COMMITTEES

2021-08-23 46 1 7 House of Reps 0 1

Monday, 23 August 2021

The SPEAKER ( Hon. Tony Smith ) took the chair at 10:00, made an acknowledgement of country and read prayers.

COMMITTEES 1 COMMITTEES Petitions Committee 1 Report 1 10:01 Mr O'DOWD 139441 Flynn 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 PETITIONS 3 PETITIONS Feral Animals 3 COVID-19: International Travel 3 International Relations 4 Middle East 4 COVID-19: International Travel 4 Diabetes 4 Renewable Energy 5 Shoalhaven: Health Care 5 Organ and Tissue Donation 5 COVID-19: International Travel 6 Domestic, Family and Sexual Violence 6 Skilled Migration Program 6 Australian Society 6 COVID-19: International Travel 6 Law Enforcement 7 COVID-19: Vaccination 7 Veterans 7 Veterans 8 COVID-19: Taxation 8 Veterans 8 COVID-19: Income Support Payments 9 COVID-19: International Travel 9 COVID-19: Vaccination 9 COVID-19: International Travel 9 Genetically Modified Crops 10 Education 10 Vaccination 10 COVID-19: Vaccination 10 Housing Affordability 10 COVID-19: Vaccination 11 COVID-19: International Travel 11 COVID-19: International Travel 11 COVID-19: Vaccination 11 COVID-19: International Travel 11 National Missing Persons Week 12 COVID-19: Vaccination 12 Australian Currency 12 COVIDSafe 12 COVID-19: International Travel 12 COVID-19: Vaccination 13 Census 13 COVID-19: International Travel 13 COVID-19: Vaccination 14 Air Quality 14 Petitions 14 COVID-19: Vaccination 14 COVID-19: International Travel 14 COVID-19: Vaccination 14 COVID-19: Vaccination 15 Food Labelling 15 Parliament 15 COVID-19: Vaccination 15 Social Media 15 COVID-19: Vaccination 16 National Diabetes Services Scheme 16 PETITIONS 16 PETITIONS Responses 16 10:01 Mr O'DOWD 139441 Flynn I present the following 16 ministerial responses to petitions previously presented: Foreign Investment 16 Prime Minister 17 Foreign Investment 17 JobSeeker Payment, JobKeeper Payment 18 Australian Constitution 18 COVID-19: Aviation Industry 18 Telecommunications 19 Social Media 20 Medicare 20 Charitable Organisations 21 Gender and Sexual Orientation 22 Telecommunications 22 Ethiopia: Tigrayans 22 Visas 23 COVID-19: Vaccination 23 COVID-19: International Travel 24 PETITIONS 24 PETITIONS Statements 24 10:02 Mr O'DOWD 139441 Flynn I would like to sincerely thank members of the committee who have joined me in ensuring that during these recent COVID-safe sittings of parliament we continue to facilitate the important process of petitioning. The committee has continued to meet via teleconference, with a minimum of disruption, to consider petitions and related matters and plans to do so until further notice. It has been particularly important for the committee to work flexibly during this time, because the House petitioning system continues to see a great deal of engagement by the Australian people. For example, an e-petition tabled in the last sitting period collected over 300,000 signatures, which is the third-largest number of signatures on an e-petition to date. Another petition which recently closed collected over 100,000 signatures, and many more experienced large amounts of engagement by the public. This means that around half a million people have exercised their rights, and engaged directly with the parliament, over the past few weeks—a great result for democracy and the House e-petitioning system, and an indication of the consistent popularity of petitioning as a way for people to have their say. These figures also demonstrate the usefulness of the e-petitioning system as a means for Australians to continue petitioning the House, while remaining COVID-safe. As a committee, we are pleased to be able to facilitate these important rights of all Australians while they remain socially distanced. Thank you, and I look forward to further updating the House on the work of the Petitions Committee in the future. COMMITTEES 25 COMMITTEES Standing Committee on Tax and Revenue 25 Report 25 10:04 Ms LIU 282918 Chisholm 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). 10:05 Mr THISTLETHWAITE 182468 Kingsford Smith [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 10000 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? 10:11 Ms LIU 282918 Chisholm I move: That the House take note of the report. The SPEAKER 10000 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. Reference to Federation Chamber 26 10:12 Ms LIU 282918 Chisholm I move: That the order of the day be referred to the Federation Chamber for debate. Question agreed to. NOTICES 26 NOTICES 10:12 The SPEAKER 00APG I inform the House that, pursuant to standing order 110, the honourable member for Fisher has withdrawn notice No. 1 standing in his name. The order of precedence for the remaining private members' business notices as determined by the Selection Committee's report adopted by the House on 11 August 2021 remains unchanged. MOTIONS 26 MOTIONS Aged Care 26 10:13 Dr HAINES 282335 Indi I move: That this House: (1) recalls the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety made multiple recommendations urging the Government to immediately improve the supply, diversity, and affordability of aged care across rural and regional Australia; (2) notes that it is now more than three months since the Government announced $630 million over five years to improve the respect, care and dignity shown to rural and regional Australians in the aged care system, including their families; (3) calls on the Government to: (a) explain exactly when and how it will deliver tangible progress on aged care in rural and regional Australia, particularly through: (i) rapid improvements to the supply of quality fit-for-purpose residential facilities; (ii) lowering the wait times for home care packages, which remain unacceptable; (iii) preventing aged care providers from exploiting consumers through excessive administration and management fees through greater transparency and consideration of imposing caps; and (iv) specific measures to improve skilled workforce training and retention in rural and regional Australia, including through improved pay, conditions, and staffing; (b) fully commit to recommendation 86 of the Royal Commission by ensuring at least one registered nurse is on site at all residential aged care facilities at all times; and (c) implement the recommendations of the Multi-Purpose Service Review, which was completed almost two years ago in October 2019, as soon as possible; and (4) raises specific concerns about the urgent need for a high-care residential aged care facility in Bright in regional Victoria which has gone without a dedicated aged care solution for over three decades, and implores the Government to work proactively with the Victorian Government and Alpine Health to implement an effective solution as soon as possible. I'm speaking here today because we cannot, and must not, forget about aged-care reform. It's close to six months since the aged-care royal commission handed down its report, yet it has all but disappeared from the national conversation. In this casual way of forgetting, successive governments have overseen 30 years of slow collapse of the aged-care sector, and we can't let that happen again. That's why today I'm calling on the government to explain when and how it will deliver tangible progress on aged care—because, while the pandemic rages, millions languish in the same conditions the commissioners described. The heartbreak of residents who have returned to Zoom calls for contact with loved ones must be salved by clear evidence that, irrespective of lockdowns, the royal commission reforms are tangibly progressing. System reform can be slow. It is, by definition, hard. That doesn't mean, though, that we can delay. Aged-care services in rural and regional Australia have thin markets and workforce challenges, and their context-specific models of care call for fit-for-purpose funding responses. Residential aged care in the alpine town of Bright is one example. It has no high-care aged-care facility. Bright hospital is part of the Alpine Health multi-purpose service. This community has called for a dedicated high-care facility for three decades. Without one, older people are forced to leave the only place they know and move to another town. Their spouses may be too old to drive to visit them and public transport for relatives and friends is sporadic or non-existent. This is heartbreaking and emblematic of the epidemic of loneliness that so many older Australians face. In Bright, the answer is answer is clear: Alpine Health's feasibility study sets out a plan for the redevelopment of Bright Hospital as an integrated health service, with a dedicated high-care residential facility with co-funding by state, community and philanthropy. But they need federal support, and I'm calling on the government to step up for this support. Right now, the Commonwealth prohibits funding to capital infrastructure for multipurpose services such as Bright, and this simply doesn't make sense. The facilities are outdated and deteriorating. Aged care is a Commonwealth responsibility. While the MPS model was established to be flexible and to integrate aged and acute services for small rural communities, this government excludes MPS from grants that every other aged-care provider can access, including the Aged Care Approval Rounds, which some non-MPS services in many towns across my electorate have received. The government agreed to revisit its ban on funding capital infrastructure in its responses to the 2019 MPS review and the 2021 royal commission report. Yet, that's the last we hear of it: no money in the budget and no straight answers in ministerial meetings. So I call on the government to urgently implement the recommendations of the multipurpose services review without delay. Quality aged care needs expert staffing. This government needs to fully commit to recommendation 86 of the royal commission report by mandating that a registered nurse is on site at residential aged-care facilities at all times. As a former nurse, at a rural bush nursing aged-care centre many years ago, and as a volunteer and director at a larger aged-care facility, I know that having nurses on site benefits not just the residents—whose care is complex, ranging from chronic pain management, diabetes control, wound management, mental health issues, cognitive care through to palliative care support—but also the personal care attendants by providing them with expert help and timely advice. Having registered nurses on site 24/7 supports an overworked and stretched rural GP workforce. Just ask the local doctors and they will tell you how many out-of-hours visits and avoidable hospital visits 24/7 registered nurse care prevents. And imagine if this included the expertise of nurse practitioners, who face non-sensical barriers to providing care to those who need it most. The royal commission recommended that this be phased in from 16 hours a day in July 2022 to round-the-clock care by July 2024, yet the government committed to 16 hours per day, which will not be mandatory until October 2023. This is not good enough. The need for clinical care doesn't operate in shifts and cannot wait for two years. I know that finding the workforce we need will not be easy, because of the long-term erosion of the sector, but we need to get cracking. I call on the government to act and act quickly to benefit the hundreds and hundreds of aged-care residents and workers in my electorate of Indi who are providing care, dignity and respect under difficult conditions. The SPEAKER 00APG Is the motion seconded? Mr Dick 53517 I second the motion and reserve my right to speak. 