the Census not be compulsory (EN2870)

From 398 petitioners - regarding international travel (EN2875)

From 32 petitioners - requesting the Pfizer vaccine be made free and available to people over 60 years (EN2876)

From 10 petitioners - requesting a ban on all wood and open fireplaces (EN2878)

From 26 petitioners - requesting updates to the petitions system web pages (EN2881)

From 243 petitioners - requesting that the AstraZeneca vaccine not be made available for anyone (EN2882)

From 302 petitioners - requesting that international borders be open (EN2883)

From 2132 petitioners - requesting that COVID-19 vaccines not be made mandatory for aged care workers (EN2886)

From 69 petitioners - requesting that people vaccinated against COVID-19 be excluded from any COVID-19 related restrictions (EN2887)

From 69 petitioners - requesting meat resellers be mandated to declare added water content in products (EN2888)

From 858 petitioners - requesting for the prayers at the commencement of each sitting of the House be replaced with a more inclusive option (EN2895)

From 5903 petitioners - requesting that COVID-19 vaccines not be made mandatory for aged care workers (EN2901)

From 48 petitioners - requesting that all social media accounts be made verifiable (EN2904)

From 19297 petitioners - requesting that coercion towards medical intervention, procedure, or treatment be criminalised (EN2912)

From 2280 petitioners - requesting subsidies for the FreeStyle Libre Flash Glucose Monitoring System for Australians living with diabetes (EN2914)

The following ministerial responses to petitions were received:

Received by the Committee on 11 August 2021

From the Assistant Treasurer - to a petition concerning the acquisition of Bellamy's Australia Ltd by China Mengniu Dairy Company Limited (EN1182)

From the Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister and Cabinet - to a petition requesting the House call for a no-confidence motion against the Prime Minister (EN1246)

From the Assistant Treasurer - to a petition requesting that any assets owned in full or partly by the Chinese Communist Party be seized (EN1520)

From the Assistant Treasurer - to a petition concerning JobKeeper and JobSeeker payment entitlement differences (EN1727)

From the Attorney-General - to a petition requesting a referendum for the removal of state governments (EN1890)

From the Assistant Treasurer - to a petition requesting an extension of the JobKeeper support payment to the aviation sector, or an aviation industry wage subsidy and rescue package (EN2404)

From the Minister for Communications, Urban Infrastructure, Cities and the Arts - to a petition requesting to expedite works to improve mobile coverage in the Clyde and Clyde North areas of Victoria (EN2412)

From the Minister for Communications, Urban Infrastructure, Cities and the Arts - to a petition requesting to deny health experts access to the 'live list' of online misinformation due to the concern of infringing people's freedom of speech (EN2421)

From the Assistant Treasurer - to a petition concerning Medicare Levy payments (EN2497)

From the Minister for Communications, Urban Infrastructure, Cities and the Arts - to a petition concerning unsolicited emails from charities (EN2506)

From the Attorney-General - to a petition concerning a motion presented by Senator Malcom Roberts opposing the use of gender-neutral language (EN2533)

From the Minister for Communications, Urban Infrastructure, Cities and the Arts - to a petition requesting to make the National Relay Service registration optional for its users (EN2604)

From the Minister for Foreign Affairs - to a petition concerning events in Tigray, Ethiopia (EN2613)

From the Minister for Home Affairs - to a petition concerning the inclusion of parents as immediate family members as an automatic exemption from Australia's travel restrictions (EN2630)

From the Minister for Health and Aged Care - to a petition concerning freedom of choice for Australians regarding COVID-19 vaccinations (EN2633)

From the Minister for Home Affairs - to a petition concerning Australians travelling to India to support sick family members (EN2641)

Mr Ken O'Dowd

Chair - Petitions Committee

Ms LIU (Chisholm) (10:04): On behalf of the Chair of the Standing Committee on Tax and Revenue, I present the committee's report titled Owning a share of your work: tax treatment of employee share schemes, together with the minutes of proceedings.

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

Mr THISTLETHWAITE (Kingsford Smith) (10:05): [by video link]—Australians are responsible for some of the world's most significant inventions and innovations, yet we have an unfortunate poor record of commercialising those innovations here in Australia. Many startups will move overseas to raise capital, commercialise, develop and produce their product. The lack of capital results from some of the taxation and regulatory arrangements that Australia has that operate as a disincentive to employees owning a share or a stake in a company that that they're working for. Australia has a relatively low take-up of employee share schemes. In 2015, according to Taxation Office reports, about $2 billion worth of employee share schemes were operating in Australia, and that's about 0.4 per cent of the total wages bill for the nation. In comparison, in the United Kingdom the result is about 3.6 per cent.

There are two basic forms of regulation when it comes to employee share schemes. Firstly, there's the Corporations Act 2001 requirements relating to disclosure, financial service licencing requirements, advertising, and hawking and the like. Then there are the income tax implications. Basically, if an employee receives a share at a discounted rate to the market value, that's included as income and taxed appropriately. There have been a number of attempts at regulatory reform in Australia to try and simplify the system over many years, most notably in 2009 and 2015. ASIC has published regulatory orders, class orders, that have simplified the system somewhat, particularly in respect of the disclosure requirements and financial service licensing requirements that have been welcomed by the industry.

In terms of the feedback that the committee received from those that made submissions—and I want to thank and congratulate those companies, particularly those startup and innovation based companies that have been involved in supplying their views on the current regulatory environment for our committee—the list of issues that relate to the low take-up of employee share schemes relates to the following things. Firstly, the definition of a 'startup': the company cannot be listed on the stock exchange, and turnover has to be less than $50 million per year. There's a 10-year limit on these sorts of things, so if the company's been around for more than 10 years then they don't receive concessional taxation treatment. And there are market valuation rules and safe harbour provisions. In terms of tax, if an employee receives shares or options at a discount, and they have a taxable income of less than $180,000 per year, then they're eligible for tax exemption on the first $1,000 of discounts received each year, and that has not changed since 1996. Many of the submitters indicated that that was out of date. If employees receive shares at a discount under a salary sacrifice arrangements then they can access deferred tax rules if they receive no more than $5,000 worth of shares per year. Many submissions said that was too low. Regarding the tax deferral to the point that the holder of the share ceases employment with the company, many saw this as an anomaly compared to international schemes, and it forced people to sell their shares to fund tax liability at the cessation of employment. Many called for a voluntary tax-withholding mechanism. In terms of all of these issues, the committee made a series of recommendations, and they basically fall into two areas.

Firstly, in relation to taxation requirements, the recommendations are contained in recommendations 6 to 9 in our report, on pages 32 and 33. We recommend changes to the definition of a startup; the definition of the safe harbour valuation contained in the income tax act; increasing the $1,000 limit in section 83A.35(2)(a) of the Income Tax Assessment Act to $50,000; and removing the taxation point on the cessation of employment under that act as well. In respect of the disclosure issues, they're contained in recommendations 10 to 18 on page 48 of the report. They go to issues such as a maximum of 15 per cent discount under the taxation act in respect of the startup regime, Importantly, at recommendation 10, we make the point that the government should proceed with the proposal that they've already announced on 13 November 2018 and discussed in the Treasury's Employee share schemes: consultation paper dated April 2019.

In conclusion, we believe that there are opportunities for Australia to incentivise employee share schemes and to remove some of the disincentives that currently exist in the system around taxation arrangements and disclosure, and ensure that Australia is globally competitive when it comes to not only encouraging people to commercialise their innovations in Australia and produce them here but encouraging the take-up of ownership in those schemes, and ensuring that people have the opportunity to buy shares and to be offered shares, at a discount, in an innovation and produce that here in Australia.

I commend the report to the parliament.

The SPEAKER: The time allotted for statements on this report has expired. Does the honourable member for Chisholm wish to move a motion in connection with the report to enable it to be debated on a later occasion?

Ms LIU (Chisholm) (10:11): I move:

That the House take note of the report.

The SPEAKER: In accordance with standing order 39, the debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.

Ms LIU (Chisholm) (10:12): I move:

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

Question agreed to.

Mr ZAPPIA (Makin) (11:41): On behalf of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works I present the following reports:

Referral made May 2021 (5th report of 2021) (sent to the Speaker on 20 August 2021, pursuant to standing order 247)—Report, August 2021.

Referrals made May and June 2021 (6th report of 2021) (sent to the Speaker on 20 August 2021, pursuant to standing order 247)—Report, August 2021.

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

I ask leave of the House to make a short statement in connection with the reports.

Leave granted.

Mr ZAPPIA: Report No. 5 of 2021 considers one proposal referred to the committee in May 2021. The proposal was the Department of Home Affairs Parramatta fit-out, with approval sought from the committee to carry out the works at 101 George Street, Parramatta, in New South Wales. The estimated cost of this project is $24.76 million excluding GST. The project aims to consolidate three existing Home Affairs office buildings in Sydney's CBD into one site at 101 George Street, Parramatta. The consolidation will reduce the leased office space from approximately 22,000 to 14,000 square metres and generate savings of approximately $7 million per year.

In addition to recommending that it was expedient that the project go ahead, the committee has recommended that the Department of Home Affairs continue to engage with staff to ensure that all concerns are taken onboard and to take meaningful steps to facilitate the redeployment and retraining of workers who are unable to relocate. The committee considers this to be important as, although the relocation and savings are significant, staff welfare is a vital factor in any organisation.

Report No. 6 of 2021 considers two proposals referred to the House in May and June of 2021. The first project was the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Communications Christmas Island Stormwater, Landslide and Rockfall Mitigation Works Project. The estimated cost of this project is $28.9 million, excluding GST. The project aims to reduce the risk of injury or death, asset damage, and social and economic disruption from flooding, rockfall and landslides on Christmas Island by installing fit-for-purpose stormwater and landslide mitigation infrastructure. The project will deliver works at three locations on Christmas Island and will seek to reduce the dangers to residents and infrastructure from landslides and stormwater flooding. The current barriers against landslide are no longer fit for purpose and offer little protection to the community on Christmas Island.

The second project is the Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment scientific research station modernisation on Macquarie Island. The estimated cost of this project is $49.8 million, excluding GST. The research station has been operating on Macquarie Island since 1948 and is in a continuous state of decline, with many structures at the end of their service life. The new and redeveloped facilities will be designed and constructed to provide safe and robust protection from the high level of wind and rain experienced on the highly remote Macquarie Island. The committee has asked for some additional financial detail in relation to the preliminaries of this project but did not consider this significant enough to hold up the project.

I thank both departments for the highly detailed presentations and briefings. Obviously, the committee was unable to travel to either Christmas Island or Macquarie Island to inspect the proposed works, but the respective departments were able to provide sufficient detail in their presentations and briefings to ensure that the committee was able to appreciate the nature of the work. The committee has chosen to undertake its scrutiny in a timely manner, given that two of the projects being considered are on remote islands with a degree of urgency in relation to the works themselves or the logistics of getting construction supplies and staff on the one voyage per year to Macquarie Island. I thank my fellow committee members and the committee secretariat for making themselves available to take part in these inquiries and for assisting with the committee's scrutiny. I commend the reports to the House.

Ms PRICE (Durack—Minister for Defence Industry) (11:46): I present the explanatory memorandum to this bill and move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The Australian government's first priority is to keep our community safe. This bill provides for the continuation of key counterterrorism powers that ensure the safety and security of all Australians.

To this end, and consistent with the recommendations of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security (PJCIS), this bill extends the declared areas offence for a further three years, until 7 September 2024.

The bill will ensure that key powers available to the Australian Federal Police will continue to be available. The PJCIS is currently reviewing these powers: the control order regime, the preventative detention order regime, and the emergency stop, search and seizure powers in the Crimes Act.

It is critical that these powers do not sunset ahead of the PJCIS's review. Accordingly, the bill will defer sunsetting to 7 December 2022 to ensure that law enforcement continues to have a range of capabilities to respond to the ongoing threat of a terrorist attack in Australia.

All powers will continue to be subject to robust safeguards and oversight, including by providing for the PJCIS to again review the declared areas offence before their new sunsetting date.

Declared areas

The declared areas offence in section 119.2 of the Criminal Code is an important part of the Australian government's efforts to stop the flow of foreign fighters. The offence also mitigates the risk that returning foreign fighters pose to Australians.

Where an area is declared by the Minister for Foreign Affairs, it is an offence to enter or remain in that area without a legitimate reason. A declared area is a place where terrorist organisations are engaging in hostile activity. There are very few legitimate reasons for entering such an area. The offence recognises this by providing a carefully targeted range of exceptions.

Although there are currently no declared areas, these provisions remain a necessary component of our framework in the current threat environment and looking to the future.

Control orders

Control orders under division 104 of the Criminal Code are an important tool in preventing a terrorist act and managing the risk posed by persons who continue to present a risk to the community.

The provisions allow the Federal Court or the Federal Circuit Court to impose an order which places tailored obligations, prohibitions and restrictions on an individual.

The conditions must be reasonably necessary and reasonably appropriate and adapted to protect the public from a terrorist act.

Preventative detention orders

Preventative detention orders under division 105 of the Criminal Code are another important tool in preventing an imminent terrorist act. A preventative detention order allows a person to be detained without charge and can only be used where the AFP reasonably suspects an attack could occur within 14 days or in the aftermath of a terrorist attack to preserve vital evidence.

Crimes Act powers

The emergency stop, search and seizure powers in the Crimes Act ensure that police are able to respond consistently and effectively to a terrorist incident or threat.

The powers allow police to request a person's name, address and other details; they allow police to conduct a search for a terrorism related item and to seize such an item; and they allow police to enter premises without a warrant to prevent a serious and imminent threat to a person's life, health or safety.

These AFP powers have been used sparingly since they were enacted. As at 16 July 2021, 20 orders have been made since September 2014, when the national terrorism threat level was raised. No preventative detention orders have been made, and no incidents have required the use of the emergency stop, search and seizure powers. Although these powers have not been used to date, this demonstrates that the AFP have been appropriately judicious in exercising these exceptional powers.

Review of Division 105A

This bill also extends the reporting date for the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor's (the INSLM's) review of division 105A of the Criminal Code, which provides for continuing detention orders for high-risk terrorist offenders.

The INSLM independently reviews the operation, effectiveness and implications of Australia's counterterrorism and national security laws, ensuring they contain appropriate protections for individual rights, and remain necessary and proportionate.

Extending the INSLM's reporting deadline to as soon as practicable after 7 December 2021 will enable the INSLM to engage in interstate consultations which were disrupted by COVID-19, and provide a greater body of evidence to review the practical operation of division 105A.

Concluding remarks

The measures in this bill implement the government's response to the recommendations of the PJCIS recent declared areas review. The PJCIS has carefully examined this offence and recommended that it be continued. I acknowledge and appreciate the PJCIS's ongoing and valuable role in reviewing intelligence and security powers.

I also value the continuing partnership with states and territories in our shared efforts to protect the Australian community. The amendments to part 5.3 of the Criminal Code have been approved by a majority of states and territories, as required by the Intergovernmental Agreement on Counter-Terrorism Laws.

This bill provides for the continuation of important counterterrorism powers that ensure the safety and security of all Australians.

Mr GILES (Scullin) (11:53): I rise to speak to the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment (Sunsetting Review and Other Measures) Bill 2021 and to set out Labor's position on this legislation. This bill deals with a range of counterterrorism and other police powers in the Crimes Act 1914 and the Criminal Code Act 1995, which are due to expire on 7 September 2021. These powers are: the declared area provisions, the control order regime, the preventative detention regime, and a range of stop, search and seizure powers. This bill would extend the sunset dates on each of these powers.

Labor supports this bill. Indeed, this is a bill that should have been passed months ago, yet it was not even introduced until 4 August and was not brought on for debate in the Senate until 12 August. Now, the government has known for months and months that the extension of sunset dates provided for in this bill was necessary. Frankly, it's ridiculous—and it reflects very poorly on the Prime Minister and his government—that we are debating this bill in the House of Representatives on 23 August 2021 while the national capital is in lockdown. Just a few days ago, it was reported that eight individuals are currently subject to control orders. The purpose of a control order, which can stop a person from engaging in certain activities or being in certain areas, is of course to prevent a terrorist attack. So it would be a matter of some significance if existing control orders were simply allowed to lapse, and yet, because the government left this legislation until the last minute, there was a significant risk of this happening.

Now, what if the COVID situation here had got so out of hand that the parliament couldn't sit today, or, indeed, for the next three weeks? What would have happened if these powers, including control orders, had simply been allowed to expire? Fortunately, the parliament has been able to sit today, and so we will not have to find out. But what this illustrates, once again, is that this is an incompetent government which does not have its eye on the ball.

As well as extending a number of sunset dates, the bill would also allow the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security to conduct a review of the operation, effectiveness and proportionality of the declared areas provisions prior to the new sunset date. Finally, the bill would amend the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor Act to give the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor more time to finalise his review of the continuing detention order regime.

I'll turn first to some remarks on the control order, preventative detention and stop, search and seizure powers. These powers, which were all due to expire on 7 September 2021, are currently under review by the intelligence and security committee. Labor supports the proposed extension of the sunset date to 7 December 2022. Such an extension will ensure that the intelligence and security committee has sufficient time to complete its review prior to the powers sunsetting and also that the government will have sufficient time to work through and respond to any recommendations made by the committee.

The declared areas provisions, however, are in a different category. These provisions of the Criminal Code allow the Minister for Foreign Affairs to declare an area in a foreign country if he or she is satisfied that a listed terrorist organisation is engaging in hostile activity in that area of the foreign country and make it an offence for a person to enter or remain in a declared area, subject to a number of limited exceptions as set out in section 119.2 of the Criminal Code, such as providing aid of a humanitarian nature, performing an official duty for the Commonwealth or visiting a family member. Now, the committee recommended that the sunset date for those powers be extended to 7 September 2024 and that the intelligence and security committee be empowered to conduct a review of those powers at any time prior to that date. The bill before us implements both of those recommendations.

The committee also recommended that the declared areas provisions be amended to allow Australian citizens to request an exemption from the Minister for Foreign Affairs to travel to a declared area for a reason not listed in section 119.2 of the Criminal Code. We note that, following extensive consultation with government agencies, including ASIO and the AFP, the former Independent National Security Legislation Monitor, Dr James Renwick, made a similar recommendation in 2017. The government has argued that this recommendation could not be effectively implemented and monitored and that the time and resources required to obtain information to assess an application would be significant and would divert security and intelligence resources from other national security priorities.

We're not persuaded. We think the government should simply implement the committee's bipartisan and unanimous recommendation. However, we do recognise that the implementation of this is not without its challenges, and, because of that complexity, we think it is an amendment that should be drafted following close consultation with the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and Australia's national security agencies.

Subject to that qualification, I do commend this bill to the House, and I move the second reading amendment which has been circulated in my name:

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:

(a) in February 2021, the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security tabled a report in the Senate following its review of the 'declared areas' provisions in the Criminal Code Act 1995;

(b) the Committee made four unanimous and bipartisan recommendations, including three recommendations to amend the Intelligence Services Act 2001 and the Criminal Code Act 1995; and

(c) this bill would implement Recommendations 1 and 2 of the Committee's report, but the Government has refused to implement Recommendation 4, which is to amend the Criminal Code Act 1995 'to allow Australian citizens to request an exemption from the Minister for Foreign Affairs to travel to a declared area for reasons not listed in section 119.2, but which are not otherwise illegitimate under Australian Law'; and

(2) calls on the Government to implement Recommendation 4 of the Committee's unanimous and bipartisan report".

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Vasta ): Is the amendment seconded?

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

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I thank the honourable member for Werriwa. The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Scullin has moved, as an amendment, that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting others. If it suits the House, I will state the question in the form that the amendment be disagreed to.

Ms HAMMOND (Curtin) (12:00): I'm pleased to have the opportunity to speak to this bill, the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment (Sunsetting Review and Other Measures) Bill 2021. Australia's national terrorism threat level has been categorised by our security agencies as 'probable' since 2014. This means that there is credible intelligence indicating that individuals and groups have the intent and capability to conduct a terrorist act in Australia. As noted in the explanatory memorandum to this bill, between September 2014, when the threat level was raised, until 13 July 2021 136 people have been charged as a result of 64 counterterrorism related operations around Australia. There have been more than nine attacks and 21 major counterterrorism disruption operations in response to potential attack planning in Australia. Around 120 Australians or former Australians who have travelled to Syria or Iraq are believed to have died and around 50 people have returned to Australia after travelling to Syria or Iraq having joined groups involved in conflict. Further, since 2012 around 230 Australians or former Australians have travelled to Syria or Iraq to fight with, or support, violent extremist groups involved in conflict and around 250 Australian passports have been cancelled or refused in relation to the Syria-Iraq conflict. As at 13 July 2021 around 65 Australians and former Australians in Syria or Iraq have fought with, or were otherwise associated with, religiously motivated violent extremist groups which remain in the region.

According to ASIO, the volatility in the security environment globally is increasing and the threat environment is potentially being exacerbated by COVID-19, in terms of the isolation, the economic downturn and the ability of groups to mobilise in this period. ASIO has publicly noted terrorist hotspots which could see an increase in activity going forward. They have also noted the increasingly diverse nature of attacks, with a shift from primarily large-scale, complex plots by organised networks to small-scale, lone wolf type attacks encouraged by the online proliferation of Islamic State propaganda. ASIO have observed that the subjects of counterterrorism investigations vary in age, gender and ethnicity. Further, ASIO is concerned about the rise of far-right extremist ideologies and are closely monitoring the threat that these pose as they become more cohesive and organised than before. These facts and the development in the threat landscape mean that we need to ensure that our security agencies have effective counterterrorism measures to enable them to disrupt potential attacks and manage the ongoing risks posed by individuals. That is the context in which we must determine whether the measures contained in this bill, and indeed all other security powers we legislate, satisfy the test of reasonableness, necessity and proportionality.

This bill provides for the continuation of key counterterrorism powers that ensure the safety and security of all Australians. These measures are as follows: this bill will extend, for a further three years, the declared areas provisioned in sections 119.2 and 119.3 of the Criminal Code Act 1995 that are scheduled to sunset on 7 September 2021. This bill will also make amendments to the Intelligence Services Act 2001 to provide that the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security may review the operation, effectiveness and proportionality of the declared areas provisions prior to their new sunset date. These amendments are consistent with the recommendations of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security tabled earlier this year.

The declared areas offence is an important part of the Australian government's efforts to stop the flow of foreign fighters and mitigate the risk that returning foreign fighters pose to Australians. Where an area is declared by the Minister for Foreign Affairs it is an offence to enter or remain in that area without a legitimate reason. A declared area is a place where terrorist organisations are engaging in hostile activity. There are a few legitimate reasons for entering such an area and the offence recognises this by providing a carefully targeted range of exempt sections.

This bill will also extend for a further 15 months the following Australian Federal Police powers that are also scheduled to sunset on 7 September 2021: the control order regime in division 104 of the Criminal Code; the preventative detention order regime in division 105 of the Criminal Code; and the stop, search and seizure powers in division 3A of the Crimes Act.

Control orders under division 104 of the Criminal Code are an important tool in preventing a terrorist attack and managing the risk posed by persons who continue to present a risk to the community. The provisions allow the Federal Court or the Federal Circuit Court to impose an order which places tailored obligations, prohibitions and restrictions on an individual. The conditions must be reasonably necessary and reasonably appropriate and adapted to protect the public from a terrorist act. These AFP powers have been used sparingly since they were enacted. As at 16 July 2021, 20 control orders have been made since September 2014, when the national terrorism threat was increased.

Preventative detention orders under division 105 of the Criminal Code are another important tool in preventing an imminent terrorist attack. A preventative detention order allows a person to be detained without charge and can only be used where the AFP reasonably suspects an attack could occur within 14 days or in the aftermath of a terrorist attack, to preserve vital evidence.

The emergency stop, search and seizure powers in the Crimes Act ensure that police can respond consistently and effectively to a terrorist incident or threat. The powers allow police to request a person's name, address and other details. They allow the police to conduct a search for a terrorism related item and to seize such an item, they allow the police to enter premises without a warrant, to prevent a serious and imminent threat to a person's life, health or safety.

No preventative detention orders have been made and no incidents have required the use of the emergency stop, search and seizure powers. Although these powers have not been used to date, they are considered to be an important mechanism should the need arise. The PJCIS is currently reviewing these powers. The control order regime, the preventative detention order regime and the emergency stop, search and seizure powers. However, it is critical that these powers do not sunset ahead of the completion of the PJCIS review. Thus, this bill will extend them for a further period of 15 months to ensure that law enforcement agencies continue to have a range of capabilities to respond to the ongoing threat of the terrorist attack in Australia. All powers will continue to be subject to robust safeguards and oversight, including by providing for the PJCIS to again review the declared areas offence before the new sunsetting date.

This bill is also going to enact changes to the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor, INSLM, Act, to extend the reporting date for the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor's review of division 105A of the Criminal Code to as soon as practicable after 7 December 2021. The INSLM independently reviews the operation, effectiveness and implications of Australia's counterterrorism and national security laws, ensuring they contain appropriate protections for individual rights and remain necessary and proportionate. Extending the INSLM's reporting deadline to as soon as practicable after 7 December 2021 will enable the INSLM to engage in interstate consultations, which were disrupted by COVID-19, and provide a greater body of evidence to review the practical operation of this provision.

Finally, by way of concluding, this bill provides for the continuation of important counterterrorism powers that ensure the safety and security of all Australians. They ensure that Australia's law enforcement agencies continue to be able to manage the evolving national security and threat environment and meet the necessary thresholds for being necessary and proportionate. The usage of the sunsetting periods, reviews by the INSLM and the PJCIS mean that these are not set and forget powers; rather, they will continue to be monitored and reviewed to determine their ongoing justification.

Mr HAYES (Fowler—Chief Opposition Whip) (12:10): It's very nice to follow the member for Curtin. I think she captured the essence of the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment (Sunsetting Review and Other Measures) Bill 2021 very effectively. I should say from the outset that, as you can well gather, Mr Deputy Speaker Vasta, we will support the passage of this bill. In doing so, this really does go to the heart of our national security framework. I think it's fair to say that at any stage where national security has been an issue before this House we on this side have always worked in a bipartisan way to ensure that any passage of legislation is seen to be beyond politics. This is absolutely no different.

The evolving situation around the globe at the moment is that the current terrorism threat continues to be relatively high, particularly when assessed in terms of what we need to do within the concepts of what is reasonable, necessary and proportionate. Those are the measures which actually underpin the assessment of powers in this bill. I note that the Australian national terrorism threat level is currently listed as 'probable'. This means that there's a credible intelligence assessment by Australia's security agencies indicating that individual groups have the intent and capability to conduct a terrorist act within Australia itself. To put that into some perspective: these statistics, provided in the explanatory memorandum to this bill, note that by 30 July 2021 136 people had been charged as a result of 64 counterterrorism related operations around Australia. There have also been nine attacks and 21 major counterterrorism disruption operations in response to potential terrorist attacks being planned in this country.

The evidence also shows that 65 Australians, including former Australians, in Syria and Iraq, who have fought with or who are otherwise associated with terrorist activity—whether based on religiously motivated violent extremism or not—remain active within the region. I'd like to add that information provided by the ASIO director-general, Dennis Richardson—who is no doubt known to most of us in this place—in his annual threat assessment report earlier this year, pointed out that there's a significant threat in this country from home-grown right-wing extremist groups. People associated with such groups have been responsible for some terrible acts, including, don't forget, Deputy Speaker, the horrific attack that occurred in Christchurch in New Zealand.

In this environment, it's important that legislation keeps pace with the threat. That's necessary to protect our nation and to ensure the protection of all Australians from the threat of terrorism. In essence, this bill extends the range of counterterrorism and other police powers in the Crimes Act 1914 and the Criminal Code Act 1995. Those amendments are due to expire on 7 September. Specifically, the bill extends for a further 15 months the following AFP powers: the control order regime, the preventative detention regime and the stop, search and seizure powers which are able to be exercised by the AFP. All three of these powers are currently being reviewed by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security. The committee was due to table its report in January this year, but the inquiry is still ongoing. For that reason, it is necessary to extend the sunset provision to ensure that the committee is able to report. Without an extension, we could see significant consequences, including the invalidation of some or all of the existing control orders.

To digress slightly from the bill, I point out to the House that on 29 September we will be observing National Police Remembrance Day. It's a time when we will pause to acknowledge the contribution our police play in keeping our communities and our nation safe. Hence, in relation to this bill, it's necessary that we provide to our police and those responsible for our collective safety the necessary tools and legislative support—the powers—that they need to fight contemporary threats, whether it be crime or in this case terrorism. I would encourage all those people who serve their communities in this place to at least acknowledge, come 29 September, the role of the police in serving in their respective communities. And can I just say how disgraceful it was to see the protests that turned violent in Sydney and Melbourne and the attacks on our police, who were simply on duty to serve and protect our community. Clearly, what we saw reflects badly on people who took their protest so far as to attack those who are sworn to protect us.

To return to the bill, the bill also amends the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor Act 2010. It gives the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor more time to finalise its review of another counterterrorism power—that is, the continuing detention order regime. It will extend the reporting date to as soon as practicable after 7 December of this year. This amendment was sought by the independent monitor and allows for continuing detention orders for high-risk terrorist offenders. The new reporting date will enable the independent monitor to engage in interstate consultations, which have been disrupted during this pandemic period. It also enables a larger body of evidence to be presented for its review.

Finally the bill extends the 'declared areas' provision for a further three years to allow the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security to conduct a review of the operation, effectiveness and proportionality of the 'declared areas' provision prior to the new sunset date. The 'declared areas' provision allows the Minister for Foreign Affairs to declare an area in a foreign country if he or she is satisfied that a listed terrorist organisation is engaging in hostile activity in that area of the foreign jurisdiction. This deals with issues of foreign fighters. It deals with terrorist acts, as we previously saw in respect of Syria and Iraq, which, I hasten to point out, are no longer declared areas. It also makes it an offence for a person to enter and remain in a declared area, subject to a number of limited exceptions—namely, providing humanitarian aid, performing a duty on behalf of the Commonwealth or visiting family members. It is also important to highlight that the Intelligence and Security Committee also recommended that the 'declared areas' provision be amended to allow Australian citizens to request an exemption from the minister to travel to a declared area for reasons that are currently not covered in the Criminal Code. This recommendation has not been picked up in the bill, and yet this is one we believe should have been dealt with as it was the unanimous recommendation by the committee.

While on this, we're not convinced of the government's arguments for not having it in the bill—namely, that it would significantly divert security and intelligence resources away from national security. As I pointed out, this was a recommendation which was unanimous. It was put by the national intelligence and security committee in a bipartisan manner. For that reason, the shadow minister has moved a second reading amendment, which I support, but I would hasten to add I support the passage of this bill. As I indicated in talking about policing and law enforcement, it is important we ensure that our powers for law enforcement and policing for protection of the community in relation to terrorist acts are such that our law enforcement agencies have the powers and the tools they need to keep our communities safe.

Mr CONNELLY (Stirling) (12:21): I'm very pleased to rise along with many others in this place to speak in favour of the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment (Sunsetting Review and Other Measures) Bill 2021. I note the presence of another former veteran over there, the member for Solomon, and note that we've got something approaching a platoon's worth now of ex-serving personnel in this House and the other place as well.

The events of 11 September 2001 were really one of those moments—there are probably very few in one's lifetime—where you truly do remember where you were when the events unfolded. For me, I recall being a young platoon commander stationed up in Darwin, which was a wonderful place to be, particularly with our children; you were able to get out and about in the wonderful countryside up there when you weren't training or on operations. But this day was a little different. I woke up quite early, getting ready to go into the unit and start with physical training, and I got a message to check the TV. I turned the television on and saw the events unfolding. I saw the towers on fire and actually coming down, people screaming and the streets absolutely choked with dust and heard screams and the wailing of sirens. As I'm sure many others have had, I've had the opportunity since to go to New York and see the amazing memorial over there.

It certainly is an event that struck a chord in all of our psyches. I think it changed us all in many different ways. Some of those ways were very visible up-front. Even as we approached the base thereafter, there were, and there remains still, quite a few restrictions that were never in place prior to those events. But we should acknowledge, and it's important to do so, that Australia's dedication to our organised response to the threat of terrorism has been in place for great many decades, and indeed our Australian Defence Force was absolutely at the leading edge of these response capabilities. In particular, the Special Air Service, or SAS, regiment in Western Australia has maintained for some decades a counterterrorism capability, and there are a great many men and women who have dedicated their whole careers to building and maintaining that counterterrorism capability. Indeed, both my wife, Peta, and I have seen that firsthand.

My wife's first posting as a young intelligence officer was to the SAS regiment over 20 years ago now, in 1999 to 2000. She was a subbie over there for a couple of years and got to work with the unit, see the capabilities and work with the people providing those amazing and incredible capabilities. I had some experience as an Army reservist with my last posting before coming to this place, which was, as I said, in a part-time capacity. It was also to the SAS regiment, and I can't speak highly enough of the men and women of the unit and what they do to keep us all safe.

Of course, due to increasing response requirements, we now have a strong capability that's been built up in our commando regiment as well, and our state and Federal Police forces have been enhancing their capabilities to respond to domestic terrorism. Further to that, the current events unfolding in the Middle East are also a poignant reminder that, as much as it bewilders us and as much as I cannot imagine people who would be an enemy of freedom, unfortunately, we have to live in reality, and the reality is that there are people who have absolutely every intent and capability to threaten our freedoms and our way of life—to terrorise us. So we need to be prepared to respond, and this bill goes a long way to ensuring that we maintain the readiness that we must.

Australia's first priority is to keep our citizens safe. This bill provides for the continuation of key counterterrorism powers that ensure the safety and security of Australians. Why, we may ask, is this important? It's because of the current threat environment. The current counterterrorism threat environment continues to be highly relevant as we consider what measures are appropriate and reasonable, and those such measures are contained within this bill. Australia's national terrorism threat level is probable. This means there is credible intelligence assessed by Australia's security agencies indicating individuals and groups have both the intent and the capability to conduct a terrorist act here in Australia.

As at 13 July this year—and since September 2014, when the threat level was raised to probable—136 people have been charged as a result of 64 counterterrorism related operations here in Australia. There have been nine attacks and 21 major counterterrorism disruption operations in response to potential attack planning in Australia. Around 120 Australians or former Australians who have travelled to Syria or Iraq are believed to have died. Around 50 people have returned to Australia after travelling to Syria or Iraq, having joined groups involved in the conflict. Some more sobering statistics as we reflect on the importance of this bill are as follows: since 2012, around 230 Australians or former Australians have travelled to Syria or Iraq to fight with or support violent extremist groups involved in conflict and around 250 Australian passports have been cancelled or refused in relation to the conflicts in Syria and Iraq. As at that same date I mentioned earlier, 13 July this year, around 65 Australians and former Australians in Syria or Iraq have fought with or been otherwise associated with religiously motivated violent extremist groups which remain in the region.

The declared areas offence forms a really important part of the Australian government's effort to stop the flow of foreign fighters. This measure also mitigates the risk that returning foreign fighters do pose to Australia. Although there are currently no declared areas, these provisions remain an absolutely necessary component of our framework in the current threat environment and as we look forward into the future at how that threat environment may further evolve.

Control orders are an important tool in preventing a terrorist attack or foreign incursion and for managing the risk posed by persons who continue to present a risk to our communities. Preventative detention orders are an important tool in preventing an imminent terrorist attack and preserve vital evidence in the aftermath of a terrorist attack. Emergency stop, seizure and search powers ensure that police are able to respond consistently and effectively to a terrorist incident or threat. The sparing use of control orders, preventive detention orders and stop, search and seizure powers demonstrates that our AFP have been appropriately judicious in exercising these exceptional powers. Extending the reporting date for the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor's, the INSLM's, review of division 105A of the Criminal Code will enable the INSLM to engage in interstate consultations, which were disrupted by COVID-19, and provide a greater body of evidence to review the practical operation of division 105A.

By way of some further background in relation to this bill, part 1 of schedule 1 of the bill will extend for a further three years—through to 7 September 2024—the declared areas provisions in sections 119.2 and 119.3 of the Criminal Code Act 1995. These are currently scheduled to sunset on 7 September 2021. This bill will also make amendments to the Intelligence Services Act 2001 so that the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, the PJCIS, may review the operation, effectiveness and proportionality of the declared areas provisions prior to their new sunset date. These amendments respond to recommendations made by the PJCIS in its 2021 Review of 'declared areas' provisions report. The PJCIS report was tabled on 25 February 2021. Part 2 of schedule 1 extends for a further 15 months the control order regime in division 104 of the Criminal Code, until 7 December 2022. This regime is scheduled to sunset on 7 September 2021. Part 3 of schedule 1 extends for a further 15 months the preventative detention order regime in division 105 of the Criminal Code, until 7 December 2022. This regime is scheduled to sunset on 7 September 2021. Part 4 of schedule 1 extends for a further 15 months the emergency stop, search and seizure powers in the Crimes Act 1914, through to 7 December 2022.

The provisions described above, parts 2 to 4, are currently being reviewed by the PJCIS, which has not yet reported. However, it is critical that these powers not be allowed to sunset.

Part 5 of schedule 1 extends the reporting date for the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor's review of division 105A of the Criminal Code to 'as soon as practicable after 7 December 2021'.

I have covered a fair bit of detail in regard to the intent of the legislation and the specific measures. To summarise, what is sitting behind this and what we must continue to recognise is the reality in which we live. Our safety, security, democracy and way of living are under threat, and we need to retain appropriate, reasonable and balanced powers to continue to respond the way we have successfully done thus far and to fulfil in perpetuity the eternal role of government—the first order of business—which is to keep our citizens safe.

Mrs ARCHER (Bass) (12:33): As we've heard, the primary priority of government is to keep our community safe. Terrorism is one form of politically motivated violence. Under section 4 of the ASIO Act 1979, it is defined as a specific set of activities, including acts or threats of violence that are likely to achieve a political objective either in Australia or overseas; acts or threats of violence intended to influence the policy of a government either in Australia or overseas; acts that involve violence or are likely to lead to violence and are directed to overthrowing or destroying the government or the system of Australian government; acts that are defined as terrorism offences; and certain other acts defined in Australian legislation, relating to the taking of hostages or to activities conducted on ships, offshore platforms or aircraft. Terrorist acts and related offences are further defined in the Commonwealth Criminal Code Act 1995 to include acts or threats of violence that are done to advance a political, ideological or religious cause either in Australia or overseas; acts or threats of violence intended to coerce, or influence by intimidation, a part of government either in Australia or overseas; and acts or threats of violence that are done to intimidate the public or a section of the public.

Depending on your view, terrorist acts in Australia can date as far back as the 'Battle of Broken Hill' in 1915, when two men shot dead four people and wounded seven more before being killed by police and military officers. At the time of their attack, they raised the flag of the Ottoman Caliphate—later the Turkish flag—to identify their cause. As we heard from the member for Stirling, for my generation terrorism is probably more synonymous with the 9/11 attacks 20 years ago, and, though this happened on US soil, the devastation of this attack echoed around the world. Around a dozen Australians lost their lives, and some of the foreign policy decisions made by our own government of the day in response to the attack still have a lasting impact, as we've seen just last week in Afghanistan.

Over the past decade in Australia, we have seen several terrorist attacks and many disrupted plots, including the stabbing of two police officers in Melbourne in 2014, the murder of a police accountant in Parramatta in 2015, and the disruption of attacks allegedly planned for Anzac Day and Mother's Day in 2015. Just a few months ago the ASIO director-general told the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security that the threat of a terrorist attack in Australia remains at 'probable' for the next 12 months, meaning that credible intelligence as assessed by our security agencies indicates that individuals or groups have the intent and capability to conduct a terrorist attack in Australia. Whilst the global pandemic has caused significant social and economic challenges across the world, it has not greatly disrupted the threat of terrorism. I therefore rise today to speak on this important bill, the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment (Sunsetting Review and Other Measures) Bill, which provides for the continuation of key counterterrorism powers. It's imperative that the government do all we can to prevent such an attack, and these amendments play an important role in ensuring that we can do so. I thank the joint committee for their important work in this area.

With multiple counterterrorism operations in Australia since 2014, it is essential that ASIO and the AFP have the necessary powers to be able to do their jobs properly. One of the key amendments before us will extend for a further three years the 'declared area' provisions currently in sections 119.2 and 119.3 of the Criminal Code, which form an important part of our government's efforts to stop the flow of foreign fighters and to mitigate the risks that returning foreign fighters—of which there have reportedly been over 200 in recent years—pose to our own communities. To date there have been two areas declared under this section, the Al-Raqqa province in Syria and the Mosul district in Iraq. Al-Raqqa was the first time that the provision was ever put into effect, in 2014, to stop Australians from travelling to the region to become foreign fighters for the Islamic State. Mosul in Iraq was also declared in March 2015, as the government fought to stop Australians from joining the terrorist conflict underway in the area at the time and from supporting terrorist organisations like ISIL, who had a stronghold in the area at that time. I don't think any of us can forget the stories coming out of these areas at the height of ISIL, with barbaric acts a regular occurrence, including mass public executions and beheadings. Any Australian citizen who chooses to join such an organisation should feel the full weight of the law. And, although both orders have since been revoked and there are currently no declared areas, it is of the utmost importance that these provisions are extended as we continue to fight against terrorism.

Through this bill the government is also seeking to extend a number of measures that are otherwise scheduled to expire in just a few weeks including control orders; preventative detention orders; and emergency stop, search and seizure powers. I note that these measures, which have so far been used only sparingly by the AFP and only when necessary, are currently being reviewed by the PJCIS; however, I support the view that it is crucial that these powers are not allowed to sunset until the committee finalises its review and recommendations.

While the threat of religiously-motivated violent extremism remains high, there has also been a sharp increase in people becoming motivated by other forms of violent extremism including ideologically-motivated violent extremism and, specifically, nationalist and racist violent extremism. Nationalist and racist violent extremists are more active than in previous years and pose a serious threat to Australian security. The threat from ideologically-driven violent extremism has now reached 50 per cent of ASIO's total onshore counterterrorism priority case load for the first time.

Just yesterday it was reported that, for the first time, an Australian Neo-Nazi had had his passport cancelled on national security grounds. While dozens of passports of suspected Islamic State fighters from across Australia have been cancelled, this is the first time a white supremacist has lost his rights to travel on national security grounds. Mr Burgess, from ASIO, recently stated that, while Neo-Nazi cells are not new, they are growing and they pose a grave terror threat. The man in question had his passport cancelled by the federal government last year after ASIO advice that he may pose a national security risk if allowed to travel overseas to take up arms in a foreign conflict.

Lastly, I would like to point out that, while these amendments are measures designed to ensure that there are legal ramifications for involvement in a range of terrorist related activities, there are separate measures in place, brought in by this government, to help individuals disengage from violent extremism. Since 2013 we have invested more than $50 million, through the countering extremism program, to build the resilience of communities to violent extremism, reduce the spread of terrorist propaganda online and divert and de-radicalise at-risk individuals.

The terrorism threat facing Australia continues to evolve. Where previously the key threat had been large-scale organised terrorist networks, it has shifted to smaller-scale attacks by individuals and smaller groups. The extension of these measures will ensure that we continue to provide the agencies with the necessary and appropriate powers to continue to identify and stop such potential terrorists.

Dr MARTIN (Reid) (12:41): I rise today to speak in support of the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment (Sunsetting Review and Other Measures) Bill 2021. The truth is that we live in very uncertain times. While we wish it were not so, we know that there are individuals, groups and movements around the world, within Australia and within our own community that wish to do Australia and Australians harm. Our most important responsibility is to keep Australians safe and to protect our way of life, our freedom and our values. Since September 2014 Australia's law enforcement agencies have disrupted 18 major terrorist attack plots. There have been 128 people charged as a result of 59 counterterrorism related operations around Australia. There are 52 terrorist offenders currently behind bars for committing a Commonwealth terrorism offence. Since 2014 the government has allocated more than $61 million to countering violent extremism programs, including more than $13 million for intervention programs.

These individuals, these groups and these movements are driven by many motives. But at their core they are all driven by violent antipathy to all Australians' way of life. Whether it be our multiculturalism, our democracy or our freedom, they wish to change our way of life through acts of violence and the resulting fear they evoke. We are lucky in Australia to have world-class intelligence, security and law enforcement agencies. These agencies are filled with dedicated men and women from all backgrounds who work day in, day out to protect all Australians. Whether it is probing the underbelly of the internet and the encrypted chats of violent extremists, tracking potential threats or preventing terrorist attacks, their tireless efforts keep us safe.

This bill is about ensuring those agencies continue to have the powers they need to keep us safe. That is why this bill must be passed without delay. This bill provides for the continuation of key counterterrorism powers that have helped to protect the lives of Australians since their enactment. In response to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security's 2021 Review of 'declared areas' provisions, the bill will extend the sunsetting of declared areas provisions in the Criminal Code Act to 7 September 2024 and will amend the Intelligence Services Act 2001 to provide for the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security to review these provisions by 7 January 2024, ahead of the new sunsetting date.

The declared areas offence forms an important part of the Morrison government's efforts to stop the flow of foreign fighters to overseas conflict zones and to mitigate the risk that returning foreign fighters pose to Australians. Although there are currently no declared areas, these provisions remain a necessary component of our framework, particularly as we consider the current threat environment and look to the future. Control orders and preventative detention orders are important tools for our agencies. Control orders assist in preventing a terrorist attack or foreign incursion, and they are vital for managing the risk posed by persons who continue to present a risk to the community. Similarly, the preventative detention orders are important in preventing an imminent terrorist attack and in preserving vital evidence in the aftermath of a terrorist attack.

Part 4 of schedule 1 of the bill also extends the operation of the stop, search and seizure powers regime by a further 15 months. This will ensure that the Australian Federal Police are able to respond consistently and effectively to a terrorist incident or threat. This will ensure that these powers do not sunset and will provide time for the government to consider any recommendations of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security's most recent review of Australian Federal Police powers. As the parliamentary joint committee found, and as is noted in their 2018 report into AFP powers, these powers are expected to be exercised only in rare and exceptional circumstances and they remain necessary, particularly in the light of the number of threats against Commonwealth places that have been disrupted in recent years.

As the Attorney-General noted in the other place, this bill reflects the government's ongoing commitment to protecting the Australian community from the threat of terrorism and ensuring that our law enforcement agencies continue to be able to manage the evolving national security threat environment. Our law enforcement agencies have our backs each day. They keep us safe from the worst of society, and we must have their back by ensuring that they continue to have at their disposal the tools that they need to do their jobs effectively.

Ms LIU (Chisholm) (12:47): Protecting the Australian community is, and will continue to be, the Morrison government's highest priority. I rise to speak on the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment (Sunsetting Review and Other Measures) Bill 2021. This bill will provide for the continuation of key counterterrorism powers to keep Australians safe.

First, the declared areas provisions in section 119 of the Criminal Code make it an offence to enter, or remain in, an area declared by the Minister for Foreign Affairs. The declared areas offence is an important part of the Morrison government's efforts to stop the flow of foreign fighters to overseas conflict zones, and to mitigate the risk that returning foreign fighters pose to Australians. However, such a power should not be without limits, and I note the range of carefully defined exemptions in the legislation, including bona fide visits to family members, journalism, a range of official duties and the provision of humanitarian aid. There is also an ability to prescribe additional exemptions through regulations, as required. Although there are currently no declared areas, these provisions remain a necessary component of our framework in the current threat environment and looking to the future.

Second, we have the control order regime in division 104 of the Criminal Code. Control orders are an important tool in preventing a terrorist act or foreign incursion and for managing the risk posed by persons who continue to present a risk to the community. It is important to note that control orders must be issued by a court. The Australian Federal Police can apply to the court to issue a control order against someone and must have the consent of the Minister for Home Affairs.

Third, we have the preventative detention orders regime in division 105 of the Criminal Code. Such orders are an important tool in preventing an imminent terrorist act and preserving vital evidence in the aftermath of a terrorist act. There are also amendments to the Intelligence Services Act as well as the Crimes Act to extend the operation of the stop, search and seizure powers in division 3A, part IAA. These powers ensure police are able to respond consistently and effectively to a terrorist incident or threat. They allow for police to request information to conduct a search and to seize property where they suspect a person might have committed or is about to commit a terrorist act.

The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security is currently conducting a statutory review of control orders, preventative detention orders and the stop, search and seizure powers. This bill ensures that these powers do not cease while this important review is going on. The sparing use of control orders, preventative detention orders and stop, search and seizure powers demonstrates that the AFP have been appropriately judicious in exercising these exceptional powers. As such, to extend the aforementioned powers for a further 15 months is a prudent and proportionate act which will maintain the status quo while the joint committee carries out its important work. It is critical that these powers not be allowed to sunset in the meantime. Australia's intelligence, security and law enforcement agencies are world class. We owe it to the Australian people to make sure that the legal framework that defines the powers of these entities is fit for purpose and enables them to do their jobs and keep us all safe.