10:14 Dr ALLEN 282986 Higgins I thank the member for Indi for moving this motion and providing the opportunity to speak on a topic I care deeply about. To achieve the required outcomes in the aged-care sector is not an easy feat. It's something that the Morrison government is not shying from—quite the opposite. There is good reason that one of the Prime Minister's first acts in his role was to call for a royal commission into aged care. He said he believed we owed a duty of care to every older Australian to ensure they have respect and quality care. This is something I'm proud of and something I know that we as a government are committed to delivering on. After 10,000 public submissions and 23 public hearings with 641 witnesses over 99 days, the 148 recommendations made in the final report are the product of considered scrutiny of Australia's aged-care system. The Morrison government recognises the importance of these recommendations and will act to fulfil the recommendations to give our older Australians the dignity they deserve after a lifetime of service to our country. Our comprehensive response to the royal commission final report is driven by the principles of respect and care through the lens of five broad pillars: firstly, supporting older Australians who choose to access home care—Australians tell us they want to age at home, and we back that in; secondly, that quality and safety in residential aged care delivers dignity alongside care—something we need to ensure; thirdly, investing to drive improvements in residential aged-care services and sustainability, which will involve providers partnering with the community and government to deliver this; fourthly, that growing a passionate and skilled aged-care workforce is absolutely essential—this will be constrained in the time of COVID and it will ensure a laser-like focus; and, fifthly, governance—we need oversight standards and accountability. This is a new era that has already commenced in this parliament, with many of these already starting to have legislation around them. The Morrison government cares for the dignity of Australians as they age, with $630 million invested to improve the supply, diversity and affordability of aged care across rural and regional Australia, in recognition of the contribution they have made to our country. The government has already guaranteed additional funding to support services to meet the royal commission's recommended minimum 200-minute care time standard and to have a registered nurse on site for 16 hours per day. Importantly, the Morrison government has announced there will be a $29 million investment in allowing allied health professionals to train in rural and regional areas as well as upgrading older diagnostic imaging equipment. We understand there are issues of workforce in rural and regional Australia, and it is something we are working hard on. I commend the member for Indi on raising this incredibly important issue. This will provide benefit to at least 80 medical practices and is crucial in working towards the full achievement of recommendation 86—and not only this; it will also improve skilled workforce training, as the member for Indi has called for. The member for Indi has also called for the government to lower the wait times for home-care packages. The member will be pleased to know the government will provide an additional $6.5 billion to release 80,000 additional home-care packages over the next three years. This is massive. This is no small fry; $6.5 billion is an incredibly important record investment in this area, for what we need for all our futures. The member will be pleased to know we are also increasing investment in the workforce through additional training and care minutes. The Morrison government is confident that home-care packages will be allocated and taken up by Australians faster. This funding also includes $370 million for aged-care providers to improve buildings and expand into underserviced regions. The Morrison government foresees about 1,400 construction jobs being created and, pivotally, benefit for 471,000 senior Australians in remote and rural areas. This is key. Moreover, $35 million will be allocated over the coming four years to allow these remote and rural aged-care providers to access additional temporary and permanent workforce as well as incentivise the retention of current permanent staff—again, a critical investment. In addition, $13 million has been invested to ensure that Australians in regional areas can access offices for aged-care support. The Morrison government is committed to getting the response right so that all Australians can age with dignity and respect. They deserve it. 10:23 Ms McBAIN 281988 Eden-Monaro [by video link] I acknowledge the commitment of the member for Indi in bringing on this motion regarding aged care for discussion today. Today I want to speak about a fair go. Our Prime Minister said that he believes in a fair go, that those who have a go in this country will get a go, that if you put in you get to take out. So my question is: when is the Prime Minister going to give older Australians a fair go? When is this government going to accept that people in aged care have put in? They've worked hard, they've built this country and they have earned our respect. They deserve so much better than a system that has neglected them. It's about time the government gave them a fair go. The royal commission into aged care made multiple recommendations, urging immediate action to improve the supply, diversity and affordability of aged care across rural and regional Australia. Our regional communities know how important it is to have local aged-care facilities, because regional people want to grow old with dignity, surrounded by their families, their friends and the environment and culture that was central to their younger years. Unfortunately, the choices for many people in my electorate, including those in Jindabyne and Cooma, are limited. Communities in my electorate have older populations. They are people who have lived in places like Bombala and Batlow their entire lives, and they have no plans to leave. They want action so that they can access an aged-care system that allows them to stay connected to their communities. We all know our aged-care system needs an overhaul. My mum worked in aged care for 15 years, and my nan spent her last years in an aged-care facility. I heard firsthand some of the difficulties my mum had trying to deal with regulations while making sure that residents were front and centre in her care. Mum talked about this part of her working life as having been a privilege. For my mum and for everyone else who works in aged care, caring for, connecting with and protecting those who contributed to our communities is far more than a job. But let's not forget that it is a job. Care work is hard work. It is physical work. It is emotional work. It's because of this work that our older loved ones can live the life they deserve. This work is still undervalued by this government. Our aged-care workers have been on the frontline of this pandemic for over 20 months. Everyone can see that our aged-care workers are having a go. Surely it's time for this government to give them a fair go. At the moment aged-care workers are some of the worst paid people in Australia's economy. Staff are overworked and under enormous pressure to provide quality care when they're exhausted, because there just isn't enough support. These workers are doing their very best in a system that is broken. There needs to be an increase in the hourly rate of aged-care workers not only because they deserve to be compensated for the difficult work they do but also because we need more of them. We need to be encouraging more people to take up careers in aged care. It's an industry that's growing every year due to our ageing population, and a career in aged care is a really viable option for many people living in our regional communities. But how can you encourage someone to enter a career where they will likely be overworked and undervalued? This country deserves a better aged-care system—a system where services can employ more trained and better-paid staff so that the overall standard of care increases. I strongly believe that we need staff-to-patient ratios, and these ratios need to be looked at based on the needs of residents. It baffles me that we can regulate ratios for childcare centres but that this government seems unable or unwilling to consider ratios for our other most vulnerable cohort. The royal commission concluded that the retention, attraction and training of staff would be crucial to lifting care standards as Australia ages, but today there are fewer than half the enrolments in TAFE studying health and welfare in age and disability than there were in 2013. This government is already failing to live up to promises to fix longstanding staff shortages, despite the royal commission's outlining of it as an urgent priority. Time and again we have seen this government presented with recommendations, but I worry that the lessons that have come out of the royal commission are falling on deaf ears. We don't have time to waste. We need action now and we need to make sure that we get this right. My hope