Mr CONAGHAN (Cowper) (12:53): I'm very pleased to rise and speak on the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment (Sunsetting Review and Other Measures) Bill 2021. I would like to start by thanking all the AFP and all the members of Australia's intelligence organisations for their diligence and the hard work that they carry out to protect our nation and our nation's borders. This is something that's very, very important to many Australians, including many young Australians. Indeed, I've been contacted by 15-year-old Lachlan Murray, who lives in Sydney and has a very keen interest in this area. It goes to show that it's not just us who work in this place but all Australians who take a very keen interest and are very concerned about our nation's borders. As a former police officer, I respect and applaud this government's continued dedication to keeping the threat of terrorism away from our shores.

The simple fact is that what you can't see can hurt you. That's why our nation's intelligence organisations are so important: they look hard; they know what they're doing and they can see what would hurt us. That's why these extensions are so important. As Australians, we need to appreciate the peaceful freedoms we currently enjoy and we need to appreciate that they aren't given. They have actively been protected in recent years by our current counterterrorism measures, and this bill provides for the continuation of those key counterterrorism powers that will continue to ensure the safety and security of all Australians.

Australia's national terrorism threat level is 'probable', and it has remained at probable since September 2014. This means that over the past seven years there has been credible intelligence, assessed by Australia's security agencies, that individuals and groups have the intent and capability to conduct a terrorist act in Australia. As at July this year, since the threat level was raised to probable in September 2014, 136 people have been charged as a result of 64 counterterrorism related operations around Australia—136 people who wish to do harm to our nation and to our nation's people. There have been nine attacks and 21 major counterterrorism disruption operations in response to potential attack planning in Australia. Around 120 Australians who travelled to Syria or Iraq since 2014 are believed to have been killed and around 50 have returned to Australia after travelling to Syria or Iraq who have been confirmed as being involved in a conflict in those countries. Since 2012, around 230 Australians have travelled to Syria or Iraq to fight with extremist groups, and around 250 Australian passports have been cancelled. We have recognised that these people are a danger to our country and we have cancelled their passports, as we should do and as we will continue to do.

The four key powers that this bill is seeking to extend are the control order regime; preventative detention orders; stop, search and seizure powers; and declared areas offences. The control order regime is an important tool in preventing a terrorist attack or foreign incursion, and in managing the risk posed by persons who continue to present a risk to our community. It should be noted that the control order regime has been used judiciously to date. It has been used responsibly and sparingly: between 2014 and 2021 a total of only 20 control orders were issued. So we recognise, as government, that people have rights. We recognise that these laws should only be used for extreme measures.

The emergency stop, search and seizure powers are there to ensure that police are able to respond consistently and effectively to a terrorist incident or threat as it occurs. In order to exercise these powers, the police officer must suspect on reasonable grounds that a person might be committing or is about to commit a terrorist attack. Preventative detention orders are also an important tool in preventing an imminent terrorist attack, and preserve vital evidence in the aftermath of a terrorist attack. It should be noted again that since the commencement of the regime in 2005 until now no Commonwealth PDOs have been issued. Once again, this reflects the policy intent that these orders should be invoked only in the limited circumstances where traditional investigative powers available to the law enforcement agencies are inadequate to respond to a terrorist threat.

Finally, the declared areas offence forms a very important part of the Australian government's efforts to stop the flow of foreign fighters. It also mitigates the risk that returning foreign fighters pose to Australia. It should be noted that there are currently no declared areas, but the provisions remain necessary for our framework in the current threat environment and in looking to the future in protecting our own borders.

I note that some 18 months to two years ago I undertook a delegation through the Joint Parliamentary Committee on the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity to both New Zealand and Vanuatu. Upon examination of the processes of their border controls, it struck me how well, as a nation, we do to protect our borders against terrorist attacks and incursions by unwanted groups. We have a very big border to patrol, and I go back to my initial comments about how much respect we should show to our Australian Federal Police and indeed our state and territory officers in the job that they do together to protect our borders against what effectively is evil—evil intent with evil deeds. Looking at those smaller nations of Vanuatu and New Zealand, it struck me that Australia is a leader in intelligence and a leader in protecting our communities, bearing in mind the size of our borders around Australia.

In conclusion, I believe that Australia is a country worth protecting, and almost every one of our citizens would believe that. We are very lucky to be in this country. We are lucky we were born here. Some are not as lucky, and many envious eyes are looking at Australia, looking at Australia's borders and looking at Australia's people with that evil intent. Our people and our borders are worth protecting, and that is exactly what these bills do. The sparing use of these measures to date illustrates that they are not being used without considerable justification. The national terrorism threat level is probable, and it is where it has been for the past seven years. What you can't see can hurt you, and I applaud this government's determination in committing to ensure the ongoing safety of all Australians.

Mr ANDREWS (Menzies) (13:02): I rise to speak on the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment (Sunsetting Review and Other Measures) Bill 2021, and I begin with the observation that the defence of the nation and the security of its people is the No. 1 priority of any national government. If a government cannot bring those ends to a good conclusion on an ongoing basis, then most other things fall away. If we need a reminder of the importance of the ongoing fight against terrorism, surely we've had it in the past few days in what's happened in the Middle East.

Let us recall why such legislation is important. We've had nine terrorist attacks in Australia, and numerous ones have been averted. Many individuals have been charged, and 52 are currently in prison as a result of convictions relating to terrorism. We know that at least 230 individuals have travelled to Syria and Iraq to participate in activities there, that some 250 Australian passports have been cancelled and that at least 65 Australians or former Australians have fought with terrorist groups in Syria and Iraq.

These are compelling matters. I was reflecting in the past couple of days that a large number of Australians weren't born when the latest terrorism events occurred. How many Australians were either not born or too young to remember 9/11 and the other events which have occurred around the world since then? So we do need a reminder from time to time as to why measures such as this, which may have been regarded a generation ago as unnecessary, remain pertinent to the security of the nation today.

Let me remind the House of the provisions in this particular bill. Firstly, it extends for a further three years, until 7 September 2024, the declared areas provision in sections 119.2 and 119.3 of the Criminal Code. Section 119.2 pertains to entering or remaining in declared areas, and it states:

(1) A person commits an offence if:

   (a) the person enters, or remains in, an area in a foreign country; and

   (b) the area is an area declared by the Foreign Affairs Minister under section 119.3; and

   (c) when the person enters the area, or at any time when the person is in the area, the person:

      (i) is an Australian citizen; or

       (ii) is a resident of Australia; or

      (iii) is a holder under the Migration Act 1958 of a visa; or

      (iv) has voluntarily put himself or herself under the protection of Australia.

That's the central matter which this goes to. Section 119.3 pertains to the declaration of areas for the purposes of section 119.2 and states:

The Foreign Affairs Minister may, by legislative instrument, declare an area in a foreign country for the purposes of section 119.2 if he or she is satisfied that a listed terrorist organisation is engaging in a hostile activity in that area of the foreign country.

Those two provisions set out further detail as to how a declaration is made and the consequences of such a declaration. The purpose of this bill is to extend, as I said, for a further three years, those particular provisions, particularly to enable the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security to undertake a review of the operation of the provisions.

Secondly, part 2 of schedule 1 of the bill extends for a further 15 months the control order under division 104 of the Criminal Code until 7 December 2022. Division 104 relates to control orders and states:

The objects of this Division are to allow obligations, prohibitions and restrictions to be imposed on a person by a control order for one or more of the following purposes:

(a) protecting the public from a terrorist act;

(b) preventing the provision of support for or the facilitation of a terrorist act;

(c) preventing the provision of support for or the facilitation of the engagement in a hostile activity in a foreign country.

Given the statistics I read out at the beginning of my remarks, one can see why such a provision is a necessary provision. Once again, it is something that this bill extends so that a proper review of it can be undertaken.

Part 3 of schedule 1 of the bill extends for a further 15 months the preventative detention order regime in division 105 of the Criminal Code until 7 December 2022. Division 105 relates to preventative detention orders. The object, as set out in the legislation, is:

… to allow a person to be taken into custody and detained for a short period of time in order to:

(a) prevent a terrorist act that is capable of being carried out, and could occur, within the next 14 days from occurring; or

(b) preserve evidence of, or relating to, a recent terrorist act.

Again, given the statistics which I recited earlier in this contribution, one can see the importance of having such a preventative measure in place in the legislation in Australia.

I conclude on this note: it is through a combination of good management and, frankly, good luck that we haven't had more terrorist incidents in this country. The fact that we have been successful in identifying terrorist activity, the fact that we have been successful in preventing it from occurring and the fact we have been successful in terms of prosecuting and imprisoning people who have been engaged in terrorism acts in the past should not make us in any way complacent to the ongoing threats that occur and will occur in this country. The reality is that there are, in our presence, a group—albeit a small group—of those who would wish to do the worst to this country in terms of carrying out some ideological agenda. That's the reality we have to face. We cannot be complacent. Eternal vigilance is what is required, and this legislation is part of the legislative response to having that eternal vigilance.

Mr TIM WILSON (Goldstein) (13:10): Like for many members, it's a privilege to be able to speak on the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment (Sunsetting Review and Other Measures) Bill 2021, which is of critical importance to the national security of our country.

When it comes to legislation that deals with the challenges of national security, there's generally a good spirit of bipartisan support in this chamber on the simple basis that it's not just an issue on which we have common purpose—and, of course, we should—but also one that is relatively free of the different philosophical divisions between members and what brings them to this chamber. If anything else, if your pursuit of wanting to defend Australia, its interests and the safety and security of its citizens is not part of your core objective and core belief, then the question should be asked: what is it that you are doing here?

In saying that, it doesn't mean that we believe in unlimited restrictions on our liberty or our freedom as a consequence of national security legislation. In fact, I think it's one of the areas in which this parliament can be very proud of its important work in finding that sense of balance. In other countries, including some that are Five Eyes partners or even part of other broader alliances, it isn't always clear that they strike that balance. This is both because they don't start from a position of saying the security and freedom of the individual are of critical importance and because, in the end, they want to seek to empower agencies and government to provide a false assurity because they feel they can justify it as a means to fiddle in the affairs of their citizens.

That is not our way, that will not be our way and that should not be our way. Our balance should be to focus on what we need to do, yes, to keep Australians safe but, critically, to keep them free. It's one of the great principles that underpin the strength of our country. This bill is consistent with that provision because, so often when we seek to introduce legislation that does have a constraint on liberty, often for those who are a target of investigation by our various agencies—from domestic police forces all the way through to agencies that have a broader responsibility beyond our shores—we put in sunset provisions and restrictions which make sure that legislation is reviewed regularly by this parliament. This means there isn't a needless encroachment on people's freedom and, if there is, there's proper accountability. It also addresses the reality that legislation often has to be reviewed against the framework of changing circumstances, both from adversaries and those who wish our nation ill, and against the backdrop of changing technology, as well as the need to be contemporary and relevant to the threats that Australia faces.

What this legislation does is look at some of the bigger challenges we have in terms of foreign conflict, for example, particularly around our foreign fighters legislation and the need to continue declared area offences associated with foreign fighters. This is a controversial part of law. It was reviewed recently by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, of which I am a member. I continue to have philosophical challenges with this provision of law, including the idea that we're going to declare areas in the world where it's essentially illegal to go and that, simply by an Australian citizen's mere presence in that location, they commit a crime. This is why we should review this legislation regularly and have it brought back. Is it still fit for purpose? Is it being utilised properly by our agencies and through the directives of the minister? Are they seeking to use or abuse these very critical powers? I think we can take a high degree of confidence with how they have been implemented, but that is how this government has done so; it needn't mean that other governments in the future may do so. There is a need to continue to review the basis of the legislation, its efficacy in the 21st century and whether it also sets precedents for other areas of law. That, of course, goes for other provisions within the bill—the renewal of the control orders regime; terrorist acts and foreign incursion; managing the risk posed by persons who continue to present a risk to the community; preventative detention orders, which are an important tool in preventing an imminent terrorist attack and preserving vital evidence in the aftermath of a terrorist attack; and emergency stop, search and seizure powers, which ensure police are able to respond consistently and effectively to terrorist incidents or threats. While all of these provisions give capacity to our agencies to do their job, there are heavy restrictions around their use, including protections for people's liberty, so that they're targeted and utilised appropriately.

More importantly, as part of the broader artifice of our national security framework—not just around the safeguards we provide around these types of powers that are given—we send them through the parliament for renewal so that we can be confident around their operational use. We also have, as members may be aware, quite a sophisticated architecture around the ongoing operation of this legislation so that it's used appropriately and there's proper oversight of its day-to-day use. Of course, we have the IGIS, the Inspector-General Intelligence and Security, with the standing powers of a royal commission to make sure that if there is misuse of power it's identified, those responsible are held accountable and it's transparent about abuse either to the public and/or the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security. There's the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor, who looked at some of the provisions around their ongoing extension and their justification. INSLM's job is to continually review laws in the national security space for our country and, in doing so, assess whether they're fit for purpose and what needs to be amended or updated or subtracted—we need to make this critically clear: or subtracted—from the framework of laws because they have reached their use-by date or no longer serve a practical purpose. All of those matters are overseen as well by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, of which, as I mentioned before, I'm a member. We do far more inquiries sometimes than our diaries allow, but that ensures that we are regularly reviewing the proper evidence base for the continuation of these laws, how they operate and the agencies that seek to implement them.

While there are many things in this chamber that we will strongly and vehemently disagree with, and sometimes I'm at the fore of those disagreements, the collegiality even in disagreement and seeking to query the basis of these laws through the PJCIS is something that members can take a great deal of comfort in. As somebody said to me, the committee has literally every part of the philosophical spectrum. In fact, I would say there's a healthy number of civil libertarians currently on the committee offering their own feedback and advice on legislation as it comes through, and, sometimes, I suspect, much to the minister's chagrin, there are requests for not just amendments but, more critically, a wholesale renewal and re-approach towards legislation to make sure it's fit for purpose and it's protecting Australian citizens' interests and their freedom against the backdrop of genuine, sincere national security threats. We as a committee work through those pieces of legislation methodically and pragmatically, in partnership with those who seek to implement it, on behalf of Australians. I know the work the committee does is highly regarded by this parliament because invariably when the PJCIS makes a recommendation—and members on both sides of the chamber are participants—it's generally taken as a given that that should be the broad basis of law. Sometimes there will be minor amendments and sometimes there will be disagreement between the committee, the parliament and the government, because of access to further information that may come about. But the basis of it remains the same and that is something we can all take a high degree of confidence in: its work and, more critically, the advice that's then provided to this parliament about the passage of legislation.

Make no mistake, the bill before us today is one of critical urgency and importance. The Morrison government's first task above all else is to keep Australians secure and safe. The threats that are posed to us as a nation through the risks of terrorism, cyberattacks and other threats remain real, and they are something that we must stay on top of as a nation if we wish to be confident in securing our national interest and the health, safety and wellbeing of the Australian people. Of course, these threats, most of which we do not invite upon ourselves at all, will continue into the future. Nonetheless, we must be in a position to respond to those threats, because those people who wish us harm need to be met with the full confidence of the Australian people and its government and its agencies to defend our way of life, our nation and our national interests. And we make no apology for standing up strongly in doing so, because the first basis of any citizen's freedom is of course their personal security. When that is threatened, they are not just threatened, we are not just threatened, but, of course, the nation is threatened as well. I commend the bill to the House.

Ms BELL (Moncrieff) (13:20): Of course, keeping Australia and our population safe, secure and free is a priority of the Australian government, particularly now, with the challenges that we face across the world. The protection and security of Australian citizens is of utmost importance. There are various regions around the world that are unstable, and this is of great ongoing concern to the government. It's not only instability that creates terrorists; many of these areas produce terrorists. In the worst-case scenarios, sometimes victims of conflict can end up in refugee camps. We've seen this occur in Africa, Syria, Afghanistan, Lebanon, Myanmar and Bangladesh. The closest region to our country, of course, is Myanmar, and those refugees are now in Bangladesh, in Cox's Bazar. Before the pandemic hit in January 2020, I travelled with Save the Children to Cox's Bazar in Bangladesh to witness firsthand over one million refugees who walked across the border from Myanmar to flee the violence and persecution from the military junta who are now in power in that country and continue to persecute their own population, although there have been movements recently where those in the non-military population are banding together, which is good to see.

According to the UNHCR, the UN refugee agency, in 2018—this is interesting—70.8 million persons were forcibly displaced around the world. That's 37,000 people every single day who are losing their personal security and the ability to provide for themselves and their families. The breakdown looks like this: 25.9 million refugees, which is the Australian population, in one year, with 20.4 million refugees under the UNHCR's mandate and 5.5 million Palestine refugees under UNRWA's mandate; 41.3 million internally displaced people; and 3.5 million asylum seekers. In 2018, sadly, 138,600 were unaccompanied or separated children. What happens to those children? Well, they are at risk of being corrupted and radicalised in refugee camps or wherever they find themselves after their displacement. And it's just one part of the whole story. Of course, there are groups in Australia, on our own soil right now, who seek to harm Australian citizens. But the threat of terrorism comes not just from the growing list of terrorist groups; it can emerge from conflict areas around the world that I've just spoken about. I highlight this not because I defend or condone acts of terror but to explain to Australians that many stateless and displaced persons who live in refugee camps under dangerous and desperate conditions are at risk of becoming radicalised and so join terrorist groups.

Can I take this opportunity to thank the international aid organisations, like Save the Children, and the NGOs around the world who work with and in refugee camps and in those environments, which makes a big difference. Australia does good work in this space—work that prevents and counters radicalism and terror at its very core and that improves health, education and social outcomes for so many around the world. Since 2013-14 the government has allocated more than $61 million to countering violent extremism programs, including more than $13 million for intervention programs. I will also point out how deeply challenging it remains for them, for those who are helping across the world, to assist in those interventions when you add the extreme complication of COVID-19 on top of existing situations.

Terrorism is indeed, as I've pointed out, a global challenge. Australia works closely with our international partners in our region and beyond. Underpinning Australia's fight against terrorism is Australia's Counter-Terrorism Strategy, which is based on partnerships between all levels of government, communities and the private sector. The strategy focuses on disrupting terrorist activity within Australia. Since September 2014 Australia's law enforcement agencies have disrupted 18 major terrorist plots to attack Australians, 128 people have been charged as a result of 59 counterterrorism related operations around Australia and 52 terrorist offenders are currently behind bars for committing a Commonwealth terrorism offence.

We are doing some good work in this area, ensuring an effective response to, and recovery from, any terrorist incidents; reducing the lure of violent extremist ideologies; stopping Australians from using violence to express their views and contributing to global counterterrorism efforts. Australia's international counterterrorism efforts are focused on law enforcement, intelligence, border and transport security, diplomacy, defence, terrorist financing, building counterterrorism capacity in the region and countering violent extremism.

We have passed 22 tranches of national security legislation. These are helping our intelligence and law enforcement agencies investigate, monitor, arrest and prosecute extremists. The government has boosted funding of our law enforcement intelligence and security agencies by over $2 billion since 2014. Recent legislation passed by parliament means a person who is a dual national can cease to be an Australian citizen if they act in a way that is inconsistent with their allegiance to our country. This includes engaging in terrorism related conduct, fighting for a declared terrorist organisation outside Australia or being sentenced for at least three years for specified terrorism offences. And 20 people have lost their Australian citizenship through terrorism related actions.

This bill provides for the continuation of key counterterrorism powers that ensure the safety and security of all Australians. The declared areas offence forms an important part of the Australian government's efforts to stop the flow of foreign fighters and mitigates the risk that returning foreign fighters pose to our nation. There are currently no declared areas, but these provisions remain a necessary component of our framework in the current threat environment. Looking to the future, those key counterterrorism powers include control orders; preventative detention orders; and emergency stop, search and seizure powers. The sparing use of a control order; a preventative detention order; and a stop, search and seizure power demonstrates that the Australian Federal Police have been appropriately judicious in exercising these exceptional powers.

Extending the reporting date for the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor's, or INSLM's, review of division 105A of the Criminal Code will enable it to engage in interstate consultations which were disrupted by COVID-19 and provide a greater body of evidence to review the practical operation of division 105A. Once this bill is passed the INSLM will advise a revised schedule for the conduct of this review into division 105A of the Criminal Code.

There are a few technicalities to this bill. I will start with those. I'm sure that in a few moments we will go to 90 second statements and I will have to be in continuance afterwards. But I will start with part 1 of the schedule, which will extend, for a further three years, until the 7 September 2024, the declared areas provisions in section 119.2 and 119.3 of the Criminal Code Act 1995 that are scheduled to sunset on 7 September 2021. This bill will also make amendments to the Intelligence Services Act 2001 to provide that the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security may review the operation, effectiveness and proportionality of the declared areas provisions prior to their new sunset date. These amendments respond to recommendations made by the PJCIS in its 2021 review of declared areas provisions. The PJCIS report was tabled on 25 February 2021. Part 2 of schedule 1 extends for a further—(Time expired)

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Wallace ): Order! It being 1.30, the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour.

Mr CHRISTENSEN (Dawson) (15:38): I rise to speak to the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment (Sunsetting Review and Other Measures) Bill 2021. The Australian government has a duty to the people of Australia to keep the community safe. I note that at the heart of this bill is the desire to keep the community safe from foreign threats, to keep our community safe from those who have gone overseas and fought in foreign wars and perhaps been radicalised while in the hands of Islamists and who come back to our nation here and perhaps try to do harm to those in this country. It's very, very important that we are well aware of the danger that radical Islamism poses to our country. There is not really much to be said about the substance of this bill apart from it extending the sunset clause by another year. There obviously has to be more review done on the powers that have been given to police in this regard, and that extra year will allow for that review to be done.

But one of the foreign wars that we had Australians go over to fight was to train with the Taliban, perhaps to train with terrorist groups, and obviously that resulted in the attacks that we saw on 11 September 2001. I remember it vividly. It is something that is now scarred into the memory of people in the West: the sight of planes flying into the World Trade Center, and the World Trade Center tumbling to the ground and taking with it thousands of people who were working in it; the sight of the Pentagon, with that massive scar in the building from where a jet plane flew into it; and to think, as the Leader of the Nationals spoke so eloquently about earlier in question times, of those brave men and women who took it upon themselves to end the terror flight that they had suddenly found themselves on, and they ended it in the most devastating way, crashing into farming fields instead of crashing into perhaps the Capitol building or perhaps the White House. We'll never, ever know what the true destination of that flight was.

That resulted in the Afghanistan war, which I know some people in this chamber have served in. I don't want to do a big, long rollcall, because I'll miss out some names. But I make particular mention of the member for Herbert, my good friend, who was a veteran of that war and has certainly opened up my eyes to some of the issues that veterans still suffer from following that conflict. And with that conflict coming to an end and the disastrous way in which it was ended, and what has resulted—the collapse of that country, being handed back to the Taliban—I'm certainly not one who is against ending the presence of our troops and US troops in Afghanistan. I've got to say, at the time I was probably someone who supported our going in there. In retrospect, as many of us can say, it probably was not a good thing; it probably could have been achieved quite differently with other actions. And I am certainly no longer a proponent of the 'forever wars' that the military-industrial complex out of the United States seems to forever want to be engaging in.

So, it was good that it came to an end, but the way in which it was ended has led to this outright human misery, and we're going to see long-lasting ramifications from that indeed. We need to ensure that the people who assisted us, who were our allies during that conflict, find a safe haven, whether here in our country or elsewhere. I know that's been done. A lot of criticism has been thrown. Maybe some of it's justified. Perhaps some of it's not, because we're not all privy to what the Department of Defence and the Army and the people on the ground were actually doing there. But I know that well before this popped up in the media I had received, through contacts of mine, concern and requests that I put direct to the defence minister. I let him know about that, and he advised me at that time—we're talking about right back to the beginning of June—that work was underway to try to assist those people. Perhaps it didn't come quickly enough, but that is probably because no-one, not even the President of the United States or, it seems, the Joint Chiefs of the United States Defence Force, realised how quickly Afghanistan would fall—but they should have; they really should have. Withdrawing everything and seeing your equipment, your vehicles and perhaps even your weapons just handed over to the enemy that you've been fighting against and them retaking control of the country—it has just been disgraceful. But I do echo the words of others in this place earlier to all of those men and women who stepped up in uniform to go over to that country and fight in the name of this nation: it was not in vain. We say thank you to them, because they held back further terror attacks from occurring out of that nation. They did do that. And that is an achievement, because, if that didn't happen, we simply don't know what other terror attacks may have happened or what deaths may have occurred.

The whole Afghanistan issue is quite a vexed one, and that is going to play out into the future. What we don't want to see is any encouragement of more people who might be radicalised to the belief system of Islamism, which is very different to the religion of Islam, I might mention. Islam, as we hear many times, is a religion of peace. Islamism is a violent ideology that splits the world into the house of peace—those who have submitted or subjugated to Islam—and the house of war, which is waged against those who are yet to submit. That is a very, very violent and extremist ideology that needs to be confronted and needs to be countered. One way of countering it is actually stopping people from leaving our shores to go over and fight for renegade nations like Afghanistan and the Taliban, ISIS, Boko Haram, Jemaah Islamiyah—a whole heap of different groups that cropped up waging this war in the name of the ideology of Islamism. I know that this bill, as I said at the start, deals with these people returning here and the risk that they pose to people, but having laws in place which deal very swiftly and very justly with those people will be a deterrent in itself. That's why this is to be commended.

Can I just speak a little bit more globally on another issue that's linked to this, and it is with regard to increased power for police around detention and search and seizure. I urge caution to the government. Whenever we give authorities more power against citizens, there is a chance that that power can be misused. That's why I hope that, over the next year, as this sunset clause is extended, we look very, very carefully at the powers that we've bestowed upon our police force. I trust them. The Australian Federal Police are a brilliant outfit. But wherever you give some extra element to an authority to go checking into the lives of people who may have done absolutely nothing wrong you open it up for abuse, so I think that there needs to be a long, hard look. I have no issue when control orders or search-and-seizure orders are done as they would normally be done in the criminal justice system, which is with an order from a court. A judge's order has at least been looked at by someone, a man or a woman, who is steeped in the law, understands what people's legal rights are, is able to look at the evidence that's being presented to them and is able to give a professional and experienced view with all of that jurisprudence behind them. When we simply move to a situation where we're not having that check and balance in the system, I do get gravely concerned. That needs to happen. That's not a commentary specifically on this bill; that's just a philosophy that I have around people's privacy and people's rights.

Going back to the specifics of the bill, I know that the intention is to keep Australians safe from those who have been radicalised—not just radicalised but almost weaponised, you could say—by going off into foreign nations and fighting wars for extremist, violent, radical Islamist organisations and outfits. That is what this bill seeks to pull up, and, hopefully, it will pull it up. We have seen some high-profile arrests of people who have returned. We've seen a lack of this activity in our country, and that's probably also due to the fact that, under former President Trump, ISIS was smashed. We've only just seen the resurgence of the Taliban now. I'm not sure whether or not that's going to lead to radicalised Islamist Australians going overseas, or attempting to go overseas when they can, to fight for such causes as the Taliban, but this bill, once again, becomes the deterrent. If you go over there, you may as well stay over there, because when you come back you're going to be going behind bars, and it's going to be a very, very rough time indeed for you. You have committed a criminal act, and the book is going to be thrown at you.

You can't just saunter over to another country and wage war in the name of such a violent, extremist, radical ideology as Islamism and expect that you can come back here to this country and have all the rights and freedoms that you otherwise would enjoy. What you'll be coming back to is, firstly, a police interview room, then a courtroom and then a cell, and it's going to be a very, very long stay for you indeed if you do that, because, as I said at the start of this debate, the only other option is to let these people roam free in our community, radicalised and potentially weaponised as well, knowing the arts of war after being engaged in those conflicts. And the question is: what sort of actions could those people take against Australian citizens, given that their belief would be that we currently sit in what Islamists would describe as the 'house of war'? We've seen potential incidents like that around this country. We've seen the Lindt cafe siege. We saw the attempt on the plane that was foiled because authorities got hold of information. Thankfully, we have been spared any significant incident in this country and the loss of life that could come from terrorism that is acted out by one of these foreign fighters.

With those words, I do commend the bill but with reservations around people's privacy and people's rights, and I hope that the government takes that in the manner I have given it. I thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker Andrews, for allowing me to speak.

Mr BYRNE (Holt) (15:53): [by video link] It goes without saying, with respect to the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment (Sunsetting Review and Other Measures) Bill 2021, that the Labor Party supports this bill. I also support the second reading amendment that was moved by my friend the member for Scullin with respect to the declared area provisions, but I will come back to that a bit later on in this discussion. As I said, we support the bill.

The bill deals with a range of counterterrorism and other police powers in the Crimes Act 1914 and the Criminal Code Act 1995 which are due to expire on 7 September 2021. These four powers are the declared area provisions, the control order regime, the preventative detention regime, and a range of stop, search and seizure powers. This bill would extend the sunset date on each of these powers which was, as I've said, 7 September 2021. As well as extending a number of the sunset dates, the bill would also allow the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security to conduct a review of the operation, the effectiveness and the proportionality of the declared areas provisions prior to the new sunset date. Finally, the bill would amend the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor Act to give the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor more time to finalise his review of the continuing order regime.

I note the contribution from the previous speaker, the member for Dawson. In terms of his broad support for the legislation that's been put before him and that he was debating and making a contribution on, he raised some issues about privacy concerns; I noted that. I've been someone who has had his parliamentary career defined by what happened on 11 September 2001. I think it was the defence minister who said everyone in Australia knew where they were at the time that those twin towers fell, at the time when those planes hit the twin towers. I can recall that moment nearly 20 years ago vividly, as vividly as though I'm watching it now. Having come into this chamber in 1999, my parliamentary career really has been dominated in many ways by our response to the terror attack by al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden on 11 September 2001. Of the nearly 22 years I have been in parliament, I would say about 19 of those years have been spent working in the counterterrorism space and the intelligence and security space, working with wonderful professionals who do their utmost day and night to keep Australia safe.

The member for Dawson made some comments about what we are being protected from. I think one of the points to make to people listening who might not understand this legislation, the normal person out in the suburbs or someone who has just come in to try and understand this legislation, is: each of these bits of legislation—declared areas, control orders, the preventative detention regime and the stop, search and seizure powers—have been given to the government, to our security agencies and to the police to keep Australians safe, in response primarily to the threat of terrorism. It is a threat that we have experienced with the Bali bombings.

But I also want to make this point with respect to these powers and many other powers that the agencies have been granted: in my experience—and there have been a lot of new powers that have been granted to the agencies, to the security services and to the police force, particularly the AFP—those powers have been used in a judicious and measured way. Keeping in mind the safeguards that have been invariably built into these legislative measures, some of these powers are extraordinary powers—the preventative detention regime and the stop, search and seizure powers. They are not powers that were created without thought for the consequences; they were powers generated out of the necessity of the time, the necessity to respond to the terrorist threat, the necessity to do what it took within the law to keep Australians safe. And these laws for the most part have in fact done that, as have other laws that have been granted to the intelligence agencies and the security services.

I have a bit to do with the Joint Counter Terrorism Team here in Melbourne, and I have a lot to do with the AFP. What I've seen recently should give many people listening to this great heart about the great work that ASIO does, that the AFP does and that their local police do—in particular the Victorian police—to keep us safe. When you hear what the perpetrators of some of the attacks that you have read about in the broad are attempting to do, it chills the blood; it really does chill you to the marrow, what they are intending to do.

I can only relate, and I very vividly relate to, a specific instance, and I will need to take this opportunity because I don't know if parliament will sit again following this week. But coming up in the next week or two, on 23 September, is the seventh anniversary of the Endeavour Hills terrorist attack by a young man who'd been radicalised by ISIL and then sought to kill two police officers, officer A and officer B, who, I am proud to say, have been my friends now for many years subsequent to that event. I came into contact with them shortly after that attack, where the perpetrator, the young terrorist, was killed. Both of these men wear the scars of that attack. Both of these men will be wearing the scars of that attack for the rest of their lives—not just the physical scars, and they are very unpleasant to look at, but the psychological scars. The officers concerned, when they went and spoke to that young man, did not seek to harm him; they were seeking to keep him out of harm's way. Little did they know, on that very dark evening on 23 September, that that young man was beyond saving—beyond guiding out of harm's way. In effect, what had happened to that young man was that he had been so radicalised that he was there with one thing on his mind: that was to kill the police officers, and, if he were successful in killing those police officers, then to mount a further attack, I believe, on Endeavour Hills Police Station. But that attack was thwarted by the bravery of those two police officers. I made a promise to them: that every year, if I had the opportunity, I would mention these two and bring their bravery to the attention of this place. They responded to one of the first attacks put forward when ISIL issued its fatwa in about the middle part of 2014. They bore the brunt of what happened—of what actually can happen when you have a terrorist attack. So again, to those two, I want to specifically take this opportunity to say that there's not a day that I don't remember what you've done and the sacrifice you've made. Many members of the community can't know who you are and what you're experiencing and what you're suffering. But there are many of your friends who do know—friends from the police community, the AFP community and the intelligence community, and your many friends who again would offer you thanks for the great work that you have done in keeping Australians safe. We all want the best for both of you in continuing to heal from that very traumatic event.

I just want to touch more on the particular powers that are contained within this piece of legislation, which Labor supports. One of the things that concerns me, though, is that the control orders, the preventative detention and the stop, search and seizure powers were all due to expire on 7 September 2021, and they're currently under review by our particular committee. Now, it's a significant concern to me and to other Labor members that the Morrison government have left it until the last minute to extend the sunset dates on these powers. What if it hadn't been possible, for whatever reason, for parliament to sit this week, before 7 September, due to the outbreak of COVID in Canberra or other parts of Australia? We know it was a narrowly run thing and this parliament may not have been able to sit. What would've happened is that all of these existing control orders would have lapsed, and that would have left us much less safe. With counterterrorism, with these sorts of regulations, you just can't do 'just in time'; it's just not satisfactory. We could have actually avoided this risk—and it was a safety risk—had the government been paying attention and addressed this sunset clause issue faster. But we are supportive, and this will allow the government to extend those sunset dates to 7 December 2022. This extension will ensure that the intelligence and security committee will have sufficient time to complete the review, prior to the powers sunsetting, and the government will have sufficient time to work through and respond to any recommendations made by the committee.

There's another area, called the declared area provisions. The control order, preventative detention and stop and seizure powers, which were due to expire, as I've said, on 7 September 2021, are, as I said, under review. I want to describe the declared area provisions of the Criminal Code briefly. They allow the Minister for Foreign Affairs to declare an area in a foreign country, if he or she is satisfied that a listed terrorist organisation is engaging in a hostile activity in that area of a foreign country, and make it an offence for a person to enter or remain in a declared area. That is subject to a number of limited exceptions set out in section 119.2 of the Criminal Code, such as providing aid of a humanitarian nature, performing an official duty for the Commonwealth or visiting a family member.

In February this year, the intelligence and security committee recommended that the sunset date for these powers be extended to 7 September 2024 and that the committee be empowered to conduct a review of these powers at any time prior to that date. This bill implements both of these recommendations. The intelligence and security committee, however, also recommended that the declared area provisions be amended to allow Australian citizens to request an exemption from the Minister for Foreign Affairs to travel to a declared area for a reason not listed in section 119.2 of the Criminal Code. The former national security legislation monitor Dr James Renwick made a similar recommendation in 2017. The government has rejected this recommendation on the bases that it could not be effectively implemented and monitored and that the time and resources required to obtain information to assess an application would be significant and would divert security and intelligence resources from other national security priorities. We are not persuaded by this argument, and we think that the government should implement the committee's bipartisan and unanimous recommendation. We recognise that the implementation of this recommendation is complex, but we are calling on the government to work with the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and our security agencies to implement the committee's bipartisan and unanimous recommendation.

As I've said, with everything that we're seeing—the terrors unfolding in Afghanistan, the terrible scenes that we've seen at the airport and the terrible reports that I'm receiving from our wonderful Afghan community here in Melbourne—I'd like to take the opportunity to pay tribute to the men and women of the Afghan community that have made this country their home and who have had a pivotal role to play in the creation of Australia. Afghan cameleers were essential to the development of Australia when they came to this country in the 1800s. Without them, we may not have had the bush telegraph. There are many things that we wouldn't have had, had our Afghan friends not been here. I believe that we owe it to them, in discussing this particular matter in Afghanistan, to provide the support we can to get as many as possible of the people that assisted us in our efforts to keep Afghanistan safe out of harm's way and to bring those that are appropriate and are security cleared to our country. I take this opportunity to speak on behalf of my friends in the Afghan community who are working with the government to assist, in terms of identifying appropriate people that can come to the country, to allow that to happen. We need to be there for them just as they were for us.

We can see what happens. I saw what happened when the Taliban controlled Afghanistan last. Women were sent back into the Stone Age. The great freedoms that have been enjoyed have created a different environment for women that, I believe, is going to be taken away, notwithstanding the rhetoric from the Taliban mark 2. The challenge that was made and particularly enunciated by our Leader of the Opposition is: we'll be watching you and making sure that you abide by the words that you've been saying to the international community.

Mr PITT (Hinkler—Minister for Resources and Water) (16:08): I thank my parliamentary colleagues for their contributions to the debate on the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment (Sunsetting Review and Other Measures) Bill 2021. Protecting the Australian community from the evolving threat of terrorism is and will continue to be among the government's highest priorities.

This bill will provide for the continuation of key counterterrorism powers to keep Australians safe. The declared areas offence is an important part of the Australian government's efforts to stop the flow of foreign fighters to overseas conflict zones and to mitigate the risk that returning foreign fighters pose to Australians. Control orders and preventative detention orders are important tools used to prevent terrorist acts and manage the risk posed by persons who continue to present a risk to the community. The emergency stop, search and seizure powers ensure that police are able to respond consistently and effectively to a terrorist incident or threat. The extension of the reporting date for the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor, the INSLM, to review division 105A of the Criminal Code will enable the INSLM to engage in interstate consultations which were disrupted by COVID-19 travel restrictions and provide a greater body to draw upon in this review of the practical operation of the provisions.

The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security is currently conducting a statutory review of control orders, preventive detention orders and the stop, search and seizure powers. This bill ensures these powers do not cease while this important review is ongoing.

The committee's separate review of the declared areas provisions was tabled on 20 February 2021. This bill implements key recommendations made by the committee in this review, including that the Criminal Code Act 1995 be amended to provide that the PJCIS may review the operation, effectiveness and proportionality of the declared areas provisions by 7 January 2024, ahead of the new sunsetting date of 7 September 2024.

I thank my colleagues across the chamber for their consideration of these important measures. This bill reflects the government's ongoing commitment to protecting the Australian community from the threat of terrorism and ensuring our law enforcement agencies continue to be able to manage the evolving national security threat environment. I commend the bill to the House.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Andrews ): The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Scullin has moved as an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The immediate question is that the amendment be disagreed to.

Question agreed to.

Original question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Mr PITT (Hinkler—Minister for Resources and Water) (16:11): by leave—I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Ms BURNEY (Barton) (16:13): I rise to speak on the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Improving Supports for At Risk Participants) Bill 2021. This government rarely pulls the right rein on disability. When there is a disability emergency they are painfully slow to react, and then when there are reforms that require close consultation with disability groups they are suddenly in a mad rush. We see these erratic competing tendencies in this current bill. It has its origins in the tragic demise of an Adelaide woman, the late Ann-Marie Smith. Ms Smith, Annie to her friends, died of neglect on 6 April last year.

Following her death Labor called for an investigation into system failures which contributed to her losing her life. The NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission appointed former Federal Court judge Alan Robertson to that review. The Robertson review was completed on 31 August this year. It made 10 recommendations, of which the government now seeks to legislate five. Today is 23 August 2021. Those paying attention will realise that that means that more than a year has passed since Annie Smith's death; it was 31 August last year. Over 51 weeks have passed since the government received the recommendations of the Robertson review, and the Morrison government has had all that time to grapple with the necessary changes. Yet now we are rushing on this bill without having performed any formal consultation with disability stakeholders in the sector at all. The government has had time to go through two NDIS ministers but not to consult with people with disability about this bill. We remember that the member for Fadden—he of the home internet bills, of Rolex watches, of robodebt, of the COVIDSafe app and of the imaginary hackers that brought down MyGov—failed up and got promoted by his good friend the Prime Minister. Senator Linda Reynolds was in some hot water of her own and moved into the NDIS from Defence. It's a shame that neither of them take the Australian disability community seriously enough to ask them properly for their views on this bill.

Labor is supporting this bill in the House on the basis that we will move detailed amendments in the Senate in order to address the consultation and privacy issues raised in the Senate inquiry. But this is a recurring theme in the Morrison government's treatment of disability—unfortunately, even during Senator Reynold's time at the helm. We saw it in this government's steamroller-style approach when trying to railroad cuts and unpopular mandatory independent assessments through. No matter how much Australians with disability told this government that they did not want mandatory independent assessments, that was no good; the government remained committed to steamrolling them in, dropping the plan only when the premiers refused to go along with it. We saw during this sorry chapter how, instead of engaging in genuine consultation, the government simply faked consultation and patronised the disability community. How patronising was it that, instead of genuine and open-minded consultation, this government had a communications plan, which leaked, to simply tell the disability community: 'We listened, we heard. We were never actually listening and never actually hearing.' They refused to turn off the motor on plans to make savage cuts that will hurt Australians with disability.

As I said, it has now been more than a year since Adelaide woman the late Ann-Marie Smith died a sad and lonely death. Ann-Marie Smith had cerebral palsy and she lived alone. 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 when she died on 6 April. Some details of her death and her 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. Her chair had become her toilet. On 5 April, her carer attended Ann-Marie's home and, finding her unresponsive, called an ambulance.

She had major surgery at Royal Adelaide Hospital to remove rotting flesh from severe pressure sores on her body. She went into palliative care and died the next day. She died of severe septic shock, multiorgan failure, severe pressure sores, malnutrition and issues connected with her cerebral palsy. The police referred to her death as occurring in disgusting and degrading circumstances. Only upon admission to the hospital, when a complaint was made by 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. This should never happen in this country. This is an indictment on NDIS and the care that Ann-Marie was offered.

There was a characteristic lack of transparency about the authority's actions, in this case from the former NDIS minister, the member for Fadden. But we should be able to safely assume that on the day of Ann-Marie's death, when the Health and Community Services Complaints Commissioner was notified, the former NDIS minister, the member for Fadden, was also notified. Despite this, the case was not made public by the police until the police probe triggered media reports more than a month later in mid-May—shocking circumstances. It took a week after that for the NDIS watchdog, the quality and safeguards commission, to sanction the company, the NDIS provider being paid for Ann-Marie's care. The penalty was a measly $12,600 fine—insulting, disrespectful, pathetic.

The South Australian government launched a state inquiry, but the minister refused to launch a national equivalent despite another death by neglect of an NDIS participant at a house in Sydney. I tend to think the quality and safeguards commission, the so-called watchdog, would have been happy to leave it at that. Under pressure to do something, the member for Fadden said the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission would look into Ann-Marie's case. This amounted to the member for Fadden suggesting the watchdog should look into a case where the watchdog's own neglect and inaction would play a starring role. If the watchdog had done its job, this provider and carer would not have been able to neglect Ann-Marie's death.

On 25 May, Labor publicly pointed out the unworkable conflict in Mr Robert's sick solution and demanded an independent inquiry. The next day the watchdog announced 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 NDIS participant David Harris, who, after being unilaterally kicked out of the NDIS, was found in his Parramatta apartment after he passed away. Mr D Harris died in his home after his NDIS supports were cut off because he missed a review meeting. 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 the Morrison government's disability watchdog, the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission, was also happy for the provider to take a small fine and leave it at that. Sadly the real disability watchdog's work in this case had been left to the South Australian Police, and they only get called in after a tragedy has already occurred. But following public scandal, strong work of the police and disability watchdog and a longer think about it, it eventually deregistered the provider. Better late than never, I suppose. What a terrible insult to how, after eight years of Liberal rule, these things are still operating. The sad truth, though, is that we have a disability watchdog that is not performing its role and an eight-year-old government turning a blind eye.

When the circumstance of Ms Smith's demise came to light, the then NDIS minister, the member for Fadden, should have come down on the quality and safeguards commission like a thunderbolt. In short, the former minister should have made the commission do its job, and the new minister should do the same. Instead, too often this government provides cover to the watchdog, which has been found sleeping. All institutions tend towards entropy. The fault lies at the Morrison government's feet for, firstly, allowing this to happen and, secondly, after the alarm had been sounded by these deaths, for failing to demand that things be done differently. The government funds the executive watchdog to jet around but does not ask them what they do in unannounced spot checks on the industry to keep everybody safe. The overall 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 keeps an eye on the sector and weeds out the bad ones who do not do the right thing and that it does that before they do a great amount of harm.

In conclusion, Ann-Marie's death requires that there be proper reform. It requires that there be proper reform based on proper consultation. We have before us this bill, which a year later and without any proper consultation with Australians with disability, proposes changes which would implement five of Mr Robertson's review team recommendations. We had the AFDO, the Australian Federation of Disability Organisations, blowing the whistle on the fact that this government has left them in the dark in relation to this bill. And it wasn't just the AFDO. Almost every submitter to the Senate inquiry talked about the failure to consult. People with Disability Australia were left in the dark. Queensland Advocacy Incorporated were left in the dark. Even the Victorian government was left in the dark.

The sector's concerns about the consultation process and privacy were noted by Labor. I say to the current NDIS minister, Minister Robert: I know you inherited a mess from your predecessor, but, if you continue to treat the disability sector like mushrooms by keeping them in the dark, you will be bundled in with your predecessor; if you continue with savage, illogical cuts to the NDIS, you will be bundled in with your predecessor. Listen to what I am saying. There is much more that this government can do that is positive for Australians with disability. It can have an inquiry into preventable NDIS deaths that is not limited to one case, an inquiry that considers the deaths of Liam Danher in Queensland, David Harris in New South Wales, Tim Rubenach in Tasmania and Jeff Barker in Western Australia—NDIS participants whose deaths could have been avoided.

These were real Australians whose lives were betrayed by negligent officialdom. They should not be regarded by this government as problems to be managed. They should be regarded as symptoms of a system that is not working. They should be looked at with a clear eye by this government, and the proper steps should be taken to prevent further tragedies. The first step, an important step, is putting away the razor and scythe and dealing with the disability community with open ears.

Ms BELL (Moncrieff) (16:29): I'm pleased to speak on the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Improving Supports for At Risk Participants) Bill 2021 as we, in government, on this side of the chamber, continue to improve social services for Australians near and far.

The measure of a functioning and fair democracy and its people is how we support those who need extra help. In Australia, we have social security, a safety net for all our eligible citizens, that you don't see in very many other countries around the world. Services Australia administer our safety net to millions of Australians every year. In fact, Australians will be interested to know that there are 25.9 million Medicare customers alone, 9.3 million unique Centrelink customers and 1.2 million children supported by child support across our great country. Centrelink, Medicare and child support payments benefit families, students, trainees and apprentices, carers, pensioners, migrants, refugees, humanitarian entrants and new arrivals. These important supports assist in one form or another to make sure that Australians have a unique safety net that is adequate for those who receive it and fair to those Australian taxpayers who fund it. During the pandemic, the JobSeeker coronavirus supplement supported, and now the COVID disaster payment continues to support, Australians through these most trying times.

In addition to the safety net of social services, we have the National Disability Insurance Scheme, or the NDIS, a scheme designed to support those in our communities who have a permanent and enduring disability. Across Australia there are 466,000 participants, and in my electorate of Moncrieff there are 2,245 individuals who we as Australians support. The bill before the House will further improve supports for NDIS participants at risk from harm, and all amendments in this bill seek to improve or clarify NDIS quality and safeguard arrangements to better protect participants from harm. Surely that's what those from the other side want to see: better protections to protect participants from harm. This bill makes technical amendments to better support the operations of the NDIS commission based on early implementation experience.

This bill responds to the Robertson review, conducted in May 2020 by the Hon. Alan Robertson SC at the request of the NDIS QSC commissioner, Mr Graeme Head. On release of the report in September 2020, the commissioner said:

In the course of his review, Mr Robertson has considered wider issues of safeguarding of people with disability who are particularly vulnerable. While Mr Robertson did not identify any fundamental flaws, he has made observations and recommendations regarding things that he believes would assist the NDIS Commission in taking earlier action. These observations and recommendations concern the NDIS Commission's processes and systems and its legal framework and will be valuable in considering ways in which protections for NDIS participants most at risk of harm could be further enhanced.