is that this government will finally hear the calls of all Australians and do what we need it to. I hope the government will finally give our older generation and our aged-care workers a fair go, because they've more than proved that they deserve it. 10:28 Mr McCORMACK 219646 Riverina I thank the member for Indi for the opportunity to speak on this important motion. And I thank the member for Eden-Monaro for her comments. She is right: regional and rural Australia need the services and infrastructure in aged care. But the important thing to note is that we are not running a fast-food drive-through here. We need to make sure that we have careful and deliberate planning when it comes to aged care, and the government is certainly addressing the recommendations that were provided in the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety. That is why in the budget this year in May the Treasurer stood at the dispatch box and announced a $17.7 billion package for a once-in-a-generation reform of aged care, including measures aimed at improving aged care particularly in rural, regional and remote Australia. I want to acknowledge the work done by the previous minister for regional health, the member for Parkes, and to acknowledge all of the rural and regional members in this parliament, not just on this side but in the parliament. And I do respect the member for Indi. She comes here with a long, proud history of health care—she does—and the member for Macarthur, too; I had dinner with him not that long ago, when COVID allowed us to do those things, and certainly the topic of rural health was first and foremost in our discussions. I was very pleased that the latest Aged Care Approvals Round, announced recently, delivered new residential care places and capital funding for the Riverina electorate, because Riverina is a microcosm of Australia—certainly of regional Australia. That ACAR included $197,560 in capital funding for the Uralba Hostel at Gundagai and 36 residential-care places for the Signature aged-care centre in Wagga Wagga. Signature has already started earthworks for its new development on what was once the south campus of the Charles Sturt University in the suburb of Turvey Park. This sort of infrastructure is so important to our areas. Whether it's Wagga Wagga, which is a big regional hub, or a small town or district, they need their residential aged care. I certainly take onboard what the member for Eden-Monaro said about loved ones—family members—who have lived in a particular area. She cited Bombala, but it doesn't matter whether it's Bombala, Bega or elsewhere in our great nation. Those people have contributed mightily to their local areas, and they deserve the very best of care and aged-care coverage, whether it's home packages or whether it's residential living, in their twilight years, which should be some of the best years of their life, when they can spend time with loved ones and with family and friends in the community to which they have contributed so mightily. That's why I was pleased that in the ACAR provisions there was funding for 45 beds for Harden aged care. Unfortunately, Harden aged care was closed earlier this year and residents were moved to nearby centres. Cowra proponents were going to take over the facility, but they needed a $4 million capital investment, which is not part of the ACAR round; they needed a business improvement fund, which they were able to get—hundreds of thousands of dollars. But the 45 beds was essential, and that is a viable, very much on-the-go aged-care centre at Harden, which could be taken up by a proponent, and I certainly hope that is the case. I just want to take on the comments of Mark Douglass. Sadly, his mother passed away when she was moved out of Harden aged care. He says, 'Old people are worthy of our care and respect and are not a commodity to be carelessly disregarded or traded as entries on a balance sheet.' He's right, and we all know that. That's why our government is doing everything we can to address those issues in that important royal commission. We're doing everything we can as far as services and as far as infrastructure is concerned for aged care, because aged people deserve the very best treatment and respect in what, as I said, should be their very best years. We will continue as a government to provide that service and level of support for them. 10:33 Mr BRIAN MITCHELL 129164 Lyons [by video link] I'd like to thank the member for Indi for bringing forward this motion regarding aged care. Once again, we're seeing a government that's big on announcements but that fails on delivery. We are seeing a government that simply cannot keep its promises. It's been three months since $630 million was announced by this government to go towards improving regional and rural aged care. That $630 million is vital. It's essential to improving the lives of our most vulnerable people. We know this because the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety, which we on this side of the House fought so hard for, told us. From that interim report called Neglect, we know how important this issue is. That report urged the government to immediately improve the supply, diversity and affordability of aged care across rural and regional Australia. We know that the priority of those opposite is not about better service but about cutting costs, and we've seen that in health care. In the eight years since the Liberals have been in government the cost of seeing a doctor in my electorate has risen by 35 per cent, and that's why I'm pleased Labor has forced an inquiry into rural and regional health care, which will also assist older people in the community. We have seen the ramifications of this government's cuts and neglect to the aged-care sector. Earlier this month we learnt of the critical workforce shortage that the aged-care sector is expected to face in coming years. We are facing a shortage of more than 110,000 workers over the next decade. And yet this government has overseen significant cuts to workforce training enrolments, impacting the sector right now, with those seeking to train in this industry going backwards. The National Centre for Vocational Education Research revealed that since the government came to office there are 4,000 fewer health and welfare support workers and 3,000 fewer aged and disability carers graduating. This is a cut of more than 7,000 to those coming through this vital, essential skilled workforce. This is a workforce—largely older women—that our country has relied upon at the frontline during the pandemic. We are putting the effort of this pandemic onto the shoulders of these incredible workers, who are doing such hard, taxing physical work every day in these aged-care centres. These workers are exhausted, and we know that because they've come to the parliament and they've told us on a number of visits that they are exhausted. They are overstretched. They are under-resourced. All they are begging for is time to care and decent pay for the work that they do. They are exhausted and overstretched. I reject the blame-shifting when it comes to vaccination that we have seen regarding aged-care workers. A public health order now mandates that all residential aged-care workers in Tasmania must receive a first dose by 17 September—fair enough—but this government has failed to put the structures in place, and it has left the workers high and dry. Aged-care workers were told they were at the front of the queue and that they would get easy access to the vaccine at work. They weren't and they didn't. We need to make vaccination easy and available for workers, not shame them, these incredible workers who do such incredible work. In my state of Tasmania the Health and Community Services Union has heard reports that because of chronic short-staffing some aged-care residents are being left in incontinence pads for hours and chronic dehydration has become a widespread issue across a number of homes. But, as the harrowing royal commission made clear, they simply lack the resources they need to take care of older Australians. If you state the obvious, we need more highly skilled carers and support staff in this sector, not fewer. We need to do better by our incredible aged-care workers and the incredible work that they do. 10:38 Mr VASTA E0D Bonner As a country, we are facing some of the most challenging weeks of the pandemic since it began in 2020, and it's our seniors who are amongst the most vulnerable. The standard of support and care that they are provided during this time cannot afford to be compromised. That is why we want to take this opportunity to thank the carers, the nurses, the cleaners, the cooks and the doctors who do such amazing work making sure our senior Australians are treated with respect, care and dignity. I rise today to speak on Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety, which recognises the inspiring effort of our nurses and carers. It also brings the challenges of aged-care services across the country into clear focus. The Morrison government is committed to transforming aged care, and the royal commission's monumental report, with 148 recommendations, delivers a challenging but achievable road to reform. It recognises the obstacles facing aged-care providers in rural and remote areas and the need to strengthen and support the aged -care workforce in these communities. In response to the final report from the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety the Australian government will deliver a $17.7 billion package, a package that is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to change aged care for the future. In response to recommendation 54 from the royal commission, we are investing over $630 million to make sure the aged-care system is more accessible for senior Australians living in rural and remote locations. The Morrison government is also strengthening its capacity to understand the service gaps in these rural and remote areas. It is making sure our seniors can continue residing in the parts of the country that they not only call home but feel most at home at. This package is critical in making sure that they can continue to have this freedom, and it ensures their desire to be independent does not have to diminish with age. The opposition has noted it has been more than three months since our government announced the $630 million investment. I want to paint the full picture