The Robertson review made several recommendations for improvements in key areas to safeguard at-risk NDIS participants. Let me outline some of those from that report. It's quite a long report—it took a while to read it yesterday in my office—but I'd like to match the recommendations with the actions that the Morrison government has actually taken to safeguard those who are under the NDIS scheme. Recommendation 1 is:

The Commission should act 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 …The Commission and the NDIA should have a freer and two-way flow of information for this purpose.

So, in this bill, to better protect those with a disability, we see the incorporation of the improved information sharing between the NDIA and the NDIS necessary to prevent or lessen a serious threat to an individual's life, health or safety. Recommendation equals action.

Recommendation 2 is:

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

This bill provides that the NDIS can disclose information to worker screening units and other agencies as required, and the NDIS commission can publish and maintain information about historical compliance and enforcement action.

Recommendation 8 states:

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.

Well, this bill before us today will strengthen the support and protections for people with disability by ensuring a clear and effective legislative basis for the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commissioner's powers and for compliance and enforcement arrangements, provider registration provisions, and efficient information-sharing across governments and government agencies—exactly what the recommendation outlined.

I move to recommendation 10 from the Robertson review:

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.

This aspect of the review is the subject of the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Strengthening Banning Orders) Bill 2020, currently before the Commonwealth parliament. The commissioner should have the same power in relation to the NDIS service providers—that is, the power to ban should include entities no longer providing those services. While the NDIS Act gives the commissioner the power to ban an NDIS provider or worker on the grounds that they are not suitable to deliver NDIS services and supports, it does not presently set out how suitability is determined for banning orders.

The NDIS Amendment (Improving Supports for At Risk Participants) Bill provides the power for the commissioner to make rules in relation to suitability for that very purpose, aligning with existing provisions in relation to provider registration. The bill also clarifies elements of the process that providers must follow when registering to deliver NDIS services and supports. This process includes applicants being able to withdraw applications, and applications for renewal or registration being deemed to have been withdrawn if the registered provider becomes the subject of a revocation or banning order during the renewal process. These are just some of the technical safeguards in this bill to strengthen the wellbeing of NDIS participants and to keep them safe—and that's what we on this side of the House want: to make sure that those over 400,000 NDIS participants are kept safe and safeguarded. The Morrison government is committed to consider ways to further support people with a disability, to live their lives free from abuse, free from violence, free from neglect and free from exploitation.

I turn to the impact this bill may have on some NDIS providers. It's true that there will be a broadening of reportable incidents under the prescribed rules. But these are minor adjustments, and they will ensure that the treatment of NDIS participants is in line with community expectations. The NDIS commission will work closely with providers around any adjustments necessary to fall in line with the prescribed rules. These technical amendments will improve the safety and wellbeing of Australia's 466,000 NDIS participants, through clarification of the rules, without significantly changing the powers of the NDIS commissioner. I'm certain that all Australians will agree when I say that we must continue to support those in our community who need extra help and we must continue to improve our social services and our safety net for all eligible Australians.

Ms CATHERINE KING (Ballarat) (16:39): I rise to speak on the NDIS Amendment (Improving Supports for At Risk Participants) Bill 2021. I particularly want to acknowledge how we got here. Mr Deputy Speaker, I think you've heard from the member for Barton and you'll hear from other speakers that this is the result of some absolutely appalling and tragic circumstances that never should have happened. The fact that we are here in this House having to put in place such strong measures to protect people, I think, is an indictment on us as a society that these circumstances happened in the first place. But the bill does seek to make a range of changes to the NDIS Act in response to recommendations 1, 6, 7, 8 and 9 of the Independent review of the adequacy of the regulation of the supports and services provided to Ms Ann-Marie Smith, an NDIS participant, who died on 6 April 2020. The report was conducted by the Hon. Alan Robertson SC. These recommendations include facilitating better exchange of information between the National Disability Insurance Agency and the commission and the disclosure of information to relevant state and territory bodies.

Labor welcomes the Morrison government's decision to act on the recommendations of the Robertson review, even though it has been 12 months since the former judge, Alan Robertson, handed down this report and some 16 months since Ms Ann-Marie Smith passed away. Labor also acknowledges the lack of consultation and the continuing failure of the government to consult people with a disability on changes that directly impact on their lives. I think the member for Barton eloquently warned the government that you cannot continue to treat the disability sector and those with disability like mushrooms and not actually inform them of, and engage them in, the changes that you are seeking to make to a program that has such a direct and powerful and important impact on their lives. Labor does believe that everything possible should be done to protect people with disability from neglect and abuse. While the bill does not address some gaping holes in the NDIS safeguarding, such as the lack of proactive checking on service providers and an ineffective and understaffed NDIS commission, we do support this bill.

Ms Smith's death was tragic, and tragically it is not the only death which has arisen through NDIS mismanagement and through those who prey on those with a disability. Tim Rubenach, David Harris, Liam Danher: these are names we should remember, Australians who deserved better. The Morrison-Joyce government needs to take responsibility for these deaths by neglect, and it needs to ensure that there are no more. The Morrison-Joyce government also needs to commit to genuine consultation with people with a disability, disability rights organisations and disability representatives on all major changes to the NDIS Act. People with a disability deserve no less.

On behalf of the member for Barton and the member for Maribyrnong, 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) commit to genuine consultation with people with disability, disability rights organisations and disability representatives on all major changes to the NDIS Act".

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Wallace ): Is the amendment seconded?

Mr Hill: 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 Ballarat has moved as an amendment 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 amendment be disagreed to.

Dr ALLEN (Higgins) (16:43): On 6 April 2020, Ms Ann-Marie Smith died of severe septic shock, organ failure, severe pressure sores, malnutrition and other issues connected with the poor care of her disability, cerebral palsy. It was a case that shocked a nation, and the National Disability Insurance Scheme commission moved to ban the disability care agency, Integrity Care (SA), from operating after its client, Anne-Marie Smith, so tragically died. In this day and age no-one expects that level of shocking care. Recently her sole carer, Rosa Maione, pled guilty to her manslaughter. Every Australian deserves to be safe and cared for, and disability is not a compromise to this. The National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Improving Supports for At Risk Participants) Bill 2021 will strengthen the support and protections for people with disability by ensuring a clear and effective legislative basis for the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission's powers; compliance and enforcement arrangements; provider registration provisions; and efficient information sharing across governments and government agencies.

All the amendments within the bill are important to the integrity of a scheme that so many Australians with disability and their carers rely on. There are over four million Australians who have a disability. Data shows that, as of 31 March 2021, over 122,000 people in my home state of Victoria are benefiting from the NDIS. In Victoria around 51,000 people are now receiving support for the first time. These aren't just numbers; they are mothers, daughters, sisters, brothers, sons. They are Australians living with disability, and they are the reason we must work together as a government to continually find and address changes to improve the scheme, just as we are doing today. We're fighting to ensure that one of the core and most essential pillars of the scheme is strengthened—the safety of those within care.

Following the shocking death of Ann-Marie Smith, the commissioner requested a review, which was undertaken by the Hon. Alan Robertson, named the Robertson review. The bill before us responds to a number of recommendations following the conclusion of the review. All amendments within this bill seek to improve or clarify NDIS quality and safeguard arrangements to better protect participants from harm. This bill is not saying that all care providers are falling short. The majority of Australian providers show a great deal of care and indeed love for their participants. But, very unfortunately, there are a small number of providers that we as a government need to step in and ensure are meeting the care needs that all Australians expect and deserve.

I would like to give a shout-out to the NDIS sector, because I know how tough this has been, through COVID, where they've had to pivot the way they're caring for those under their care. It has been very difficult, but they are doing such a stellar job to help the most vulnerable in our community. That's why we're strengthening reporting and safeguards, to protect participants from providers who fail to meet those standards. A few bad eggs can do a lot to undermine the integrity as well as the reputation of a sector that is working so hard for our most vulnerable.

The bill addresses important recommendations around information sharing and reportable incidents. It provides for improved information sharing between the NDIS commission and the National Disability Insurance Agency, the NDIA, to better protect people with disability. Present clauses in the NDIS Act establish a relatively high threshold for sharing information. They establish that the disclosure must be necessary to prevent or lessen a serious threat to an individual's life, health or safety. This bill here today enacts a less restrictive threshold in recognition of recommendations of the Robertson review. This bill removes qualifiers like 'serious' or 'necessary' to ensure that any threat to life, health or safety is sufficient grounds for the recording, use or disclosure of protected NDIS commission information. It also amends provisions for disclosing information in a number of other specific situations, including that the NDIS commission is able to disclose information to worker screening units and other agencies as required and that the NDIS commission can publish and maintain information about historical compliance and enforcement action. This is about making sure that the system is self-aware.

The bill also provides for greater clarity around reportable incidents, including broadening the scope and reporting to the NDIS commission in the commission's rules. Currently quality assurance of registered NDIS providers is undertaken by approved quality auditors who are engaged by providers directly. The market for quality auditors includes a wide range of experience levels and sector knowledge. As such, this bill will allow the commission to place conditions on the approval of quality auditors and makes explicit the commission's power to vary or revoke approval of quality auditors. These decisions will be reviewable, but they really do enable the commission's powers to have more teeth so that it can do what it needs to do.

The bill before us makes a number of amendments to ensure consistency and procedural fairness in the application of the NDIS commission's regulatory responses, including compliance notices which can be varied or revoked, decisions in relation to those requests being reviewable decisions, and banning orders that can have conditions attached. The NDIS Act currently gives the commissioner the power to ban an NDIS provider or worker on the grounds that they are not suitable to deliver NDIS services and supports. Currently the legislation does not set out how suitability is determined for banning orders. The bill before us provides the power for the commissioner to make rules in relation to suitability for that purpose, aligning with existing provisions in relation to provider registration. This bill also clarifies elements of the process that providers must follow when registering to deliver NDIS services and supports, including that applicants are able to withdraw applications and that applications for renewal of registration are deemed to have been withdrawn if the registered provider in question becomes the subject of a revocation or banning order during the renewal process. These amendments and other minor technical amendments will strengthen the supports and protections for NDIS participants and help ensure their wellbeing. The remaining recommendations from the Robertson review relate to policy options which are being progressed through the joint work with states and territories in strengthening supports and protections for people with disability who are at risk of harm.

The NDIS is a world first that, quite frankly, both sides of the chamber can be proud of and that all Australians should be justifiably proud of. That's why we, as a government, have committed an additional $13.2 billion up until 2023-24 for disability supports under the NDIS. This is in addition to the extra $3.9 billion included in the 2020-21 budget, bringing total extra federal government NDIS funding to $17.1 billion. This is a large and significant social support scheme for those who are vulnerable in our community, with 450,000 participants now receiving NDIS supports and with a projection of 530,000 Australians having access to this scheme. We continue to consult on ensuring that the NDIS will remain sustainable through this growth projection.

Every Australian expects that every Australian, no matter what their individual circumstances, will be cared for with dignity and respect. The Morrison government is committed and continues to consider ways to support people with disability to live lives free from violence, abuse, neglect and exploitation. This bill is another step towards that outcome.

I commend the bill to the House.

Ms THWAITES (Jagajaga) (16:52): [by video link] The NDIS is such an important part of our country, and it should provide people with disability and the wider community with the certainty that they will have access to the support they need. But, under this government, the NDIS is not operating as it should to improve the lives of people with disability, their families and their carers. Under this government, it has become a bureaucratic labyrinth that leaves too many people and families despairing about decisions they don't understand. It has left participants exposed and at risk.

The National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Improving Supports for At Risk Participants) Bill 2021 is being introduced after multiple cases of neglect and abuse of participants, including the disturbing failures that led to the death of Ann-Marie Smith 16 months ago. It's welcome that it will partially implement recommendations of the Robertson review, but I worry that, given this government's track record, it just won't be enough. I talked about people with disability being exposed to risk because of the neglect of this government, and, at the moment, they remain far too exposed because of this government's failures to get the COVID vaccine rollout right.

We know that people with disability are among the most vulnerable to COVID-19. In the UK, we've seen that it's estimated that up to two-thirds of all deaths from COVID are people with disability. With that knowledge, you would think that vaccinating people with disability and the people around them would be an absolute priority for this government. Yet figures that we saw on the weekend show that just 26.9 per cent of NDIS participants aged over 16 who were in phase 1a or phase 1b of the vaccine rollout are fully vaccinated. In comparison, 29.6 per cent of the general Australian adult population is now fully vaccinated. So the general population is more fully vaccinated than this vulnerable at-risk group that the federal government is responsible for.

Overall, 67.3 per cent of NDIS participants in group homes—that's about 22,000 people—have had one dose of their vaccine and 51.9 per cent have had two doses. These are people who are in phase 1a of the rollout. They are people living in group homes. The government know where they are living. They have access to that data. Why is it that they are not vaccinated yet? And, of course, this extends across to the workforce. Of the approximately 164,660 people in our country's disability workforce, 55.6 per cent have had their first vaccination and 36.7 per cent have had two doses. This is leaving people with disability dangerously exposed, both on a personal level where they are not vaccinated but also where the workers who come into their houses, who have to visit multiple houses, are also not vaccinated. At a time in our community here in Melbourne when once again we are seeing case numbers rise and we are worried about the spread of this virus, it is just not good enough. It is neglect.

We also see the Morrison government leaving disability providers to struggle through this pandemic. I have recently been in touch with providers in my electorate who are unsure if they will make it through to the other side of the COVID pandemic—particularly some of those who provide day services and so cannot operate during lockdowns. We have no national plan from the government to support these sorts of providers. These providers want to do the right thing by the people with disability and the families that they support, but they can't operate during lockdown. There's no plan from this government and no sense of how they will be supported to get to the other side. Of course, again, that leaves my community exposed not just at the moment but also in the future. Once again, once we get through lockdowns, we want these services to be there for people with disability to access and to use. These are services that are trying to do the right thing, but they are being left exposed, they are being left vulnerable, by this Morrison government. Because of a botched vaccine rollout, people with disability are not vaccinated and carers are not vaccinated, and people are at risk when they just should not be.

Of course, it didn't take a pandemic for this government to neglect people with disability. This bill seeks to implement changes to better support vulnerable or at-risk NDIS participants, after multiple incidents of abuse, neglect and death within the system. These deaths should have been preventable.

People like Ann-Marie Smith were victims of bureaucratic red tape and a bad culture within the NDIS. The case of Ann-Marie Smith is harrowing. Her story just should not have happened. Ann-Marie Smith, a 54-year-old Adelaide NDIS participant, died on 6 April 2020 from severe septic shock, multi-organ failure, severe pressure sores and malnutrition. Her NDIS package included six hours of support per day. It's since been reported that she received only two hours of care and was confined to a cane chair 24 hours a day for more than a year. These circumstances should not have occurred under this government's watch—under any government's watch. Her carer has now pleaded guilty to manslaughter.

Since her death, the South Australian government has created a safeguarding task force to re-examine current gaps in oversight and safeguards for people with disability. And at a federal level we've had the Robertson review report, which has looked at the regulation of providers. It was handed down 12 months ago and made a number of recommendations. Disappointingly, that review did not have statutory powers, the submissions were not made public and there was no formal consultation or wider sector engagement.

This is again where we see a pattern from this government when it comes to its treatment of people with disability and the people who advocate for them. It does not consult with them. It does not ask them about what they want in their life and how they want to be safe and how best to achieve that. So, while obviously the measures in this bill are welcome, I share the concerns of disability advocates around how they will be implemented. I urge the government to consult with people with disability, disability advocates and the sector more broadly on how best to implement these changes and how to make sure people with disability are safe under the NDIS.

I talked about lack of consultation. The biggest example we've seen of that recently has been the government blindsiding Australians with disability with its plan for independent assessments. That plan has now, rightly, been scrapped. What a failure of this government! It goes to the heart of how they see people with disability and the NDIS, that they would consider implementing this sort of system without consulting with the people it is going to affect the most. I can tell you how much worry and severe concern it caused in my electorate, from people with disability to the families of young children with disability, who have fought so hard for their children to have the support they need and who were very worried about what this system would mean for what that would look like in the future. They raised their concerns and voices over a number of months, and for months and months this government just did not listen.

People with disability should not have to prove they have a disability. That's not the point of the NDIS. They should not have to go to a stranger and undergo a tick-a-box exercise to prove their disability. That is not the point of the NDIS. The Morrison government does not support the aims of the NDIS if that's what it thinks the NDIS is all about. It's not about that; it's about making sure people have the support they need to live the life they should.

It's positive that these assessments won't go ahead. But it is a failure of the government that they caused so much stress and heartache and that they took up so many hours on the part of people with disability and their advocates before they finally saw the light. Of course, we don't know where the government will go next on any of this, as they keep telling us, without providing the evidence, that the scheme is, as it is, unsustainable. I urge the government, if they're thinking of making further changes to the NDIS, to consult genuinely with people with disability and with their advocates across the country.

Another example of the government not meeting the needs of people with disability in my electorate has come to me recently, and that is the severe lack of affordable, accessible housing for people with disability and their families. Grace Dlabik lives in my electorate, and her son Elijah has a disability. Yet a lack of appropriate, affordable, accessible housing that meets her family's needs means she is currently bathing Elijah outdoors or in their kitchen. That should not be the case in this country. Grace is passionate about fixing this situation for her son and her family, and for other families, but this should not rely on Grace's passion and determination. I'm very proud that Labor has committed to a $10 billion fund to build more affordable housing—housing that will be accessible. But it is a massive failure of the Morrison government that they have not done more to provide affordable, accessible housing for people with disability and their families. In this country, in my electorate, that should not be an option for you—that you have to bathe your son in the kitchen or outside because you can't find an accessible affordable option to live in. It just should not be. I urge the Morrison government to do more to provide accessible, affordable housing for people with disability and their families.

The theme that runs through all this is of a tired government that does not care about genuine policy reform, a tired government that does not seem to care about delivering services for people—services that are safe, that safeguard vulnerable people, that are built on what people with disability and their families tell the government they need in their lives. This is a government that spent eight years cutting funding to vital services. They are trying to scare us around a black hole in the NDIS without providing the evidence for what they're talking about. It's another scare campaign on top of a scare campaign that they're running for people with disability and their families.

This government doesn't seem to care about the lives of people with disability. It doesn't seem to care about the lives of their families and their carers. In a pandemic, at a time when we are all on edge, feeling more stressed and more strung out and having to dig deeper than ever before, this government is not protecting people with disability. It has not ensured that Australians with disability are fully vaccinated. At a time when we're seeing outbreaks all over the country, people with disability are still vulnerable, people who work with people with disability are still vulnerable, and not vaccinated. It is a failure of the Morrison government that these people have been left in this dangerous, precarious situation at this time.

This bill is welcome. It does some of the things this government should do, but it by no mean does all of the things this government should do. I urge them to act. I urge the Morrison government to listen to people with disability, listen to their advocates, to make sure that people with disability are safeguarded both now during the pandemic with vaccines and more broadly through the NDIS. So that we know the safeguards are in place, so that we never ever see another tragic case like Ann-Marie Smith and more broadly: listen to people with disability, listen to their advocates about how you shape the NDIS going forward because they know what is best in their lives and it is not the cost-cutting, mean-spirited options put forward by this government.

Dr WEBSTER (Mallee) (17:06): [by video link] It's a pleasure to join you virtually to speak on the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Improving Supports for At Risk Participants) Bill 2021, to strengthen support and protections for people living with a disability. The NDIS amendment bill 2021 will provide an effective basis for the NDIS commissioner's powers to enforce provider registration provisions and efficient information sharing across government and its agencies.

The bill responds to a number of recommendations of the independent review—otherwise known as the Robertson review—about the adequacy and regulation of support and services provided to Ms Ann-Marie Smith, who was an NDIS participant, who tragically died on 6 April 2020. It also makes a number of technical amendments to better support the operations of the NDIS commission based on early experiences. It provides for improved information sharing between the NDIS commission and the National Disability Insurance Agency to better protect people with a disability.

Clauses in the NDIS Act establish a relatively high threshold for sharing information. This would mean that a disclosure must be necessary to prevent or lessen a serious threat to an individual's life, health and safety. This bill removes qualifiers like 'serious' or 'necessary' to ensure that any threat to life, health and safety is sufficient grounds for the recording, use or disclosure of protected NDIS commission information. It also amends provisions for disclosing information in a number of other specific situations, such as requiring the NDIS commission to disclose information to worker screening units and other agencies as required and requiring the NDIS commission to publish and maintain information about historical compliance and enforcement action. Furthermore, the bill also provides for greater clarity around reportable incidents, including broadening the scope of the reporting to the NDIS commission. Amendments within the bill ensure consistency and procedural fairness in the application of the NDIS commission's regulatory responses.

The NDIS market is diverse, including non-profit organisations, large private companies and individuals running their own businesses. The NDIS Act recognises this by placing obligations on providers, workers and anyone who is engaged by an NDIS provider. However, there is some concern that this definition is not broad enough to cover the range of potential governance arrangements. For clarity, this bill ensures that obligations and regulatory responses also fall on the key personnel of a provider, which can include the CEO, the board of directors and any other relevant personnel.

While the NDIS Act gives the commissioner the power to ban an NDIS provider or worker on the grounds that they are not suitable to deliver NDIS services and supports, it does not presently set out how suitability is determined for banning orders. This bill provides the power for the commissioner to make rules in relation to suitability for that purpose, aligning with existing provisions in relation to provider registration. This bill also clarifies elements of the process that providers must follow when registering to deliver NDIS services and supports. This includes that applicants are able to withdraw applications and applications for renewal of registration are deemed to have been withdrawn if the registered provider in question becomes the subject of a revocation or banning order during the renewal process.

The NDIS is a world-first scheme. Recent data has shown that the program is growing at a record rate. It is an extraordinary achievement for the NDIS to now be supporting 466,000 Australians. Almost a quarter of a million people are receiving support for the very first time, while 35 per cent of participants who received plans are children aged between zero and six years. There has been a 14 per cent increase in the number of young adults reporting that the NDIS has helped with their daily living activities and a 12 per cent increase in the number of participants reporting that the NDIS has helped improve their health and wellbeing. These statistics reflect why it is so important that our government continues to support the NDIS through positive changes, such as those contained in this bill.

These positive changes will support organisations in my electorate of Mallee, including Sunraysia Residential Services. SRS have been in operation for 43 years and provide residential and wrap-around support for people who live with a disability. SRS focus on person-centred support and are embedded with creative ideas that assist people with disabilities to reach their desired goals. SRS have built several independent living units for their clients and have leverage to build more in the future. They also have commercial enterprises such as the Benetook chook farm, which produces eggs to sell to local businesses around the district. At the end of last year, I had the pleasure of attending the grand opening of their new general store at the farm, and they have recently installed a jumping pillow. The farm and general store have provided a place for SRS participants to learn new skills and socialise with friends. It's also a place to connect those who have need of support with the wider community. Next on the list of new attractions to open on the farm is the Mildura historical cafe and a pottery shed.

Locals speak to me about the need for more specialised disability accommodation, or SDAs, in the Sunraysia region. SRS is one of the only providers of SDA in the region, meaning demand on their services is through the roof. Recent reforms to SDA are aimed at improving and strengthening the market—the latest being the release of improved SDA data. This supports participants and providers to understand the current SDA supply, where the demand for SDA is greatest and where there are opportunities to increase accommodation support. To ensure the SDA marketplace is competitive within the housing market, the NDIS adopts a market stewardship role, which includes monitoring, evaluation, oversight and, where necessary, intervention. In regional Australia, workforce remains a key challenge to so many of our key sectors, including health, agriculture and manufacturing. Unfortunately, the story is much the same for the care and support sector in Mallee.

We know that, across the country, an additional 83,000 workers will be required to support around 530,000 NDIS participants in the next four years, bringing the total workforce to 353,000. The care and support sector is one of Australia's largest and fastest growing sectors, driven primarily by the rollout of the NDIS. That's why it's so important that our government has launched a national plan to build a more responsive and capable NDIS workforce. This plan will enable workforce growth in the NDIS and support complementary workforce measures in aged care and support services for veterans. It will support the sector to attract a wide range of workers, while improving existing workers' access to training and development opportunities. Under this plan, Commonwealth, state and territory governments will work in partnership with workers, NDIS participants, industry, education and employment providers to retain and grow the required skilled workforce. It builds on the $64.3 million NDIS Jobs and Market Fund, which already has projects in the field which are growing the provider market and workforce.

I have been speaking with participants and providers across my electorate, gaining an appreciation for the operation of the scheme and how it is benefitting regional Australians. I understand that the NDIS has been transformative for many people living with a disability in my electorate and I'm thankful that these people will now be able to purchase additional disability related health supports. The NDIS is working for many thousands of people across the country and these reforms will deliver outstanding benefits for many people. There are still challenges in the scheme that we have a duty to resolve, and I'm committed to working with the people of my electorate of Mallee to hear their stories, suggestions and feedback and help in any way I can.

Ms COKER (Corangamite) (17:14): [by video link] This National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Improving Supports for At Risk Participants) Bill 2021 is a result of the death of Ann-Marie Smith, who passed away over 16 months ago in tragic circumstances—tragic circumstances that have been put under the spotlight by the flaws within the NDIS. These are flaws which have been left to fester under the Morrison government. This bill also follows the inquiry by Judge Alan Robertson into Ann-Marie Smith's tragic death. A number of recommendations were made consequently and, while there are some positives in this bill as a result, it falls well short of the sweeping changes that are required to ensure quality systems, transparency, accountability and, importantly, quality care and support for some of our most vulnerable citizens. These concerns go to some of the broader issues affecting the NDIS.

I am one of two federal MPs in this House from the Geelong region, the home of the NDIA. I remember when the NDIA was first established under a Labor government. It was a proud moment for Geelong and for our nation—a time to celebrate a scheme that would make life easier and better for all people with disabilities, their families and their carers. But, unfortunately, under the Liberal government, the scheme has been riddled with problems. This is despite the hard work and best endeavours of so many. At the core of the problem is a Liberal government that is not truly invested in the scheme. Instead, we see increasing casualisation of the NDIS workforce; convoluted systems that create frustration; barriers to supports and services; and proposals like mandatory independent assessments, which have been perceived widely as a cost-cutting measure. Fortunately, the many loud voices of those with disability and their advocates have resulted in the much-celebrated demise of independent assessments.

The Morrison government has got things wrong in a number of crucial areas of the NDIS, and many of these problems are the reasons the tragedy of Ann-Marie Smith happened. As I see it, these are the main issues: this government is not concerned primarily about NDIS service quality; its primary focus is about cutting costs. This government fails time and time again to consult properly when it makes changes to the NDIS. You can't make good reforms without hearing from the participants themselves; genuine consultation is required. This government has also failed to put in place adequate minimum training and qualification requirements because it's more interested in laissez-faire labour markets than in quality outcomes for people with disabilities. This government has not put in place any proactive checking and regulation of providers. This government has failed to establish an adequate schedule of regulatory infringements against a quality standards code because it thought that letting the market rip was all that needed to happen. And this government has failed to establish adequate labour market standards for providers, and the result is a more insecure workforce—the women and men who provide the vital NDIS support services.

It is a sad fact that this Morrison government has not provided the necessary safeguards to ensure that all those who access the NDIS are treated with care, compassion and respect. The sad reality is that the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission has contacted NDIS participants only once, in a joint letter to participants received in early September—one piece of correspondence from the commission to NDIS participants during a worldwide pandemic! That says it all. It should be noted that in his review Judge Robertson did take the opportunity to consider wider issues, including the safeguarding of people with disability who are particularly vulnerable. His report spoke of the buck-passing between the NDIA and the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission. What a tragic regulatory culture.

I would like to now turn to the detail of this bill and the proposed changes included under recommendations 1, 6, 7, 8 and 9 of the Robertson review. While Labor will support these changes, there is much more that needs to be done to ensure that people with disability receive quality care in a system that is user friendly, supportive, professional and, most importantly, centred around the needs of the person with the disability.

Leaving this aside, there are two important issues addressed in this bill—issues that are outlined in the Robertson review. Firstly, following recommendations 1, 5, 7 and 9, this bill facilitates a better exchange of information between the agency and the commission, and the disclosure of information to relevant state and territory bodies is facilitated by following recommendation 8. Secondly, clarification around the scope of reportable incidents is provided by following recommendation 6, and the strengthening of banning orders is facilitated by recommendation 10, which was outlined in a legislative change in November 2020. These two changes do offer some improvements; however, they do not properly address gaping holes in the NDIS safeguarding, such as the lack of proactive checking on service providers, and an ineffective and understaffed NDIS.

The amendments could have been so much better if the government had consulted and listened. For example, the key DRO, the Australian Federation of Disability Organisations, suggested a solution to the privacy concerns. They explained what could be achieved by establishing a clearly identified process which articulates why the participant's right to privacy should be overridden by the need to protect and be clearly documented; how a person's privacy will be protected in the context of investigations regarding abuse, including an option for an independent advocate to be appointed; and documentation of what information is then shared and with whom. To override participant privacy, the threat of abuse or disaster, such as a pandemic, has to be proven to be current, which will need to be defined. But this government just went on its merry way, didn't listen and didn't consult.

Labor believes everything possible should be done to protect people with disability from neglect and abuse. I want to say very clearly that the concerns of stakeholders and people with disability in relation to privacy and information sharing have not gone unheard. Labor recognises the right to privacy is just as important as the need to protect. This is why Labor is moving amendments to ensure there is a proper process for the disclosure of participant information. Labor will also move amendments to ensure all of these concerns are able to be looked at in detail as part of the review of NDIS safeguarding expected later this year. We will do this in close consultation with stakeholders and people with disabilities.

While the lack of consultation with people who have disabilities is a serious flaw of this government, it is not the worst of it. Very recently we saw documents leaked which showed the government's sham consultation process to try to address the community backlash requiring so-called independent assessments to evaluate NDIS participants' continuing eligibility for support. The leaked documents exposed a plan to dupe people with disabilities and the public and then to steamroll through the highly controversial changes while faking consultation. This was a disgraceful act by the minister and this government.

Before finishing, I want to put on public record my concern about the future of the NDIS in our city, in Geelong. I have been concerned regarding comments about the future of the NDIS made by the Liberal Party's new candidate. Stephanie Asher has always been lukewarm about the NDIS and in fact, early on, questioned the reason for its existence in Geelong. In relation to the NDIS, on 13 April 2013, Stephanie Asher said:

It also seems odd that there is scant work in the corporate sector, yet we are striving to head up the base for yet another government agency.

While the call is on to attract the best and brightest to our "univer-city", we simultaneously appeal to people with disabilities and their carers by positioning Geelong as the expert administrator of issues of disadvantage.

There is no question it will bring a lot of government money to the region, which means another CEO, another not for profit board and no doubt a bunch of new committees. Is that what we need?

Apart from the appalling condescension, this reeks of an arrogant and discriminating approach: 'So-called smart people attending Deakin University are okay, but do we really want people with disabilities?' It makes my skin crawl to hear such comments. I want to publicly ask Ms Asher: are you still questioning the NDIS's place in Geelong, and, if elected, will you support the continuation of the NDIS in Geelong?

I love the fact that the NDIS headquarters is based in the Geelong region. It is a strong part of our region's character. It provides local jobs and much-needed services for so many. It has the potential to be a truly great organisation, but it has a long way to go and it is not getting a fair go under this government. This bill could have been so much better. It is an example of the government's mean attitude to the NDIS. What we need is a government that truly cares—a government that puts people with disability first.

Ms LIU (Chisholm) (17:26): I rise to speak on the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Improving Supports for At Risk Participants) Bill 2021. This bill responds to a number of recommendations of the Independent Review of the Adequacy of the Regulation of the Supports and Services Provided to Ms Ann-Marie Smith, an NDIS Participant, Who Died on 6 April 2020, known as the Robertson review. The remaining recommendations relate to policy options, which are still being progressed through joint work with states and territories, on strengthening supports and protections for people with disability who are at risk of harm. They include outreach and the future approach to community visitor schemes. The Morrison government is committed to continuing to consider ways to improve the NDIS to make it the best it can be.

This bill makes important technical amendments to better support the operations of the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission, based on the early implementation experience of the commission. These amendments build on the operational changes already made by the NDIS commission and the National Disability Insurance Agency to better support at-risk people with disability—changes which include better outreach and working with providers to ensure a participant is not cared for unsupervised by a single worker.

The NDIS commission and the NDIA have already taken available action to improve information sharing, including agreeing to a memorandum of understanding and a set of operational protocols to govern information exchange. This bill supports improved information-sharing arrangements between these two agencies to better protect people with disability. Significantly, it enacts a threshold for information sharing that is less restrictive than the current one. The current threshold establishes that disclosure must be necessary to prevent or lessen a serious threat to an individual's life, health or safety. The relevant amendment removes qualifiers like 'serious' or 'necessary' to ensure that any threat to life, health or safety is significant grounds for the recording, use or disclosure of protected NDIS commission information. The bill also amends provisions for disclosing information in a number of specific situations and provides for greater clarity around reportable incidents. Importantly, these changes to information sharing do not undermine or reduce the significant protections for personal information under the NDIS Act. Personal information held by the NDIA or the NDIS commission will continue to be considered protected information.

Further important changes provided for in this bill relate to the need to ensure consistency and procedural fairness in the application of the NDIS commission's regulatory responses. The NDIS market is diverse. It includes non-profit organisations, large private companies and individuals running their own businesses. Accordingly, the NDIS Act places obligations on providers, workers and anyone who is otherwise engaged by the provider. For the avoidance of doubt that the act covers the range of potential governance arrangements, this bill ensures that obligations and regulatory responses also fall on the key personnel of the provider. They can include the CEO, the board of directors and any other relevant personnel. These and a range of other technical amendments provided for in this bill will strengthen the existing supports and protections for NDIS participants and ensure their wellbeing. They are designed to ensure the safety of participants at risk of harm and will strengthen the operational effectiveness of the NDIS commission.

The government will continue to remember the tragic circumstances of each NDIS participant who has suffered abuse, neglect and exploitation. We cannot state more clearly and sincerely our commitment to taking the required action to better protect participants and to make this scheme and this system as good as they can be.

Mr HAYES (Fowler—Chief Opposition Whip) (17:33): I also would like to make a contribution to this debate on the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Improving Supports for At Risk Participants) Bill 2021. To make it clear from the outset, Labor welcomes the measures in this bill to the extent that they are aimed at improving support and protection for NDIS participants, including the involvement and functions of the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission.

While we do welcome those measures in the bill, we certainly have grave concerns about the lack of consultation with the people who rely on the NDIS, and their families. As you can see, Mr Deputy Speaker, that's fundamentally what is contained in the second reading amendment. It draws attention to those ultimate deficiencies. The displacement of people with disability from the decision-making process, a process that directly involves their lives, contradicts the very core of what the NDIS was all about. At the core of the NDIS was a people centred principle. To make changes without consulting those directly involved certainly has—with respect, Mr Deputy Speaker—hairs on it. We should not be taking these people for granted.

What we know about the bill is that it is a direct response to the Robertson review of the death of an Adelaide NDIS participant, Ann-Marie Smith. The review was the result of pressure from Labor's shadow minister and also from Labor's state shadow minister in South Australia to establish the independent inquiry into the death of Ms Smith.

While we congratulate the government for finally taking much-needed action on this issue, it should be noted that they took that action 11 months after former judge Alan Robertson handed down his report and some 16 months after Ann-Marie Smith passed away. Only now are they finally doing something about it. That's just simply not good enough, and it's not the appropriate care that you would expect would be made available to the most vulnerable in our community.

The bill doesn't even come close to fixing what we see as the mess that the Morrison government has made of the NDIS and the NDIS Quality and Safeguarding Framework—particularly what is in that framework to prevent abuse. This is a government—you've only got to remember back to a couple of budgets ago—that robbed $4.6 billion from the NDIS. That was not because the NDIS didn't need it; they actually did that to prop up the budget's bottom line. So, if you can make flagrant changes like that concerning the most vulnerable in our community, what else can you do?

But I've got to say that there is a bit of a common theme in that. Just look at how they approached the issue of robodebt. That found its way into the courts where it was found to be an illegal process, but they were quite happy to move on some of the most vulnerable and disadvantaged in the community on robodebt. Juxtapose with that how they responded to large corporations that inappropriately pocketed JobKeeper money. They didn't actually try to go and get any of that back. As a matter of fact, they said: 'It's gone to other things.' Well, yes—it went to propping up share prices and to paying executive bonuses and other things like that. Their treatment of public funds is just reprehensible. But they were prepared to take a different approach to robodebt; they tried to justify that. Then they tried to justify not restoring moneys that were paid out to companies that didn't need them, when, quite frankly, those moneys could have been used for other things, given the circumstances of this pandemic.

Let's also remember that 12,000 Australians with a disability tragically died while waiting to be funded under the NDIS on this government's watch. This is just not acceptable, particularly in a country like Australia. We are not talking about a third-world administration or a third-world country. In a country like Australia, we expect the most vulnerable in our community to be looked after. I would have thought that that should have been a common thought across this chamber.

I remind Australians that this is the same government that, through tricks and dishonesty, tried to ram through, not all that long ago, the independent assessment scheme, which was also designed to cut costs out of the NDIS. They only pulled back on that when there was a hue and cry—a national backlash—and not just from our side but from their side as well, when people started working out what this meant for families living with disabilities. I've got to say: the Liberals just can't be trusted when it comes to schemes that underpin the most vulnerable in our community.

In essence, this bill amends the provisions of the NDIS Act to support the implementation of changes in response to recommendations 1, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 of the Robertson review, all of which were aimed at improving the support and protections provided by the NDIS to NDIS participants. Recommendations 1, 5, 7, 8 and 9 are responsible for facilitating better exchange of information between the agency and the commission and also for the disclosure of information to the relevant state and territory authorities. Recommendation 6 deals with the clarification around the scope of reporting incidents. While those are certainly welcome recommendations from the Robertson review, which have been implemented in this bill, we are disappointed that report does not identify any failings in how the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission carried out its function around Ms Smith's death.

Now, remember that Ms Smith was a 54-year-old Adelaide woman. She was an NDIS participant, and she died on 6 April 2020. It was found that she died with 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. Ms Smith's NDIS package included six hours of support per day. Reports are that she only received two hours per day and had not been seen outside her house for over 12 months. This tragic death is nothing short of unbelievable neglect. If there was one positive to come out of this dreadful situation it's that it has prompted the government to come to terms with the failures of the system to identify the gaps that this bill now seeks to address.

There is certainly clearly something not working that goes to the heart of the issue—that is, the failure of the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission to ensure that its monitoring and its exercising of punitive functions are being appropriately administered. The Robertson review found that there was no legal wrongdoing when the commission, which was set up to protect NDIS participants, issued a $12½ thousand fine for failing to notify the commission of Ms Smith's death—but that was a month and a half after she had died—and placed a banning order on the provider, Integrity Care, for four months, following her death. We know that this was the only infringement that the commission had issued up to that point over two years. I guess now I know that, a year on, there have been a handful of other infringements issued.

In 2018 the inaugural NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commissioner, Graeme Head, gave a speech to the Committee for Economic Development of Australia, and I just want to quote his words. He said:

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

Incidents that must be reported … 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.

Where was any of that in relation to Ms Smith? It just was not there. So I imagine Mr Head must look back on his words in 2018 and think they haven't aged well. If those opposite think that the commission has any real regulatory power, as well as function, why aren't they ensuring that the commission is overseeing the care of participants, overseeing the care of Ann-Marie Smith? Simply, the government must address these issues and ensure the commission's power is being properly administered, to prevent the abuse and neglect in the first place, not after the event. It should be overseeing and regulating the conduct of care being given to ensure that we don't see a repeat of the issues that occurred in Adelaide with respect to Ann-Marie Smith. It's certainly not a satisfactory situation. Quite frankly, it's highly offensive and disrespectful to the many families out there who have had to endure the similar fate of being, effectively, ignored when it comes to what is actually needed and necessary for families that are living with disability.

The National Disability Insurance Scheme is a vital service, but after eight years of Liberal rule it has been slashed and mismanaged to the extent that people are now dying of neglect in their homes. Our approach must be to focus on the issues and to ensure that we never see again instances like that of Ann-Marie Smith occurring on the watch of this parliament. This is the kind of systemic failure, one that results in death by neglect, that needs to be approached head-on, with honesty and with vigour for reform—ensuring that we make a change that delivers the results that were always intended with the initial formation of the NDIS itself. The government must work beyond the measures in this bill. It owes it to all Australians living with a disability and their families to ensure that it is overseen appropriately and properly, and with the best possible system of care for some of our country's most vulnerable Australians.

Mr VASTA (Bonner) (17:46): I rise today to join my colleagues in speaking in great support of the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Improving Supports for At Risk Participants) Bill 2021. The Morrison government continues to consider ways to support people with disability to live lives free from violence, abuse, neglect and exploitation. As part of our continued commitment, this bill makes essential and life-changing amendments to the NDIS Act. It seeks to improve the support provided and to better protect NDIS participants from harm, and it seeks to ensure that the quality and safeguarding framework for NDIS participants is as robust, comprehensive and responsive as it can be.

We take no chances with the safety of people with disability. This bill responds to a number of recommendations of the Independent Review of the Adequacy of the Regulation of the Supports and Services Provided to Ms Ann-Marie Smith, an NDIS Participant, Who Died on 6 April 2020, otherwise known as the Robertson review. The tragic death of Ann-Marie Smith is a shocking and appalling case of neglect, one which Australians nationwide continue to be deeply saddened by. Ann-Marie Smith's story reinforces the absolute urgency in our government to protect NDIS participants and to make sure that such distressing events do not occur again.

People with a disability have the right to independence, both in their communities and in the safety of their own homes, and yet too often they feel segregated, isolated and neglected. Alongside the Robertson review, our government has considered a number of inquiries into the effectiveness of NDIS safeguards. This bill represents our wholehearted commitment to take action to protect participants from neglect at the hands of those who have been paid to care for them. To better protect people with disability, a less-restrictive threshold for sharing of information between the NDIS commission and the National Disability Insurance Agency has been established. This has been enacted in recognition of the Robertson review recommendations. This bill removes qualifiers like 'serious' or 'necessary' to ensure that any threat to life, health or safety is sufficient ground for the recording, use or disclosure of protected NDIS commission information. It amends the sharing powers between these two agencies by granting them clear legal authority to release protected information to one another for the purposes of carrying out their core legislated functions under the NDIS Act to ensure the protection of participants. The bill also provides for greater clarity around reportable incidents and for disclosing information more broadly to the NDIS commission.

Another key amendment is the registration of NDIS providers. Currently, quality assurance of registered NDIS providers is undertaken by approved quality auditors who are engaged by providers directly. The market for quality auditors includes a wide range of experience levels and sector knowledge. This bill will allow the commissioners to place conditions on the approval of quality auditors, and it makes explicit the commissioners' power to vary or revoke approval of quality auditors. In line with best administrative practice, these decisions will be reviewable decisions.

This bill makes a range of technical changes by ensuring obligations and regulatory responses also fall on the key personnel of a provider, including the CEO and board of directors. It makes provision for the NDIS commission to establish rules in relation to suitability for the purposes of delivering NDIS services, and it clarifies the registration process that providers must follow, including the definitions around withdrawal of applications. These amendments will strengthen the support and protection for NDIS participants, and these amendments will facilitate greater independence, community involvement, employment and improved wellbeing for NDIS participants.

Last month marked eight years of NDIS. Eight years on, there are now 2,300 participants in my electorate of Bonner. Over the years, I have heard many of their stories, their desires to achieve their goals and their longing to live an ordinary life. Our government has not underestimated the critical support the NDIS provides for people with their disabilities, for their families and for their carers. That is why we take further action to ensure the safety of participants at risk of harm. We will continue to remember the participants who suffered unimaginable abuse, neglect and exploitation.

The measures in this bill are an essential part of this commitment. They will give participants choice and control over their lives. They will make sure participants are treated fairly and receive quality services from the providers and the workers that they choose to support them. And, most importantly, they will protect participants' rights to be free from harm.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Dr Freelander ): I thank the member for Bonner. The question is that the amendment be disagreed to, and I call the member for McEwen. The member for McEwen, you may be on mute. I call the member for Macquarie.

Ms TEMPLEMAN (Macquarie) (17:53): Thank you, Deputy Speaker. I may just take a moment to pull up some of my notes that I was intending to use to speak on this a little bit further down the track on the speakers list. But this is a really important issue. The NDIS was meant to transform people's lives. I spoke with people before the scheme was in place about their expectations for it. Greta was a fantastic advocate for it. She has cerebral palsy, she's in a wheelchair and she was one of those who could see that, as a young woman, it could provide a pathway to independence for her. And indeed it has. I was just messaging her today, actually, having seen that she has had her COVID vaccination. I was speaking to her about what she's finding. And of course what we do know is that only around about 26 per cent of participants on the NDIS are vaccinated. And this is a group of people among the most vulnerable who were in the first two phases—in 1b—of the rollout; they may have even been in 1a. But they are right at the start of the rollout. Yet we have an appallingly low COVID vaccination rate for them. Not only that, but many of them are finding that their carers have not been able to access vaccines. One said to me, 'All the carers registered on the government's website months ago but haven't received any information about how they actually get a vaccine.' What all that says to me is that we see this legislation that's meant to improve people's lives; however, the reality is that so many of them are left behind.

I think that the biggest concern for people who rely on the NDIS is that promises are made but promises are not necessarily kept. I want to take people back to the months of anxiety that were created around independent assessments, when people were told that things would be totally changed and that all the medical stuff that had happened would actually be thrown out the window when the independent assessments would come in. It was advocacy from the sector, advocacy from people like me and advocacy from the participants themselves that has meant that we are not currently having a discussion about that—because that was going to completely turn around what people's expectations and hopes were for the scheme.

It wasn't done in a consultative way. It was done without any consultation with the sector. It progressed without any consultation with the sector. For goodness sake, the very people who have had to fight for absolutely everything, for every improvement that they have had in their lives and for every bit of support that they get, were then made to fight yet again by this government—to fight against something that should never ever have been put forward in the first place. I saw people broken by that. These people had been resilient and had advocated and were happy to work through the challenges of a scheme, but that really broke them and pushed them to the edge.

That is what we see when we look at the way this government has treated people with disabilities and the people who care for them—and when I say 'the people who care for them', I mean their families as well. I know a mum who is partway through a couple of weeks of lockdown with a daughter who has autism because of being a close contact for COVID. The mum has been in tears, and there have been lots of tantrums from her daughter. That's the sort of thing that people are having to go through. I don't think any of us have any understanding of what that must be like. And there's very little additional support for people. We were very clear that we needed to see changes made. What is coming through my office right now is that the decision-making processes for the NDIS have slowed right down—that they have slowed yet again to a crawl—and people who are waiting for a decision, waiting for an appeal or waiting just to get information about where something is at, are finding that it has got really, really slow.

Lockdown has taken away all our choices. That is even more profound for people whose lives had some richness in them because they could go out to programs, but all that has been taken away. So their choices have been taken away. There are going to be people who possibly find it hard to get back to what they had. It's hard when you lose that social contact and the things that were built up over a period of time and then the doors are just slammed shut. Obviously, having high levels of vaccination would really make a difference.

I also want to talk about what I'm seeing with a constituent in New South Wales who's facing the challenge of rapid antigen testing when you're not in a local government area of concern. The Blue Mountains and the Hawkesbury is not a local government area of concern. We're in lockdown, but not the tightest lockdown—not with curfews at night; not with security guards roaming around; and not with intense vaccination hubs happening either, for that matter. Heaven forbid we should try and get ahead of the curve! So we are in a limbo. We're seeing cases rising, and one of the reasons they're rising is that workers from local government areas of concern do come into our electorate to work. This is where disability care fits in—employees from local government areas of concern who have not been able to be vaccinated are required to have rapid antigen testing. That's just been announced, and it all comes into effect really fast. The providers are saying to me: 'We can't even work out how to do this. It's not legal to do it without a healthcare professional there, so how do we get a healthcare professional to every one of our group homes to try and do this?' So the practicalities and logistics of these announcements are going to create even more problems and challenges for disability care.

One of the things that this legislation looks at is those for whom their whole care is entrusted to the NDIA. The NDIA is the one that oversees and has overseen the quality of the care they get. We have seen catastrophic failures because of the structure that was put in place, so we absolutely need to see these improvements come forward. We need to make sure that what happened in South Australia isn't repeated. What we also need to see more broadly is not just that quality of care is regulated but that we are training people up appropriately to provide the quality of care that is needed.