to reinforce that we are only three months into a five-year plan which has been mapped out clearly. It is an ambitious plan, one the Prime Minister has acknowledged will take considerable time given the scale of change we want and need to achieve. But it is a plan that is achievable, and it responds to the individual needs of senior Australians. It gives them the opportunity to be involved in their own care and fosters a sense of purpose which cannot be taken for granted. The plan is aligned with five key pillars: home care, residential aged-care services and sustainability, improving access to and quality of residential care, workforce, and new legislation and stronger governance. Just last month Minister Colbeck announced the allocation of $150 million in capital grants—the single largest investment in residential aged-care infrastructure in Australia's history, 97 per cent of which was allocated to services located in regional and remote Australia. We're not wasting time getting underway, with a total of 72 projects that have been funded and are expected to be completed over the next six to 36 months. It will see a reduction in shared rooms, better amenities, more dementia friendly environments, more sustainable services and improved access to quality care in areas of need. Senior Australians shouldn't feel like they are waiting out their lives. Those of us with parents or grandparents in the system know they deserve the best possible quality of life at the bare minimum. With 32 aged-care homes and over 22,000 locals aged over 65 in my electorate of Bonner, the news of this package has been applauded by our local aged-care facilities. I'm regularly visiting these facilities as it is an opportunity for me to personally thank the staff, learn about what's happening on the ground and learn about where the support is needed. I've been able to hear the thanks of the staff at some of these local facilities for our government's commitment to restoring trust in the system. They always make me feel at home, as do the residents that I get to spend time with, and just recently I had the pleasure of hosting morning teas for the residents at Aveo aged care in Manly and those at Wishart Christian Village. We must continue to make sure our senior Australians know how valued they are as part of our community. I'm proud to represent the Morrison government, who recognise the importance of aged care now and into the future. We have to take considerate, responsible and thorough actions to provide critical funding, resources and training to the sector. What an accomplishment it is to be rolling out this in every corner of the country. 10:43 Ms STEGGALL 175696 Warringah [by video link] I thank the member for Indi for this very important motion. As the former speakers have noted, this is such an important issue. Australia's population is ageing. In Warringah 15 per cent of residents are over 65 years of age, and that percentage will rise. Many people in Warringah are in aged-care facilities or are supporting family members who are. I look forward to speaking to many of them at a forum that I'll be hosting online in a few weeks time to hear their accounts firsthand. The provision of adequate and compassionate aged care is important now, but it will be increasingly more and more important in years to come. The Sydney North Health Network is projecting that, between 2016 and 2036—so not too far into the future—there will be an increase of 46.3 per cent in the 65-plus age demographic. This makes it essential that we have in place well before then a planned, compassionate responsible system for aged care—a system that provides the level of care that supports dignity and grace in older age. The two-year long Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety showed the deep cracks that exist in the existing system, and I think all Australians stood aghast as we heard the repeated testimony of such horrendous malpractice and tragedy. The 2,500 page commission report is a testament to the depth of reform needed to right the system. The royal commission made 140 recommendations to reform the system, and we are currently uncertain of the stage of implementation of many of them. The member for Indi has highlighted several consequential recommendations, particularly for rural and regional communities, and I echo the calls for the government to tell us when and how they will be implemented. I strongly agree with recommendation 86 of the royal commission, which would ensure at least one registered nurse is always on site in residential aged-care facilities. Currently—and this is a little mind boggling—there is no minimum staffing requirement or skills mix in the legislation. Whilst we do it for so many other industries, it is really astounding that we are not doing it for our most vulnerable and elderly. It's something I have been calling for since the 2019 federal election and which I will continue to advocate for. Just this week I met a local nurse working in aged-care homes who detailed the continual staff shortages that have led to poor outcomes in the past in the care of people. In this facility there are 55 residents with moderate to severe dementia and only one registered nurse on shift—one for 55 residents. Made worse, in one facility, the RN went home overnight and left only assistants in nursing to manage the care of residents overnight, which caused issues for the RN returning to the shift in the morning, because they have to play catch-up. This is probably comparable to a lot of aged-care facilities all around the country. Over 10 per cent of aged-care facilities operate on ratios of one RN to over 100 residents every day, despite the majority of residents, some 86 per cent, being diagnosed with at least one mental health or behavioural condition and over 50 per cent of residents having high complex healthcare needs. These are Australians in a vulnerable state and with complex needs. It is simply not right to have so little proper care afforded to them. The government in its response to the royal commission partially accepted recommendation 86, including minimum staff time standards and committed to these in the proposed Aged Care Act. They will come into effect in phases. The first is to begin on 1 October 2023, and will provide 200 minutes per day per resident with personal care workers and enrolled nurses and 40 minutes of that time with an RN, increasing to 215 minutes and 44 minutes respectively by 1 July 2024. I welcome that commitment, but it really is not good enough. From 1 July 2022 there should always be at least one RN for morning and mid-afternoon shifts and one RN on site per aged-care facility. We really have to move quickly and implement that recommendation. Recommendation 72, which aims to achieve equity for people with disability receiving aged care, is also incredibly important. I presented a petition of nearly 20,000 signatures in December 2019 in relation to the age discrimination that exists for people once they are over the age of 65 in relation to the difference in support between NDIS and aged care. There are, sadly, many more issues, but I commend the government and urge greater action in implementing the recommendations. 10:48 Mr CONNELLY 282984 Stirling I thank the member for Indi for bringing this motion forward today. Indeed, ageing, along with death and taxes, is right up there in the inescapable realities of our human existence. I'm also very pleased to take this opportunity to mention my wife's nan Maxine Mitchell, who passed away last week at the very ripe old age of 96. She did extremely well. All the best to Warren, my father-in-law, and the rest of the family. Maxine, along with Peta's other nan on her maternal side, aged in residential settings. We are seeing this as increasingly one of the trends in modern Australia. So it's absolutely appropriate and very welcome that the Morrison government is continuing to invest in aged-care settings in the home, and of course that includes regional and remote areas as well. I note that a component of the motion today speaks to tangible progress on aged care in rural and regional Australia. Now, this government certainly understands that senior Australians in regional and remote areas want equitable access to the care that they need, regardless of where they live, so that they can stay close to their loved ones and communities for as long as possible. This government also recognises that there are significant challenges facing aged-care providers in rural and remote areas and that there's a need to strengthen and support aged-care workers in those communities. In response to the final report from the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety, the Australian government is delivering a $17.7 billion package for a once-in-a-generation reform of aged care, and this includes measures aimed at improving aged care in regional and rural Australia. In particular, recommendation 54 from the royal commission calls on the government to identify and address gaps in services to ensure equitable access to aged care in regional and remote locations. So the government has responded to this recommendation in the most recent budget, including through measures like the $630 million investment to make the aged-care system more accessible for senior Australians, including Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people who are homeless, at risk of homelessness or living in rural and remote areas. The government is strengthening its capacity to understand rural and remote service gaps and to develop policy solutions. The government announced recent results of the 2020 ACAR, which included the allocation of $150 million in capital grants—the single largest investment in residential aged-care infrastructure in Australia's history—and 97 per cent of this funding was allocated to services located in regional and remote Australia to fund projects that improve access to quality and sustainable aged-care services. The government's $17.7 billion package of aged-care reforms will benefit senior Australians, and some of these initiatives are specifically targeted to promote sustainability and choice for the uptake of services in regional and remote Australia. For example, the budget measures include $396.9 million over five years to enable aged-care providers to make the needed improvements to their buildings and to build new services. This is in addition to the $150 million I mentioned earlier in capital funding. An investment of $106 million is also in place over four years to improve Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander consumer experience and uptake of and access to aged care. There's $62 million over four years to support the delivery of viable high-quality aged care to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, and this will assist, in particular, those consumers to stay connected to country and culture and to meet travel needs of those who need to travel to deliver services. There is also $64 million to deliver a viable, high-quality, integrated care package to older Australians in regional and remote locations. The government's investing in very practical support measures, including $5 million to support professional workforce capability development and also $25 million for the Rural Locum Assistance Program, and the key intent here is to lighten the burden and increase staff retention. So these are some of the many measures by which this government remains committed to supporting the aged-care sector. 