Every time I look at this government's policies to fix things, the bit that's always missing is the workers. The bit that's missing is the skilling up of the workers and the support of their ongoing education so that they are building and expanding their skills and we are constantly improving the quality of care that people receive and that people deserve to receive. The quality of care becomes a challenge when you haven't got enough carers. So building up the volume of carers is really key, but so is continuing to allow them to progress so they actually have a career path. I really thank the Australian Services Union for the work they have been doing over many years to look at how we do this.

I want to come back to vaccination rates and the vaccination process for people with disabilities but also for their carers. The Blue Mountains and the Hawkesbury is an area of 4,000 square kilometres—not as big as many electorates, but for a city electorate it's pretty big. Yet there have been decisions made to date that require people in my electorate of the Blue Mountains and the Hawkesbury to access their vaccination either at their GP, or, now, if they're able to have AstraZeneca, at the pharmacy, although we're still seeing slow supplies. My GPs tell me that sometimes the Pfizer supplies they've been promised and have taken bookings for simply don't turn up. A whole week's supply just doesn't turn up.

This is the moment where I really want to give a shout-out—yes, to the GPs for the work they're doing and to the practice managers for the work they're doing, but also to the receptionists, who are the people taking the phone calls in GPs' offices and clinics. They must be the heroes. I know we get desperate emails and desperate phone calls, but they would be absolutely smashed with phone calls from people saying, 'This is my situation. I have a disability,' or 'I have a daughter with a disability,' or 'I have a carer coming in'—all those sorts of circumstances. We all know those people ought to have been vaccinated by now under the rollout plan. I love plans, but I like them much better when they're actually delivered and not just some future promises. These promises and commitments to people that not only would they be able to be vaccinated but the process wouldn't be as onerous as it is have been unfulfilled.

I don't know if anyone in this place has tried to book a vaccine. If you're in the Blue Mountains and the Hawkesbury, there isn't a hub to do it at. You have to phone every single GP that you can, along with lots of other people, just to see if you can go on a waiting list—these are my circumstances; can I do it?—or jump online, and the online process takes you back in circular motion because there's nothing available to book yet. These are the challenges people are facing. For people with a disability for whom life has certain challenges already, we should be making it easier. For the Blue Mountains and the Hawkesbury, we should be taking the services into those areas. We should be travelling to the furthest places within the communities. People say, 'You've got quite good vaccination rates.' Yes, we do. But the people who are hardest to vaccinate are those who haven't done it yet, and they are in the more remote or transport-challenged areas. There is no public transport in most of the Hawkesbury, if you're not on the train line. I think we've got five stops in my electorate. It takes you to Blacktown. It doesn't even take you to Penrith, which will ultimately be our nearest hub. It takes you into the hotspots, if you want to do it by public transport, or you can go to a hotspot if you want to drive there. We have to go into the hotspots in order to find a mass vaccination hub, which is where people are being steered to. They're being told, 'If you can't get into a GP, go for the hub.' But there just isn't one near enough.

What is missing is this idea: you could take mobile teams and reach into these communities. In fact, you could probably get quite a wide penetration of that community with the vaccine if you went there, because it would be easy: your neighbours would be doing it; you could take anyone along with you. It would really make a difference. It's time for this government to think about creative approaches. We haven't had the vaccine supply. That has been our No. 1 problem. Yes, if we hadn't had leakages from quarantine, it wouldn't have been such a race, but we didn't have quarantine that held. We all know that. We still don't have it. We've just got plans for it. We still have leaky quarantine. We still don't have enough supply, but, even when we do have enough supply, we do not have the plans to take it into the community, particularly to places where you would be able to do large numbers of people with disability. We need to do for them what we did with aged care. The difference is we need to do the carers as well. That's the only way that people with disability will be looked after.

Mr ENTSCH (Leichhardt) (18:08): I rise to speak on the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Improving Supports for At Risk Participants) Bill 2021. There's absolutely no doubt that the National Disability Insurance Scheme has helped and assisted many thousands of Australians, including many of those living in Cairns and in Far North Queensland in my region. It has profoundly improved the lives of people with disability and their families. The NDIS, of course, provides all Australians under the age of 65 with a permanent and significant disability with the reasonable and necessary supports they need to live a better life.

Previously, as I'm sure you'd be well aware, Deputy Speaker Freelander, the way of delivering services to people with disability in Australia was one where, generally, they had to fit in with whatever the system had to offer. In fact, in many cases, we saw round pegs trying to be driven into square holes. It just didn't work, and the services that were delivered were, in many cases, far from adequate. Of course this resulted in limited choice and control for people with disability in how and when their supports and services were to be delivered. The NDIS replaced that system with one that maximises people's independence and capacity to participate in and contribute to their community.

But it's important to remember that the NDIS is about more than just individual plans. The NDIS is about community inclusion, making sure people with disability have the skills, confidence and information they need to get involved in the community, and about building the capacity of the community to include people with disability. In my electorate, like all others, there are many service providers who do an amazing job in this space. But it's the individuals who work inside these services that are the true heroes, in my eyes. No doubt that everyone here will attest, too, that the NDIS has certainly been worth it and is changing lives. It is something that, collectively as a nation, we can all be extremely proud of. The Morrison government considers any abuse, neglect or exploitation of any National Disability Insurance Scheme participant to be abhorrent. We are absolutely committed to improving the quality and safeguards in place and to protecting NDIS participants from harm.

This bill strengthens the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commissioner's powers to improve support for NDIS participants. It also builds on actions already taken by the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission in response to the review by the Hon. Alan Robertson SC. The Robertson review was commissioned by the NDIS commissioner to examine the adequacy of the regulation of the NDIS services provided to Ms Ann-Marie Smith, a NDIS participant who died tragically and absolutely needlessly in April 2020. The Robertson review made a number of recommendations to improve the NDIS quality and safeguards arrangements for at-risk participants.

This bill addresses important recommendations on information sharing and reportable incidents. It also provides for improved information sharing between the NDIS commission and the National Disability Insurance Agency to better protect people with disability. Currently, present clauses in the NDIS establish a relatively high threshold for sharing information. This can at times be quite problematic. This bill enacts less restrictive thresholds, in recognition of the Robertson review recommendations.

The NDIS market, as we know, is diverse, including not-for-profit organisations, very large private companies and individuals running their own businesses. In my case I've had some of the not-for-profit organisations provide so much amazing service in the area of people with disability. It's great to see them continuing in the area. With the adaption of the NDIS we saw a lot of big national companies attracted to my area, but I think it's very important we continue to support those small not-for-profits that have provided such an outstanding service in our communities for such extended periods of time. Of the clients they service, they've got the credibility and the understanding of the communities they work in. I think it's absolutely important that we make sure that we don't lose those small not-for-profits, because, at the end of the day, they're the ones that will continue to persevere and remain in our communities long after the big national companies have packed up and gone off looking for greener fields. The NDIS Act recognises this by placing obligations on providers and workers and anyone else otherwise engaged by the provider. However, there is a concern that this definition is not broad enough to cover the range of potential governance arrangements. For the avoidance of doubt, the bill ensures obligations and regulatory responses also for the key personnel of a provider, which can include the CEO, the board of directors and any other relevant personnel.

While the NDIS Act gives the commissioner the power to ban an NDIS provider or worker on the grounds that they are not suitable to deliver NDIS services or support, it does not presently set out how suitability is determined for the banning orders. It's very important that we look at this very closely because we see a lot of backyard providers coming in and they don't have the qualifications or the accreditation. It really is an area of concern. We need to make sure that the participants are not exploited and that the individuals who are going to provide the services, irrespective of their circumstances, are appropriately qualified. While the NDIS Act gives permission to ban an NDIS provider on the grounds that they are not suitable to deliver NDIS services or support, it does not, as I said, presently set out suitability and the determination for banning orders. The bill provides the power for commissioners to make rules in relation to suitability for that purpose, which is very important, aligning with existing provisions in relation to provider registrations.

The onus is on this House to strengthen legislation that actually protects our most vulnerable. The government is absolutely committed and continues to consider ways to support people with disability to live life free from violence, abuse, neglect and exploitation. This bill will certainly improve protections for NDIS participants, including those who have a greater risk of harm. Also, it will strengthen the operational effectiveness of the NDIS commission. I commend the bill to the House.

Mr ROB MITCHELL (McEwen—Second Deputy Speaker) (18:17): [by video link] Labor is relieved about the Morrison government's decision to take action on some of the recommendations of the Robertson review into the tragic death of NDIS participant Ms Ann-Marie Smith, who sadly died in April 2020. However, we've come to learn from this government that, as with most of their decisions, their actions are far too little and far too late. The lived experience of disabled Australians and NDIS participants in our country, when dealing with this government, is nothing short of a disgrace, and the inaction of this government on this issue is absolutely shameful. It's time for the Morrison government to start taking responsibility, commit to a substantial and thorough inquiry on this issue and put in place the resources and facilities to safeguard the interests and the wellbeing of our most vulnerable Australians.

The Robertson review and its recommendations, which are the subject of this bill, was an inquiry into one tragic death that occurred as a result of the failures of the NDIS system. Labor pushed for an independent inquiry into NDIS safeguarding more broadly, but the NDIS commission instructed the inquiry, led by former Judge Robertson, to specifically and exclusively review the adequacy of regulation of the supports and services provided to Ms Smith. As such, the terms of reference for the review were specifically confined to the circumstances of Ms Smith's case. Not only was this inquiry far too limited in its scope but the review didn't even have statutory powers, and meetings were held in Adelaide over two days with those who provided a submission or an outline of what they wished to say. Submissions were not made public and there was no wider sector or parliamentary engagement communicated by the government in relation to the Robertson review's evidence-gathering process and the development of this bill. The inquiry was neither broad nor transparent enough to offer an adequate set of recommendations addressing all of the areas within the NDIS and the NDIS commission which are in urgent need of reform. But even despite its limited scope, some of the recommendations, such as greater communication between the NDIA and the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission, do have merit.

The report highlights the 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. Robertson says that there are two agencies not sharing information and people could easily fall through the cracks of patchy oversight. Despite these few clear recommendations, which did come as a result of the Robertson review, it has still taken a year for the government to start to take action on it. So you have to ask the question: when designing this commission did none of the Liberals stop to ask is it actually set up properly? Is it fit for the task of protecting people on the ground? Is it the right body to set up to protect people? Should it sit back and wait for the phone to ring? The government should 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 an issue of a slap on the wrist after the fact. It has now been nearly two years since the death of Ms Smith and a year since recommendations were made addressing the cause of her death. Only now is the Morrison government attempting to make even the most minor reforms based on the recommendation of the Robertson review, but they're not enough. The Robertson review did not even seek to review all the crucial issues relevant to the NDIS's failure.

Labor argued that it should have been broadened to also look at what went wrong in the case of David Harris, an NDIS participant who was found dead in his house more than two months after his supports had been cut off. This sad death was another preventable tragedy that occurred as a result of the Morrison government's failure to effectively regulate and reform the NDIS. David was dead in his Parramatta unit for two months before his body was discovered by police—after he was found by authorities and after his grieving sister based interstate learned that David's NDIS funding had been cut off because he missed an annual review meeting. This meant cleaners and other NDIS funded supports stopped visiting a 55-year-old man who had substantial mental and physical care needs. After her brother David's lonely death, Leanne asked one thing, that case managers be introduced to the NDIS. This government, the Morrison government, wrote back saying there were no plans to introduce such a measure.

How many Australians with disability have to die in their homes before this government admits there is a problem? David and Ann-Marie's tragic deaths are just two such stories of a growing number of tragedies which have come as a result of the failure of the Morrison government to ensure that the NDIS meets its most basic aim: to ensure the safety of disabled Australians. This is what Labor committed to when we introduced the NDIS. Sadly, like other things that we've introduced, this government has done nothing but tear it down.

The failures of this government with regard to the NDIS are symptomatic of their attitude towards Australians with disabilities and other vulnerable groups that are within our communities. The coalition have continued to disregard the needs of vulnerable Australians, once again placing profits and political punchlines over the urgent and drastic need for change. The Morrison government's failure of vulnerable Australians has only become more obvious through the course of the pandemic. The botched vaccine rollout for NDIS participants, disabled Australians and Australians in aged-care residences are evidence of this government's extreme apathy and lack of care for those of us most in need of support and security.

I think back to 27 May when I asked the Prime Minister in question time: 'How many Australians in residential disability care have been vaccinated?' I did receive a response from him in June. It was shocking but far from surprising. The Prime Minister informed me that nationally less than 25 per cent of NDIS participants in residential care facilities had received at least one dose of the vaccine. In my home state of Victoria the situation was even worse: only six per cent of NDIS participants in disability accommodation had received two doses of the vaccine. These are appalling figures. But they're not just figures. They are people's lives and people's families who have suffered—because, while there's been some progress since that time, the statistics demonstrate the immense and appalling apathy of the Morrison government towards the safety of people with disabilities.

This government has failed to fulfil its duty to Australians. It has shown an ongoing apathy towards Australians with disabilities and their right to be safe and secure—it is endemic. What we can be sure of is that the tragic death of Ms Ann-Marie Smith was not a one-off. It is symptomatic of a system in which the government has constantly left people with disabilities behind. The government has treated disability rights advocate groups with so much contempt it is appalling. All Australians deserve to feel safe, and they deserve access to the basic resources necessary for ensuring their physical and mental health. The maltreatment and death of disabled Australians has been overlooked and de-prioritised again and again by this government. Our communities and those who are most vulnerable in them deserve a lot better. They deserve a government that is on their side, one that looks out for their interests, especially for those Australians not in a position to look after themselves.

The Morrison government have ripped $4.6 billion out of the NDIS. It failed to act, despite 1,200 Australians with disabilities dying while waiting to be funded for the scheme. While we welcome the government's decision to take action—belatedly—on the recommendations of the Robertson review, their action is too little, too late. It's been over 10 months since the Hon. Mr Robertson handed down his review and 14 months since Ann-Marie Smith passed away, and only now are the Morrison government deciding: 'We'd better take action.' I ask: how many Australians have died or been subject to maltreatment in these 10 months? How many disabled Australians and their families suffered while the Morrison government resisted the implementation of the recommendations? The cost of the government's inaction is far too high. They will prioritise punchlines and the scoring of political points over their responsibility to actually serve the Australian people. People living with disabilities are being ignored and left behind.

There is no longer any excuse for the government's failure to step up and do its job. This is a government that refuses to take responsibility and refuses to take action on these issues that matter to Australians. The failure of this government to ensure the safety of NDIS participants—and the countless deaths which have occurred because of the Morrison government's inaction—should be an embarrassment to our country and an embarrassment to the Prime Minister. You would think that any minister responsible for this—or for robodebt, or for the countless other scandals—would have been dumped. A normal government, with a leader who has values and ethics, would have dumped ministers who have failed this badly. But what we find with the Morrison government is that, with scandal after scandal, it promotes those involved. It's wrong. It's time that people living with disability and their families and advocates were properly consulted and given the proper treatment and the proper respect that they deserve. Only an Albanese Labor government will do that for people and families living with disability.

Mr WALLACE (Fisher) (18:28): I rise in support of the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Improving Supports for At Risk Participants) Bill 2021. Mr Deputy Speaker, before I get to the bill, I think it would be remiss of me if we didn't change the tone for a moment and recognise what we are about to celebrate tomorrow.

Tomorrow in Tokyo, the 16th Summer Paralympic Games gets underway. These games will deliver a true spectacle of sport and, hopefully, a big haul of medals for Australia. However, far more than that, these games are absolutely proof positive, that, with the right supports in place, people living with a disability can achieve incredible things and make a wonderful contribution to our society in the most difficult of circumstances. Over the next two weeks, Australia's 179 Paralympians are going to inspire us and bring us together, at a time of unfortunate division and hardship across our nation—and, hey, we might even get inspired by these Olympians to unite. For many of our Paralympians, like hundreds of thousands of other Australians with disability, it is the NDIS which is delivering the supports they need to make their unique contribution, and today we're here to ensure that that scheme is helping to deliver the highest possible quality of care.

Earlier in August I met with an NDIS provider called AEIOU, which delivers early intervention services to children aged two to six living with severe autism. The provider's representatives Lorna Bishop and Nicola Morgan wanted to express to me the enormous improvement that the NDIS has brought to the lives of people living with this condition. As many as 3,000 children living with severe autism across the country have been receiving substantial support from the NDIS to engage with early intervention services like those provided by AEIOU. They have calculated that, for every child supported by their organisation through the NDIS, $2 million worth of benefits are delivered to the economy through reduced ongoing costs in supporting that individual and in their capacity to make their own wonderful contribution to our society. That is not to mention the enormous difference it makes to their wellbeing and the wellbeing of thousands of young people with autism and their families.

In this place and in our communities, when we talk about disability, we often talk about the individual who lives with the disability, but we often don't talk about the family that supports that person. Lorna and Nicola came to me to express their concerns about the ongoing funding of the NDIS for people with severe autism, and I've passed those concerns on to the minister. However, critically, they did so fundamentally because they know what a massive and quantifiable difference the NDIS is already making to so many thousands of lives and out of their passionate desire to see it continue to do so.

One of the privileges I have in this place is serving on the NDIS oversight committee under the fantastic leadership of the member for Menzies. He has done an absolutely sterling job in that role, and this parliament will be the poorer for his no longer being here in the next term. I think in every inquiry I have been to, sat in on, listened to or appeared at, almost every person that appears before that committee will say: 'We support the NDIS. The NDIS has given our members, our community, our groups and the people in those groups a quality of life that they never had under the old state based system.' Is it perfect? Of course it's not perfect.

Those on the other side absolutely dripping in sanctimony—a position which I take great offence at, as the father of a child who lives with disabilities—come in here and continue to run down this government and everybody in it, as though we don't give a damn about people who live with disabilities. Shame on you. I have sat and listened to these speeches. They are not speeches about a bill; they are absolutely partisan political speeches, that the other side, the Labor Party, continue to weaponise. It's another subject that they continue to weaponise: our Australians that live with disability. Is the NDIS perfect? No, it is not. Was it designed perfectly? No, it was not. Is it being implemented perfectly? No, it is not.

Over the weekend I was watching SBS. I watched a program on an institution for people who lived with disabilities at the turn of the 1900s in Philadelphia. They were showing photographs and some video of the conditions in which these unfortunate people lived. This is not something which just happened in America; every country in the world shunned our disabled. We stuck them in institutions; we stuck them where we couldn't see them. It was too painful for the nondisabled to look at and see the lives of these people across the world. So whilst the other side can mock what is happening with the NDIS, the NDIS—as demonstrated and said to me by every person who appears before the committee on which I have the privilege to serve—is amazing. It has changed the lives of hundreds of thousands of Australians. Could it be better? Yes, it could. But I am not going to stand here and listen to the rubbish that those members opposite continue to perpetrate in this place in talking about cuts.

Under the old scheme, under the old state system, around $8 billion a year was spent on disability services. Now it's around $28 billion under the NDIS. I'm not quite sure how those opposite can talk about a cut when we look at the simple mathematics of it. So before any members opposite want to come after me and talk about how badly this government is doing and how the members of the government are heartless I want them to think about what I'm saying now, because every time they say that they are driving a knife through the heart of good members of the government who want to see the protection of our disabled—of our people living with disabilities. People in Australia who live with disabilities are not a political tool.

On average, participants in the NDIS under the old scheme are now receiving more than 50 per cent more funding under the NDIS than they were previously. Those formerly in residential aged care are being supported to move into alternative accommodation, and admissions to aged care for those under 65 are down by 68 per cent in just the last three years. No young person who lives with a disability should be living in aged care. The number of participants from remote areas, who have experienced significant challenges in getting support historically, are rising all the time. In the past two years participants from remote areas have quadrupled as a proportion of the total recipients, while there has been an increase by a third of participants from Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander backgrounds—and I acknowledge the minister who is in the chamber here today. The NDIS is truly changing lives.

However, as well as simply providing funding to people living with disability, the NDIS must play a role in ensuring the safety and quality of the service it supports. This government laid the foundation of delivering on that need with the national rollout of the NDIS Quality and Safety Commissioner, completed in December last year and funded with more than $92 million in the 2021 budget. In every state and territory, the NDIS Code of Conduct now applies to workers, providers are held to account in meeting the minimum practice standards required and a consistent complaints process exists to ensure that participants have the ability to raise concerns wherever they live. The government has also introduced the NDIS Worker Screening Check, with more than $16 million in funding, to ensure that potential NDIS workers employed through a registered provider are checked and that those who present an unacceptable risk to people with disability are not permitted contact with participants.

This system is already delivering strong and consistent protection for people with disability in the NDIS, but, as with the terribly sad story of Ann-Marie Smith, such a system can always be improved. The bill before the House today is the latest measure by this government to make that system as strong as it possibly can be. The independent review into the supports provided to Ms Smith, the Robertson review, recommended a number of improvements to the communication of information, which are tackled by this bill. In particular, the bill reduces the threshold test applied when deciding whether to share information between the NDIS commission and the NDIA when working to protect people with disability. At present, the test is whether disclosure is 'necessary to prevent or lessen a serious threat to an individual's life, health or safety'. This bill removes the qualifiers from that test. Any threat to the life, health or safety of a vulnerable Australian with disability is a serious threat. This bill amends the legislation to reflect that reality and ensures there is no ambiguity as to when we can act to protect them. Further, the bill acts to strengthen the worker screening regime I mentioned earlier by ensuring that the NDIS commission is able to disclose information to worker screening units where necessary to prevent the wrong individuals being cleared to work with the NDIS providers.

These and many other changes in the bill, and the other clarifying and technical amendments made in the bill, are modest, but they are extremely important. In the days to come, we're going to see 179 Australians living with disability compete and inspire us on the world stage. They're going to show us the amazing things that people with disability are capable of. We must not allow these inspiring men and women to blind us to the truth, though, that many Australians with a disability are vulnerable. They rely on their dedicated and hardworking support workers, and they rely on us to ensure that every single one of those workers is doing the right thing each and every day. This bill will make the protections we have in place stronger, more responsive and more flexible, and I commend it to the House.

Dr MULINO (Fraser) (18:43): [by video link] I begin by saying that, in speaking to this bill, the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Improving Supports for At Risk Participants) Bill 2021, I think it's important to set some context. It's important to observe that when we talk about the NDIS we are speaking about, in my opinion, the single most important social policy reform in Australia in the last several decades. It is groundbreaking in so many ways.

If we look at some of the key elements of the NDIS, first and foremost, it is a major extension of the application of the concept of social insurance—trying to help individuals who are vulnerable to deal with risk and uncertainty in their lives. Second, importantly, it is trying to look at individuals and the lifelong struggle that they face, rather than deliver piecemeal, fractured services in a way that doesn't provide them the kind of support they need. Third, extremely importantly—and, I believe, quite revolutionary for the way that government services are provided—it is person centred. It is centred around the agency of the individual in making choices around how services are delivered and how the resources that they are allocated are prioritised. For these three reasons, I believe, the NDIS is extremely important.

The NDIS has also, of course, raised the profile of the vulnerability and the needs of people with a disability and, indeed, I think, raised the profile of the number and range of needs that people with a disability in our community have, and it has led to great strides forward. What we see with this bill is a response to a particular incident that I would argue is a step forward but that has severe limitations. It is important that, when we debate this bill, we address those limitations because it is only then that we can take as a parliament the necessary steps that must be taken at some point to improve the governance of the NDIS to protect those who are most vulnerable.

Let me start with the circumstances of Ann-Marie Smith, because it was her death, of course, that motivated the inquiry that this bill is responding to. Ann-Marie Smith was a 54-year-old Adelaide NDIS participant who died on 6 April 2020 of a range causes which included severe septic shock, multiple organ failure, severe pressure sores, malnutrition and issues connected with her cerebral palsy. Importantly, if one looks at the circumstances that surrounded her in the months and years leading up to her untimely death, we see that she was confined to one woven chair for 24 hours a day for over a year. We also see that her support that was provided in practice was significantly less than what she had been allocated. Reports indicate that she was only allocated two hours of care per day and that she had not been seen outside her house for years.

Nobody is saying that a system that deals with as many people as the NDIS and with as many varied needs and circumstances as the NDIS deals with should be perfect. But the point is that when we see incidents like that surrounding the death of Ann-Marie Smith, we must ask whether governance arrangements need to be strengthened. And it isn't just her death. Her death was something raised by the shadow minister and other members of the opposition on a number of occasions and by many disability sector advocates, but it was the fact there were a number of other instances in recent years which had similarities. There was the death of Tim Rubenach in Tasmania, who had severe epilepsy and died while waiting for a wheelchair, there was the situation of David Harris, which involved a series of circumstances—raised by a number of speakers earlier in this debate—and there was the situation of Liam Danher in Queensland. The point to raise here is that the shared circumstances of a number of these unfortunate, tragic situations lead to questions as to whether different aspects of the governance of the NDIS need to be strengthened and need to be reformed.

The Robertson review was formed in response to the death, as I indicated earlier, of Ann-Marie Smith. But, as speakers on this side have pointed out, it was an inquiry that, while useful, was limited from the start. It is important that when we debate this bill we identify that this review right from the start was limited to looking at the circumstances of Ms Smith's situation and Ms Smith's death alone. This was not appropriate as a way of dealing with these circumstances, given that, as I have indicated, there were a number of other people who had untimely deaths and who had situations where their vulnerabilities were, arguably, not dealt with in an appropriate way. There were a number of other circumstances that suggested that there were more systemic governance issues. So it was highly inappropriate that this review, in the view of many in the opposition, was limited to just the circumstances of her death. That limited right from the start the capacity of that review to deal with these important systemic issues.

It's also telling that when the government received this report, which contained a number of recommendations—as speakers on both sides of the House have in indicated—and when the minister put out a press release on receiving the report, that he referred Mr Robertson's review as having contained observations rather than recommendations. That really reflects the fact that, right from the start, the government in responding to the unfortunate circumstances of Ms Smith's death never really wanted to undertake a systemic review, but wanted to do something far more limited. We argue that while some of the measures contained in this bill are worthwhile, there are circumstances arising in relation to Ms Smith's death—and also to other deaths—which warrant a more wholesale systemic analysis of the government's arrangements of the NDIS.

Again, as others in this debate have pointed out, there's the issue of consultation. While we welcome a number of the recommendations contained in the Robertson review, we do think it's important to note—as has been pointed out by a number of members in the opposition and, even more importantly, also by a number of disability sector advocates and a number of people with a disability in the community—that the consultation the government has undertaken has been wholly inadequate in moving from the Robertson review report through to the design of this bill. The Robertson review was too limited. We support some of the recommendations which arose from it but we think that, right from the start, it was limited in terms of its capacity to look at a number of the elements of the system that currently don't protect sufficiently those who are particularly vulnerable. Moreover, there was wholly inadequate consultation with people with a disability and with the sector in the design of the bill.

Let me look at some of the recommendations arising from the Robertson review that are not dealt with within this bill. Again, it's important that we raise these issues because the deaths that I've alluded to—the unfortunate circumstances that I alluded to earlier—suggest that we should be looking at some of the more systemic governance issues as alluded to in the Robertson review. One of the recommendations, recommendation 2, relates to there being a sole carer:

The critical circumstance in the case of Ms Smith was that she became invisible to everybody but her sole carer.

The point he was making was that there's a substantial risk of harm which could be avoided if there were more than a single pair of eyes. He was at pains to say that the odds of any individual sole carer for any vulnerable person turning out to be negligent or cruel is extremely low. We know that the NDIS has people who are dedicated, who are caring and who are loving—we know that is the vast majority of people working within the NDIS. But we also know that it is absolutely critical to build in safety. Again:

The regular presence of at least one other human, another carer, would reduce the risk.

The sole carer recommendation is not addressed at all in this bill.

Another important recommendation was recommendation 3, which related to responsible persons. In particular, there was the observation that Ms Smith died because she was neglected by her carer and that no-one else was personally specifically responsible for her safety and wellbeing. Again, Judge Robertson said:

… as Ms Smith's terrible circumstances showed, there is a missing element which is, however described, a person with overall responsibility for the individual vulnerable NDIS participant's safety and wellbeing.

That led to recommendation 3, which was:

For each vulnerable NDIS participant, there should be a specific person with overall resp onsibility for that participant' s safety and wellbeing.

Importantly, that is a recommendation which could be related directly to the circumstances that surrounded the death of Mr David Harris, who died alone in his unit in Parramatta. Ms Leanne Longfellow had long requested that there be case managers introduced to the NDIS in such a way as to deal with that issue.

I think it's very important, again, to go back to the fact that while there are some worthwhile recommendations in the report which have been dealt with in this bill, the two recommendations that I've dealt with are important systemically, and the government should indicate to this chamber how it plans to deal with those recommendations. That's because they lie at the heart of how the NDIS will deal with people who are particularly vulnerable.

A related recommendation is recommendation 4, which is related to community visitors. There, the Robertson review recommended that the NDIS contain the:

… equivalent to State and Territory based Community Visitor Schemes …

This is a similar recommendation, related to the fact that the commission should conduct occasional visits to assess the safety and wellbeing of selected individual NDIS participants. So, again, it's about reducing the risk of having a single point of contact, it's about putting in place systemic changes to ensure that there are extra sets of eyes, and it's about putting in place systemic changes that minimise the likelihood that the abuse by one particular carer might lead an individual person into a precarious position.

What we see in this bill are some worthwhile measures. But what we also see when we look back at the tragic passing of Ms Smith—and also a number of other people in circumstances that, while not exactly the same, share some similarities—is that there are a range of governance issues that need to be looked at. Many people who have made observations about the Robertson inquiry and, indeed, about this bill, have pointed to deficiencies in the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commissioner role and the extent to which that regulator has sufficient resourcing and sufficient regulatory teeth to be able to do its job. Why, if that commission is functioning as well as it ought to be, was there only a fine of $12,600 for the particular very, very serious circumstances surrounding the death of Ms Smith? Why did it take so long for there to be action? And there are a whole host of other questions.

The failure to act on some of those systemic issues lies at the heart of the concerns that many on this side are raising. Going back to some of the process issues, if there had been more consultation in the design of this bill, in response to the Robertson report, which made recommendations, not observations, one can only imagine what other elements of this bill there might have been. So the inquiry was too narrow. It came up with some recommendations, but they have not been dealt with adequately.

In response to the way in which the NDIS is being managed overall—and in response to some on the other side, some in the government, who have said the situation today is better than it was some years ago in some respects for some people, there's no doubt that's true. But governments should be putting themselves to a higher standard than that. It's entirely appropriate to be asking questions about the NDIS—not just as to whether, in some areas, services have improved but as to whether it is the best system that it could be. When you ask those kinds of questions, I believe that the answer is no and that the NDIS could be doing so much more. We just need to look at the fact that NDIS funding is not where it needs to be and that there have been budget decisions which have led to underfunding of key parts of the NDIS. There have been a number of Australians who have waited too long for key funding or waited too long for equipment, which raises questions about the effectiveness of the system. Importantly, in recent times there's been the threat of independent assessments. That has receded for the moment, but who knows when that will come back.

So there are some elements of this bill which are worthwhile, but there is so much more to do, and it's just unfortunate that it's not in this bill but in the never-never for the moment.

Dr MARTIN (Reid) (18:58): I rise today to support the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Improving Supports for At Risk Participants) Bill 2021. How we treat vulnerable people in our community is a moral test that surpasses politics. One of our highest responsibilities in this place must be to ensure that vulnerable people have access to quality care and services that are respectful, responsive and that protect them from harm.

All Australians were rightfully distressed when we heard about the death of Ms Ann-Marie Smith last year. I was left profoundly disturbed by the level of criminal neglect and suffering that she went through. And I continue to reflect on how she was failed. Individuals with disabilities and NDIS participants and their families would have been particularly concerned as the extent of the treatment of Ann-Marie became known to them. Equally, carers in the disability sector, those individuals who care and work tirelessly for their clients, would have been left disgusted and dismayed by what happened to her.

We know that, sadly, while what happened to Ann-Marie was a tragedy, it was not an isolated case. Cases of abuse, neglect and exploitation of NDIS participants, while rare, do happen. The Morrison government considers any abuse, neglect or exploitation suffered by any NDIS participant to be abhorrent and is committed to improving the quality and safeguards in place to protect participants in the NDIS. This bill recognises the tragic circumstances of Ann-Marie's death and provides further assurance to NDIS participants and their families that the government is taking action to better protect them and to reduce the risks of such distressing events occurring again.

Building upon actions already taken by the quality and safeguards commission in response to the independent review undertaken by the Hon. Alan Robertson SC, this bill further addresses elements of the recommendations of the Robertson review. The bill also makes further technical amendments to better support the operations of the NDIS commission, based on early implementation experience. This bill will strengthen the support and protections for people with disability by ensuring a clear and effective legislative basis for the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission's powers, compliance and enforcement arrangements, provider registration provisions, and efficient information sharing across governments and government agencies.

At present, clauses in the NDIS Act establish a relatively high threshold for information sharing. They establish that the disclosure must be 'necessary to prevent or lessen a serious threat to an individual's life, health or safety'. This bill enacts a less restrictive threshold in recognition of the Robertson review recommendations. It removes qualifiers like 'serious' or 'necessary' to ensure any threat to life, health or safety is sufficient grounds for the recording, use or disclosure of protected NDIA or NDIS commission information. Importantly, these changes to information sharing do not undermine or reduce the significant protections for personal information under the NDIS Act. One of the key considerations in drafting this bill has been to ensure that it is in accordance with the provisions of article 17 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and that any disclosure of information is proportionate to the outcome of protecting people with disability from harm. Personal information held by the NDIA or the NDIS commission will continue to be considered protected information.

The bill also amends provisions for disclosing information in a number of other specific situations, including that the NDIS commission is able to disclose information to worker-screening units and other agencies as required and that the NDIS commission can publish and maintain information about historical compliance and enforcement action. This sharing of information about a worker or provider with relevant bodies is necessary to ensure that the agencies have relevant information about whether workers or providers pose an unacceptable risk of harm to a person with disability, including whether they should receive or retain an NDIS worker-screening clearance. The bill also provides for greater clarity around reportable incidents, including broadening their scope and their reporting to the NDIS commission, in commission rules. By enabling definition via the rules, the commission will have the flexibility to respond quickly to arising circumstances and continue to protect participants.

As I mentioned, this bill also makes a number of technical amendments. Currently, quality assurance of registered NDIS providers is undertaken by approved quality auditors who are engaged by providers directly. As it stands, the market for quality auditors includes a wide range of experience levels and sector knowledge. As such, this bill will allow the commission to place conditions on the approval of quality auditors and makes explicit the commission's power to vary or revoke approval of quality auditors.

This bill also makes a number of amendments to ensure consistency and procedural fairness in the application of the NDIS commission's regulatory responses, including that compliance notices can be varied or revoked, that decisions in relation to these requests are reviewable decisions and that banning orders can have conditions attached. Further, while the NDIS Act gives the commissioner the power to ban a NDIS provider or worker on the grounds they are not suitable to deliver NDIS services and supports it does not presently set out how suitability is determined for banning orders. This bill provides the power for the commissioner to make rules in relation to suitability for that purpose, aligning with existing provisions in relation to provider registration.

This bill also clarifies elements of the process providers must follow when registering to deliver NDIS services and supports. This includes that applicants are able to withdraw applications and that applications for renewal of registration are deemed to have been withdrawn if the registered provider in question becomes the subject of a banning order during the renewal process.

In summary, this bill strengthens protections for NDIS participants and will strengthen the operational effectiveness of the NDIS commission. The NDIS has been transformative for individuals around Australia. I've seen it as a psychologist working in the disability space—that people were worse off prior to the NDIS. They're much better off now with the NDIS. But we know it has not been perfect. We know that a scheme of this size will for some time require continued improvement. This bill is another important step in ensuring the NDIS, this world-class system that we have here in Australia, continues to deliver to NDIS participants. It will ensure the most vulnerable in our community are better protected from harm as well as support them in accessing quality and safe services under the NDIS.

I want to acknowledge that the Paralympics are on tomorrow, and I have a number of constituents in Reid who will be representing Australia. I'm going to give them a quick shout-out: Madison de Rozario, Richard Voris, Ben Weekes, Ameera Lee, Imalia Oktrininda and Thomas Birtwhistle. We are cheering you on here from Australia. Your performance will lift our spirits in this very difficult time. We wish you all the best for tomorrow. Aussie, Aussie, Aussie!

Mr ZAPPIA (Makin) (19:07): I rise to speak in support of the amendment moved by Labor to the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Improving Supports for At Risk Participants) Bill 2021. The tragic death of Ann-Marie Smith on 6 April 2020 should never have happened. It exposed a disgraceful lack of oversight and indifference from several individuals and private agencies. Even more concerningly, it also exposed a systematic failure in oversight of vulnerable people both by the federal and state government agencies that should have been alerted following: firstly, the Oakden affair, and the chief psychiatrist report into that and the ICAC report into Oakden; the events that precipitated the aged-care royal commission and the disability royal commission; and the countless aged-care reports which painted a clear picture of the risks and poor treatment of all vulnerable people as well as the failings of government agencies.

Just as disturbing is that, despite all the revelations, all the publicity and all the community outcry, the incompetence, neglect and abuse continues. I believe it is far more widespread than generally acknowledged. In recent months I have had family members raise with me their concerns about neglect and about substandard care being provided to their elderly family members, who are people with serious disability but are in aged-care facilities. Almost every person in an aged-care facility has a disability. If they didn't have one, they'd more than likely still be living at home rather than in an aged-care facility.

In June this year, at a South Australian government owned rehabilitation facility run by the South Australian Department of Human Services, a vulnerable man was rushed to the Royal Adelaide Hospital in a serious state of neglect. This facility is not far from the now infamous Oakden facility, and the case comes in the wake of inquiries and media reports into the Ann-Marie Smith neglect. I understand that that case has been referred to the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission whom, it is reported, have said that the commission cannot investigate a state run facility—and so the buck-passing begins. Subsequently the South Australian government has launched its own investigation by the Health and Community Services Complaints Commissioner. Adding to the buck-passing, some services at the facility are outsourced to private providers.

The recommendations in this legislation are an acknowledgement that the current oversight of vulnerable people is failing them. My concern is that the measures proposed, although welcome, do not go far enough and that they continue to be heavily dependent on those entrusted with oversight of vulnerable people doing what is right and what is expected of them. Nor does the legislation adopt all of the recommendations of the Robertson review of the Ann-Marie Smith death. Indeed, recommendations 2, 3, 4, 5 and 10 of that review have not been adopted. The member for Fraser, in his remarks earlier, pointed to some of those recommendations and quite properly highlighted why they should have been included, yet they have not been. I won't cover the same ground that he covered on that topic, but I concur with his remarks in their entirety, because, if the commissioner did not believe they were important, he would not have included them in the 10 recommendations. Yet we have no explanation as to why they were not included. And they would make a difference. In particular, the issue of the community visitor scheme—which I believe is recommendation No. 4—was raised also within the South Australian parliament at the time because a community visitor scheme could have made a difference in the Ann-Marie Smith case and, possibly, in many other cases where people have been improperly cared for.

Referring the bill to a Senate inquiry would allow stakeholders time to scrutinise the bill and provide feedback, and I think that's important. My understanding is that stakeholders are the people who understand what happens in the real world for a person with a disability who, every day, has to live with the disability and the support services that are available and who society has, shamefully, failed for too long. It's also my understanding that the disability rights organisations and advocates have asked for more time to consider this legislation. Again, I believe that they should be provided with that time. They are the people who, on a daily basis, have to deal with the issues that we in this parliament are discussing with respect to this very legislation.

I also note that, earlier this year, the Morrison government conducted independent assessment trials. Whilst I had some personal feedback with respect to those trials, I also am aware that the trials were not supported by many of the stakeholders out there. And, whilst I also accept that the government has, for the time being at least, withdrawn from those trials and put them on the backburner, it's clear in my mind that the intent of those trials was, ultimately, to cut costs and cut services. That would have been the objective of them, and the government was trying to find a way of doing that.

If the government wants to cut costs, it could start by reviewing the amount of funding that goes to service providers and the services that they provide. I make this qualification: I accept that there are many good service providers out there, but there are also many who are overcharging for the services they provide and where much of the funding is going into what we would term their administrative costs rather than going into client services. Indeed, it would be interesting to know just how much of the total amount of money expended under the NDIS actually goes to services for the people who need those services as opposed to going into administrative costs for the organisations that are providing the services. I don't know those figures, but perhaps one day we might be able to get them and some real savings might be made. Also, there have been allegations of rorting of the scheme by unethical providers, with several cases of alleged fraud having been reported. In one case, it was alleged that something like $10 million over a four-year period was defrauded from the NDIS. I have little doubt that fraudulent acts and unethical behaviour or rorting of the scheme is much more widespread than reported. But there are also a lot of very good service providers who are doing an excellent job.

Finally, I want to refer to the campaign currently underway that is run under the banner of Disability Doesn't Discriminate. The campaign, in my view, raises some legitimate anomalies relating to access to NDIS support, with particular reference to people aged 65 years and over. Currently, NDIS support is only available to people up to 65 years of age, and that support is not means tested, unlike aged-care support. The pension age is now 66½ years, so there seems to be some discrepancy in the logic of cutting NDIS support at 65 years of age when the pension only cuts in at 66½ years. That's another issue that needs to be addressed. All of those anomalies raise valid grievances and they must be addressed. I accept that, at the time that the scheme was put in place, it was done in good faith and in a way that would at least address the issues that appeared to be outstanding, and services for people under 65 years were simply not addressed. However, given that those matters have now been raised, it is time that they were properly addressed.

The other issue associated with all of that is that navigating the NDIS system is not easy. It is very, very difficult. I wonder how many people have actually given up on trying to apply for the services and support that they would be entitled to, but, because the process is too difficult, they were unable to apply. Particularly if the person already has a disability that affects trying to navigate through the process, it would have to be a nightmare. The process has to be simplified so that all people who have a disability and are entitled to support are able to get the support that they should be getting. If that's one of the objectives that we should be looking at in making changes to the NDIS, then we should be doing that. In my office, and I'm sure it's the same in the offices of all other MPs in this place, one of the issues that is most commonly referred to us is the issue of assisting people who have run into stumbling blocks with respect to their NDIS applications.

The NDIS was an important Labor initiative. However, at the time, it was not enthusiastically supported by coalition members. Today it provides an invaluable service to people with a disability. As the member for Fisher quite rightly said, it has changed lives. That's exactly what it was intended to do: change lives. It was intended to do that because the parliament at the time accepted that additional funding would be put into the services available to people with a disability. That was the whole intent of the scheme, and of course it has done that. If it had not, it would have been a complete failure. The scheme can be improved, and we should look to the experience to date of the people who have been participants in the scheme and those who have been service providers in the scheme. We should use their experience as the basis upon which we can improve the system. That's what the review was partly all about, that's what this parliament should be doing on a regular basis, and that's why Labor has moved some amendments to the legislation, because our view is that we should learn from what's happened in recent years and make the scheme even better for more people.

Mr STEPHEN JONES (Whitlam) (19:20): Over the next few weeks, members of this place will be cheering on our representatives in the Paralympics. We've had a wonderful period of enormous success cheering on our athletes at the Olympics, and we've got another two weeks where we'll get the opportunity to do the very same. I want to give a shout-out to some local athletes from the Illawarra and South Coast, including my very good mate Brett Stibners, who will be attending his fourth Paralympics in the wheelchair basketball. He has been a linchpin of the Roller Hawks in the Illawarra, who are ranked third-best wheelchair basketball team in the world. They are a force to be reckoned with. Brett Stibners is an absolute champion and will be a critical part of that team as well.

I want to give a shout-out to Jonathan Goerlach, who's competing in the triathlon, and Jasmine Greenwood from the South Coast, who's competing in the swimming. The next athlete is not from my area, but if you can't give a shout-out to your cousin then it's a pretty ordinary sort of place, so I want to give a shout-out to Ashley Van Rijswijk, who will be competing in the 100-metre breaststroke and the 2 x 100 metre medley. There will be hordes of Van Rijswijks and Joneses who will be cheering on from back here in Australia to see Ashley do her very, very best. We wish you well. All the best, Ash.

This is all important. I think, politics aside, every single person in this place will be cheering genuinely for our Paralympic representatives. But the absolute best thing that we could do for people who are living with disabilities and their families and carers would be to provide stability and some certainty in the National Disability Insurance Scheme. Before somebody hastens to say that not everyone who's representing Australia in the Paralympics is a recipient of the National Disability Insurance Scheme, that is true. It is equally true that not everybody who is a recipient of the National Disability Insurance Scheme benefits gets the recognition that our representatives do at the Paralympics, and we need to ensure that they are at the forefront of our minds when we're debating bills such as this.

I've got to say the NDIS is a piece of social reform introduced by the Labor government in 2013 which has a very thin vestige of bipartisan support. When you peel below that vestige, you see actions and initiatives which belie the talk of bipartisan support of the National Disability Insurance Scheme. I could talk of a range of things that have occurred over the last three years which speak of a very different attitude from the Morrison government and coalition governments before them. For example, in 2019 alone, the coalition government ripped out $4.6 billion from the National Disability Insurance Scheme to prop up a budget in a vainglorious hope to bring that budget back into surplus. At the very time that that money was being withdrawn from the National Disability Insurance Scheme, there were people living with disabilities who were struggling, with their carers and planners, to put together plans based on the funds that were allocated to them to meet their very basic needs. Time and time again, the struggle to get recognition for transport costs comes up as something that is simply not recognised properly in the NDIS. There wouldn't be a member in this place who has not had representations from their constituents on that particular issue. If it were just that, Deputy Speaker, you'd say, 'They got that wrong, but we've got the opportunity in debates such as this to turn the ship around.' Unfortunately, it has not. The massive underspend has resulted in those that really, really do rely on the scheme having limited access to services, underfunded plans and excessive wait times.

In addition to the $4.6 billion worth of cuts, last year the government tried to ram through the independent review process, which had one purpose and one purpose alone, and that was to reduce the amount of funds made available to people living with disabilities through their plan. You can be guaranteed that the purpose of that independent review process was not to lift people up and ensure that they had sufficient funds to meet all the services that they were struggling to pay for.

The scheme is not perfect, and we understand that, when you introduce a scheme revolutionary in its design and extensive in its ambition, there are going to be teething problems. We don't deny that the government has had to deal with some of those teething problems. But too often they have gone down the wrong path. Last year, for example, we were made aware that, between July 2016 and September 2019, more than 1,200 Australians died while waiting for support through the National Disability Insurance Scheme. I'll say that number again: 1,200 Australians were assessed and qualified as eligible for services but died while waiting for support through the NDIS. It's not good enough—simply not good enough. I want people to remember that number: 1,200 Australians died before they accessed the scheme. We'll stand in this place over the next fortnight and give speeches about how well we are supporting our athletes at the Paralympics. Of course we should be doing that, but it's much more important that we're supporting everybody with a disability here at home.

I have a few words about the bill. Following pressure from Labor's shadow minister and the South Australian shadow minister, the Morrison government established an independent inquiry into the tragic death of an Adelaide NDIS participant, Ms Ann-Marie Smith, who died of severe septic shock, multiple organ failure and other issues connected, tragically, with her cerebral palsy. Ann-Marie's NDIS package included six hours of support per day. Reports are that she only ever received two hours of care per day and had not been seen outside of her home for over a year. Ann-Marie's terrible death is nothing short of a tragedy. She should be alive and thriving—perhaps cheering on the Olympics. Instead, she was neglected and abandoned and suffered a tragic death.

Labor was very relieved and welcomed the fact that the Morrison government heeded our calls for an independent investigation into the circumstances surrounding Ann-Marie Smith's death. Reviewer Alan Robertson made 10 recommendations aimed at addressing the broader system failures within the NDIS. The government didn't formally respond to the Robertson review. Without any formal public consultations or sector engagement, the government introduced the bill which is before the House today. We simply say: this is not the right way to introduce reform. To partially implement the recommendations of the Robertson review does no justice to that deliberative process.

The bill amends the provisions in the NDIS Act to support the implementation of changes in response to recommendations 1, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 and is aimed at improving supports and protections provided to NDIS participants. Labor welcomes these initiatives. However, proper consultation on these changes is needed before they can and should be passed, and disability advocates want to be consulted. Indeed, they deserve to be consulted.

I want to tell members of the House a story about a constituent of mine, Mr Rafal Oleszczuk. He's a local constituent from Mount Warrigal. Last year, he contacted my office. In 2009, he suffered a serious motorcycle accident and lost his leg in that accident. Since then, he has had to rely on a very basic, unsafe and incredibly painful prosthesis. He could only wear the prosthesis for one hour at a time, and it was so worn down that it was causing blood boils to form and ultimately burst. All of this restricted Rafal's range of movement and his access to the wider community. When the NDIS was first rolled out in 2017 in the Illawarra region, Rafal and his family only hoped—

Debate interrupted.