10:54 Ms CLAYDON 248181 Newcastle I thank the member for Indi for bringing this motion to the House today. Older Australians helped build this country. They've worked hard and earned the respect, dignity and peace of mind that this government should be providing them now in aged care. But nothing could be further from the truth for so many Australians. The eight long years of steadfast neglect from the Morrison Liberal government have been shameful. In my electorate of Newcastle, doctors, nurses, academics, lawyers, private business, government agencies and aged-care workers themselves have all stepped up to help rebuild an aged-care system from the ground up. We know the value of an age-friendly community and recently formed the Hunter Ageing Alliance, which will take a lead in helping Newcastle to make this transformation. Founded by Dr John Ward, a geriatrician, Viv Allanson, CEO of Maroba aged care, Professor Julie Byles, the Global Innovation Chair in Responsive Transitions in Health and Ageing at the University of Newcastle, and Catherine Henry, an elder lawyer and advocate, the Hunter Ageing Alliance pulls together an incredibly passionate and talented group of people who are determined to get all levels of government, businesses, NGOs and citizens to focus on older people and work together to make Newcastle an age-friendly community. If the federal government isn't prepared to show leadership, our community stand willing and able to fill that void, but they shouldn't be expected to shoulder the burden of this government's incompetence. The Prime Minister and his government are responsible for aged care. They're responsible for the funding cuts and the terrible neglect revealed by the aged-care royal commission. We've heard appalling stories of people going hungry in aged care, of open wounds going untreated and of shocking acts of elder abuse. Despite the 21 expert reports, and knowing full well that older people are suffering in aged care, the Prime Minister fobbed off, delayed or rejected outright key recommendations of the royal commission. Of the 148 recommendations, over half aren't being implemented properly or implemented at all. Mr Morrison's record proves he can't be trusted to fix aged care, and it is aged-care workers who see firsthand the shocking impact of this government's negligence. They want more staff, more training, more help. Aged-care workers in my community tell me they aren't able to meet the emotional and clinical needs of their residents because there aren't enough staff. The job they once considered to be rewarding has become a source of pain and despair for so many. They're anxious and scared about catching the virus and infecting residents, because they know so many could die. The Prime Minister promised these frontline workers that they would be vaccinated by Easter. Well, here we are in August, Prime Minister, and there are many who are still not fully vaccinated, and it is not for want of trying. The Prime Minister has bungled the vaccine rollout so badly that one of my local aged-care facilities, a not-for-profit, had to bus all of its staff two hours south to Sydney to get them vaccinated so it could ensure protection. I've noted previously just how cruel it was for Novocastrians to find out that this Prime Minister sat by and watched our region robbed of Pfizer vaccines, all the while sitting on a secret stash of his own. They were vaccines that could have helped Newcastle as we faced our own COVID outbreaks in aged-care facilities. Many of the workers in those facilities have not been fully vaccinated. The reason? Because this Prime Minister has failed his job. He was too slow to act; he failed to secure enough vaccines for everyone in time. His complacency has left aged-care workers and the vulnerable Australians they care for at risk, and now thousands of older Australians have been isolated from their families for weeks and months because the Prime Minister has delivered the slowest vaccine rollout in the developed world. You need to take responsibility, Prime Minister, for fixing our aged-care system. It's been 100 days since the May federal budget, and there is zero evidence that there has been any progress on critical aged-care reforms during that time. Shame on you! Don't leave our aged-care workers and older Australians just to fend for themselves. That's not the kind of Australia we know or indeed that we want to live in. It's really time for you to step up, Mr Morrison. People in my community are doing absolutely everything they can to ensure that the most vulnerable of our aged-care residents and citizens are protected. As I said, it's not for want of trying that these people are not vaccinated. You need to get us vaccines and get our aged-care workers vaccinated now. 10:59 Mrs ARCHER 282237 Bass As a nation we must all strive to do better when it comes to caring for our elders. I congratulate the member for Indi on bringing forward this motion, because it is important to highlight the significance of the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety, what the government's response has been to date and, most importantly, how we must continue to listen to and engage with our community. We need to hear the ideas and the challenges as we go forward, and I'm listening. Recently, I met with a group of Northern Tasmanian medical professionals concerned about the exodus of staff from residential aged care. Some of the ideas they discussed included the need to look at the culture in parts of the aged-care sector. I was interested to hear their ideas about how to attract and retain staff and it made me reflect on ways to encourage more young people into the sector with a view to long and rewarding careers. It's important to acknowledge that, for so many in this sector, the royal commission has been a particularly painful period. I've had conversations with many aged-care workers who received abuse or were blamed for the failures in the system that were brought to light through the commission. To these workers and to all who give so much to those in their care, I would like to say that you are seen and you are valued. I've listened to concerns about how there's not always enough support for nursing professionals and ways to overcome that, including more ways that aged-care facilities can receive support for clinical care. We can't expect employees in this sector to sustain this career path for the long term if we can't ensure that they have the support they need to do their job effectively and if their efforts are not respected and appreciated. It's detrimental to the carer and also to those in their care. The royal commission highlighted concerns from communities like mine across the nation. The government has listened to the experiences of the Australians who gave evidence to the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety and is taking action to implement recommendations, with reforms to deliver vital services and improved quality, care and viability in aged care. The Australian government is delivering change through our $17.7 billion aged-care reform package. The government is acting on the recommendations. The response includes a five-year implementation plan underpinned by five pillars: home care, supporting senior Australians who choose to remain in their own home; residential aged-care services and sustainability, improving and simplifying residential aged-care services and access; improving residential aged-care quality and safety; supporting a growing and better skilled care workforce; and new legislation and stronger governance. Expanding on the challenges of home care, I, like many other representatives in this place, am told of frustration at longer than expected wait times for home-care packages. The government is responding and investing more in home care so that senior Australians can access the care they need to live in their own homes for longer. There is $6.5 billion for an additional 80,000 packages in the current budget. These packages are now being released, with 40,000 released in the 2021-22 year and a further 40,000 in the 2022-23 year. This means that those currently waiting for a home-care package will get access to the care they need sooner. I'd like to highlight the work of some excellent support services available to senior Australians and those who support them. The Australian government has provided the Older Persons Advocacy Network with $4.3 million to help deliver education, information and advocacy services for senior Australians and their families. This is particularly relevant during these times of extensive national lockdowns. OPAN offers a wellbeing check service to ensure the provision of emotional or social support, particularly for the people who have reduced or cancelled home-care services due to pandemic concerns. It's available to both home-care package and Commonwealth Home Support Program recipients. Other supported services include the Australian Centre for Grief and Bereavement and the My Aged Care contact centre. I encourage anyone seeking support, particularly those in my northern Tasmanian community, to reach out to these important and valuable organisations. The future of aged care is not without hope, but we do have a lot of work ahead of us. I will continue working in the best interests of senior Australians and their families and I will continue to listen and advocate for the support that they need. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 I thank the member for Bass for her contribution. I understand that it is the wish of the House that this debate continue and on that basis, I will allow the debate to continue. The question is that the motion be agreed to. 11:04 Ms KEARNEY LTU Cooper [by video link] I rise to speak to the motion from the member for Indi, and I thank her for this motion. Like every other failure of leadership by this government, with respect to aged care we seem to be 'dawdling to destruction'—to use the Age's Peter Hartcher's phrase—rather than running to victory. The government would have you believe that they have listened to the evidence given to the royal commission into aged care, and, thankfully, there is a commitment to billions in extra money and a commitment to a new aged-care act. But with this government there is always the need to read the fine print. This motion refers to recommendation 86, which is where the royal commission into aged care recommended the adoption of a minimum staff time standard. Specifically, they recommended: From 1 July 2022, the minimum staff time standard should require approved providers to engage registered nurses, enrolled nurses, and personal care workers for at least 200 minutes per resident per day for the average resident, with at least 40 minutes of that staff time provided by a registered nurse. In addition, from 1 July 2022, the minimum staff time standard should require at least one registered nurse on site per residential aged care facility for the morning and afternoon shifts … They also recommended that from July 2024 at least one registered nurse be on site at all times. How did the government respond? You hear from them a commitment to 200 minutes of care per resident per day, but the only reference to registered nurses is a reference to the very minimal requirement of one registered nurse on site in the morning and afternoon shifts. I raise this not to diminish the role of the enrolled nurse or the personal care worker. Of course they are integral to the care team. But they should not be expected to deal on their own with the complex and advanced care that is now part and parcel of every aged-care facility. As one registered nurse, who's been the manager of a number of aged-care facilities, wrote to me: 'Currently, in residential aged care, it's not uncommon to support residents with intravenous therapy for antibiotics, syringe pumps for complex pain management, indwelling and suprapubic catheters, subcutaneous hydration, and PEG feeds.' This clinical management requires a level of complex nursing knowledge and skill that would be applicable to nursing patients in an acute hospital setting. Despite this, all the Morrison government could manage was to affirm the minimum requirement for an RN on site 16 hours a day. For many older residents, this could well be the difference between life and death in an emergency. It's the difference between proper palliative care and poor palliative care. It's the difference between running from crisis to crisis over a shift and being able to provide consistent care. It means supervising and mentoring the rest of the care staff and building on their knowledge and care practice. It means that registered nurses will be able to respond to emergencies. It was for all of these reasons that the royal commission made its recommendations. I would add that getting a registered nurse 24/7 and minimum staffing ratios is especially essential in rural and remote areas and small facilities. Aged-care facilities have grown from having an average of 30 to 60 beds back in the 1990s to now having around 80 to 150 beds. On top of that, the standards of single rooms with ensuites, multiple dining and lounge rooms, and wider corridors mean that the footprint of each facility is larger than ever and makes it harder to monitor and access residents. We now have consumer directed care and resident choice: when to get up, when to shower, when to eat. That all increases the workload of the care team. Like many Australians, and as a former nurse, I am sick of the stories of neglect in aged care. I'm sick of the penny pinching. Even as I speak, and despite the royal commission, there is a long list of major aged-care providers out there right now who are trimming their rosters and cutting staff hours. I'm prepared to name, in Melbourne, Menarock aged care and the Royal Freemasons, for example, who are doing just that. The Morrison government's failure to lead on climate change makes Australia look like a rogue nation. Their failure of urgency on the 'it's not a race' vaccination rollout has put us all in the most perilous of positions. Their failure to heed the calls to get Australians and those who have helped Australians out of Afghanistan is both a political failure and a moral failure. And now our elderly, our most vulnerable, are left at risk. The government act as if they were mere bystanders and not the government they were elected to be. Our elderly citizens deserve much better. 11:09 Mr RAMSEY HWS Grey I thank the member for Indi for bringing this important motion forward. It has dated a bit since she tabled it, of course—we've had a budget since then and $17.7 extra billion have been allocated over the forward estimates to aged care. Let me preface my remarks by saying that we're dealing with difficult issues in Grey on aged care at the moment, in particular in Whyalla. Whyalla Kindred Living, which was Whyalla Aged Care, a community organisation, is having to close one of its three facilities due to a lack of staff. People jump on the bandwagon and say that is because, of course, staff are not treated well enough or not paid enough or whatever it might be. Most of them—almost all of them—have gone to the hospitals. But it demonstrates a problem that we really have, which is a lack of staff generally in country areas. Of course, if there weren't 15 or 18 vacant positions at the Whyalla Hospital for registered nurses, they would've stayed at the aged-care facility. This is a problem that we are seeing right across the board, where skilled Australians just do not want to go to, live in or work in our regional areas. It's a blight on our nation, and it's not restricted to aged care, let me tell you, Madam Deputy Speaker Claydon. I can demonstrate the same problems in virtually any industry across the board and on aged care in particular. This motion carries the intonation that the government is not trying or is failing on aged care. I point out that before the $17.7 billion boost that was announced in the budget that, in fact, aged-care funding in Australia had increased from $13.3 billion per annum to $23.9 billion per annum from when we came to government in 2013. That's in fact 50 per cent in real terms. If money were the only issue, it would make you wonder why we still have any problems at all. On home-care packages, which is a place that the government has taken some criticism on along the way, let me say that there were 59,300 when we came to government in 2013 and there are now over 183,000. By the time the funding that was announced in the budget comes through by 2024 there will be 275,000. It's a growth of 500 per cent or more. So government is investing back in aged care in a very significant way. The package in the budget, which accelerates or lifts the amount of funding available to all facilities—but in particular to country facilities—for additional specialist care, and a lift of $10 a day in the base rate, will all make a difference. It'll all make a difference. These are very important institutions in our regional areas: not only do they look after our loved ones but they also employ a lot of people. There's a lot of opportunity there, and government is also investing in training for aged-care workers and registered nurses—which seems to be the very tight spot in my community at the moment. I make the point to my constituents that there is a good university in Whyalla and there are uni hubs in Port Augusta, Port Pirie and Kadina which are all capable of delivering nursing degrees. This is a great way to get into work. You can be very sure that for a long time in Australia there are going to be plenty of work opportunities in aged care and indeed in the National Disability Insurance Scheme and other associated issues. It's one of the reasons we are facing such a tight time at the moment. On those issues in Whyalla: as I said, we've seen the hospital absorb or attract a lot of these workers from aged care, which has led to a terrible position where we have 37 people that have to be relocated and there are only about 19 positions available in Whyalla. We're working with the families to get through that at the moment. It was brought on, though, I guess, by a perfect storm, where we've got this underlying shortage of aged-care workers—of nurses and of skilled workers in the country—but we also have the demand for them to work on COVID testing stations and COVID injecting stations. We've had very little import of nursing-degree-credentialed people into Australia in the last 12 months. So there's much work to be done, but we're working hard. 11:14 Dr FREELANDER 265979 Macarthur First of all, can I thank the member for Indi for bringing this motion to the House. It is very important. Whilst I think much has been said about the need for this motion, I'm a little alarmed still about some of the language that's coming from the coalition. I will remind the member for Grey: this is not a 'bandwagon', and, no, money is not the only answer. This is a fundamental lack of government that has occurred in Australia for the last eight or nine years, under this coalition government. The royal commission occurred, even though the government had to be dragged kicking and screaming to it—and that's because this government does not understand the importance of aged care and the problems in aged care. I've had a lot to do with aged care over the years. In my earlier time as a young doctor, I spent some time working as a GP locum with Radio Doctor, and I was often called to aged-care facilities after hours to provide care. I had a lot of respect for my mother-in-law, Nea Chambers. After her career as the nursing manager at Camden Hospital, she then ran a number of nursing homes, including Kilbride Nursing Home and Camden Nursing Home, in Campbelltown and Camden respectively, run by Kennedy Health, now owned by a publicly listed company, Estia Health. She was very, very proud of her skills as a nurse and of the quality of care she provided in aged care. Just as an aside, my daughter Amelia has just had a baby, a little girl, and she has named her Nea after my highly respected mother-in-law, and I'm very proud of that. Aged care has changed a lot in the last 20 years. With an ageing population, and a population that's living a lot longer, people are going into aged care later, they're staying for shorter times, and they have much more complex medical needs. I fully support the call to have registered nurses on duty 24 hours a day in aged-care facilities. It is very important because of the complex medical needs of the patients in aged care. As has already been mentioned, these can include multisystem disorders and the need for things like gastrostomy care, dementia care, seizure care and physiotherapy, the need for pain management, and the need for occupational therapy and rehabilitation. These complex needs in aged care have changed a lot over the years. It is very important that we meet those care needs for our most vulnerable patients, and I know that that depends on the standard of nursing care that is being offered and on the level of education of our aged-care providers. I'm very pleased with the standards of aged care being provided in my electorate of Macarthur. I've been to most of the aged-care facilities. The registered nurses, the enrolled nurses and the aged-care staff are doing a fantastic job. I know that is not occurring in every aged-care facility around the country, and it's very important that those standards are maintained, whether you live in the inner city, metropolitan, outer metropolitan, rural or regional areas. This is something that this government has not understood and still does not understand. In my electorate, unfortunately, we have still have many people in acute hospital beds who require aged care, either residential or in-home aged care, but because of the delays in accessing aged care they have to take up an acute hospital bed. That's not good for hospitals and it's not good, particularly in this time of COVID-19, for those patients. It is putting them at risk to keep them in an acute hospital setting where we are admitting patients with COVID-19. Our immunisation program in aged care has been lacking. The government seems to still have a very lackadaisical approach to this, in terms of both staff and residents. We've recently had a tragedy at Liverpool Hospital where a number of patients died after having caught COVID-19 in the hospital. Much more needs to be done. This is a government that does not appear to understand and a government that has failed to provide adequate aged-care support during its eight, going on nine, years of government. From the language I've heard from the coalition today, I'm not convinced that anything has changed. 11:20 Mr CHRISTENSEN 230485 Dawson Aged care is extremely important, and it's important that we get this situation right. If we don't get it right, even following through on all the recommendations of the royal commission into aged care, what could end up happening, particularly in rural and regional communities, is that aged-care homes may be forced to shed residents, and that's one thing that I do not want to see. I don't want to see any aged-care home in my electorate or anywhere else being forced into the position because of new regulations, with their red tape requirements and ratios, where they have to go to some of their residents and say, 'Look, we now can't meet the requirements and we're going to have to tell some of you to leave in order for us to meet the requirements.' That is beyond the pale, and I will talk about that in a minute. Firstly, about the motion at hand which talks about $630 million I've got to say that yes, there was an additional investment of $630.2 million over five years to deliver improvements in aged-care service delivery for vulnerable groups of seniors, but this is part of a $17.7 billion package of aged-care reforms—$17.7 billion that is going into aged care. It's not small beer; it's $17.7 billion going into taking care of some of our senior Australians in their days, months and years of need. Going on to the issue of proposals in the motion before us today, proposals out of the royal commission, the ones that worry me are the requirements around ratios and the requirements around registered nurses. I know it's very politically popular to say, 'There should be a registered nurse present at all times; there should be certain nurse-to-patient ratios.' But I received a call from Marana Gardens, a not-for-profit aged-care home in my electorate last week. They would love to have additional nurses. They are offering $35 per hour and above for registered nurses to come on board. That's what they can afford, and they're not getting people. Nurses are not coming to places like Bowen to meet the need there. So, if there are requirements imposed upon them, I would say that within a year Marana Gardens will have to downsize, and that is going to cascade in and in on itself to the point of non-viability. So that $17.7 billion is just simply not going to be enough. How high is that figure going to go, and at what point is the going rubber band break because it's now financially unsustainable? These are the questions that need to be addressed, and we need to be very careful about what we're imposing upon the aged-care sector. This will be made all the worse right now if people working in the aged-care sector who are not vaccinated against COVID-19 are forced to leave their job. It's a vexing question. I've got mixed views on it. I can understand the rational; I don't agree that anyone should be mandated to take any vaccine, but what's happening as a direct result of all of that is people are losing their jobs. I have had people in the aged-care industry in my electorate come to me to tell me that they are losing their job or have lost it as a result of this. That is happening, and these requirements are going to be more problematic for that sector if it has even fewer employees. I just say to members in this place: be very careful for what you wish for, because, if it turns out that you're going to have aged-care homes sending residents out on to the streets, that is not going to be the ideal outcome. Very quickly, there are people that are qualified to be RNs but they don't meet the English proficiency requirements. If we could relax that, we would have more RNs in these places, and I'll be putting that to the aged-care minister this week. 11:25 Ms MURPHY 133646 Dunkley [by video link] The member for Dawson just asked us all to be careful what we wish for. I'll tell the chamber what I wish for. I wish for an aged-care system where every member of my community feels that their parents can go and live the last five, 10, 15 or 20 years of their lives, with dignity, being respected, in comfort, fed well and getting the medical care that they need. I wish for a system where the people who work in it, who are predominantly women, are paid what they deserve, are given the respect that they deserve and have the training and the career opportunities that they deserve. I wish, on behalf of my community, for an aged-care system where people who want to spend the last few years, weeks, months or even days of their lives at home are able to do so, whether or not they are rich or poor, whether they are workers or whether they are people who have investments. My wish on behalf of my community is for an aged-care system where everyone is treated equally and has equal access to the care that they deserve as members of our community. My community doesn't think that's too much to ask for. I don't think that's too much to wish for. Member for Dawson, that's what we on this side of the chamber are calling for. When I stand up and say that the aged-care system is in crisis, I say that because day after day I have members of my community contacting me because the aged-care system is letting them down. I say it because people like Joanne from Frankston contact me and say that their parents are still waiting for a level 3 and 4 My Aged Care package. They were offered level 1 in the interim, but it turns out that they're better off not taking the level 1 because it's not as good as the assistance they're already getting, and they have to wait for a level 3 and 4 for who knows how long. Phil from Frankston is still waiting for a level 3 package. He was initially told it was 12 months away, and now it will be at least another four- to 12-week wait. His service provider has exhausted the funding, and he's got to wait to see if he can get the next level. Vishna and Margaret from Skye contacted the office because they've been in the system, trying to get the appropriate My Aged Care package, since 2018. My wish, for my community and for Australians everywhere, is that people like Joanne, Phil, Vishna and Margaret don't have to be anxious for their loved ones and for themselves but can access a system that works. My wish on behalf of my community and my electorate is that the residents of Mount Eliza who had their parents and their grandparents living in an aged-care facility that was being run by people who had been banned from running chicken farms because they were cruel to animals didn't haven't to go through what they're going through now, as that facility has been put into administration. My wish is that local residents didn't have to contact my office, saying: 'How could this have happened? How could the government have let, for so many years, people who clearly should not have been running an aged-care facility run an aged-care facility? Now we are worried about what it means for our parents.' This government was dragged kicking and screaming to a royal commission and seems to now want to say that throwing money into the gaps that it caused itself is going to be enough. It's not. In order to get the aged-care system working properly we have to fix the crisis in the workforce. We have to treat workers with respect and value their work and deliver them a career path. We need minimum staffing ratios. We need a minimum number of people in aged-care facilities caring for some of our most vulnerable Australians at every point in time. We need nurses 24/7. And the Morrison government should stand up now and support wage cases brought by workers before the Fair Work Commission so that the predominantly female workforce in aged care can get paid what they deserve. This government won't fix workforce issues, but it must. Administration and workforce—two really important things that this government is walking away from. 11:30 Ms FLINT 245550 Boothby I would just point out to the previous speaker, the Member for Dunkley, that it was, in fact, the current Prime Minister who, as one of his first acts in office, created the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety way back in September 2018. I suppose it doesn't surprise me, but it always disappoints me, to hear those opposite try to blame our government for everything, when, in fact, the serious issues that we see within aged care have existed for decades, and it's the responsibility of all of us to make sure that every single senior Australian is safe and gets the care that they deserve. That is precisely what the Prime Minister and our government have been working very hard towards, including that very important first step, which was establishing the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety. We believe, and we know, that all Australians deserve an aged-care system that places their needs and their wellbeing at its centre. That's what the Morrison Liberal government is delivering on. We are doing this through record investment into Australia's aged-care sector and, of course, working towards the implementation of the recommendations of the royal commission. In response to the final report from the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety, the government is delivering a $17.7 billion package for once-in-a-generation reform of aged care, including measures aimed at improving aged care in rural and regional Australia. The reforms will provide better, fairer aged care and deliver respect, care and dignity for our senior Australians. Through the largest investment in aged care and the largest response to a royal commission in Australia's history, we are not only providing support for the sector but implementing measures which will provide greater transparency and certainty, which will empower the recipients of care. Our five-pillar plan consists of home care, residential aged-care services and sustainability, residential aged-care quality and safety, workforce, and governance. This will deliver genuine change for senior Australians and those needing care. The government has mandated a number of changes to improve the transparency and comparability of home-care pricing information and has required all home-care providers to publish a standardised pricing schedule of common services and costs on the My Aged Care website, including their package management costs. Over time, this increased pricing transparency is also expected to drive out the system of unreasonable costs, as consumers will be able to change providers who charge prices that they do not consider reasonable. This empowers recipients to vote with their feet, delivering greater freedom and choice and, of course, transparency. The Morrison government called for the royal commission and, at each step of the way through that process, we've sought to address the immediate priorities to improve the aged-care system. We understand the needs of the sector, particularly through the pandemic, which is why, in addition to our once-in-a-generation reforms to the sector, the Morrison Liberal government has invested $90 million to ensure residential aged-care providers remain financially sustainable and has provided funding to support workers and residential aged-care residents to be COVID-safe throughout the pandemic. The staff within our aged-care sector have contributed so much to Australia's efforts in minimising the impacts of the coronavirus over the past 18 months. Through the outbreaks and necessary pandemic restrictions, their diligence and dedication in caring for our senior Australians and their families and loved ones has been simply inspiring. They have cared for our most vulnerable Australians with tremendous poise and grace, and have adapted to rapidly evolving conditions. I want to personally thank all staff within the sector for their professionalism, their commitment and their resilience throughout this period—the care providers, the nurses, the clinical staff, the doctors who operate on site, the physical therapists, the cleaners and the cooks as well, and the many volunteers who have worked so closely with the staff to make sure everyone gets the care they want. The work they have undertaken is absolutely extraordinary, and I've seen that outstanding care in my electorate of Boothby through the regular visits that I have made to so many wonderful homes. 11:35 Ms BELL 282981 Moncrieff Caring for those in aged care is of course a priority of the Morrison government. That's why it was the Prime Minister who first called this royal commission into aged care. Some of those on the other side, including the member for Dunkley, like to say this government was dragged kicking and screaming—this is inflammatory language those on the other side have used, and it's simply not true. Of course it was the Prime Minister who called this royal commission into aged care, and of course we on this side care deeply about our senior citizens. I thank the member for Indi, here in the chamber now, for moving this private members' business motion, because it gives me the opportunity to talk about what the government is doing across the aged-care sector. In the last federal budget, some months ago, the government announced a record investment into aged care across five key areas of reform, with a total of $17.7 billion over a five-year period. It's a once-in-a-generation package, never before seen in this country. Before I outline those five key areas of reform: the member for Cooper suggested $17.7 billion was penny pinching. I can't see how $17.7 billion worth of investment into our aged-care sector can be penny pinching in any way, shape or form. Those five areas of reform are: home care; residential aged-care services and sustainability; residential aged-care quality and safety; workforce; and governance. Importantly, to the member for Indi's motion, this funding of course includes regional and remote Australians. Regional and remote Australians want equitable access to the care they need—of course they do. We all agree that that is what we want across our nation for those in regional and remote areas and for our elderly. The government recognises the significant challenges faced by aged-care providers in rural and remote areas, and to strengthen and support the aged-care workforce is one of the solutions for those communities. That's why one of those key planks that I set out just a few moments ago, that was in the last budget, is workforce, to address these issues. As we know, the country is facing a workforce shortage issue, as outlined by the member for Grey just a few moments ago. The government has 33,800 subsidised vocational training places for new aged-care workers, and we will be needing those. I encourage Australians to come forward and retrain, to go into the aged-care sector. There will be: $228.2 million for a single assessment workforce; $135.6 million for financial bonuses for registered nurses to help with retention—that is really important; and $9.8 million for a national recruitment campaign, which includes regional and remote Australian locations. The government is investing in additional practical support for aged care in rural and remote locations, including—and the member for Indi will listen with great interest—$5 million in professional support to improve the workforce capability and financial sustainability of rural and remote providers. This will be made available through the expansion of the Remote and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Aged Care Service Development Assistance Panel, commencing in 2021-22. There will be $25 million over three years to expand the Rural Locum Assistance Program, to assist aged-care providers affected by high staff turnover or sudden departures of key personnel in rural and regional areas by providing increased access to a temporary surge workforce while they recruit. An incentive scheme for permanent placements in regional and remote areas will also increase staff retention; this assistance will be available in the coming months. Additionally, an investment of $630.2 million has been put forward to strengthen governance, which will give more-equitable access to aged care for First Nations people and special-needs groups, those who are homeless or at risk of homelessness and those living in rural and remote locations. We've provided $21.1 million for new structures, including a National Aged Care Advisory Council, a Council of Elders, and an Office of the Inspector-General of Aged Care. We've provided $630.2 million to help regional, rural and Indigenous Australians to access quality aged care and $13.4 million to improve rural and regional aged care across the country. Australians are living in their homes for much longer, and that's a good thing for our society. In response, the government has budgeted for more homecare packages for aged care across our country. They are some of the key planks, and there is significant investment going into the other ones—residential aged-care services and sustainability. Debate adjourned. PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS 40 PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS Postponement 40 11:40 The DEPUTY SPEAKER E0D I inform the House that pursuant to standing order 110 the honourable member for Forde has postponed notice No. 3 standing in his name. BILLS 40 BILLS Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency Amendment (Cost Recovery) Bill 2021, Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (Charges) Bill 2021, Treasury Laws Amendment (2021 Measures No. 1) Bill 2021 40

Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency Amendment (Cost Recovery) Bill 2021

Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (Charges) Bill 2021

Treasury Laws Amendment (2021 Measures No. 1) Bill 2021

Assent 40 COMMITTEES 40 COMMITTEES Public Works Committee 40 Report 40 11:41 Mr ZAPPIA HWB Makin 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 HWB 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. BILLS 41 BILLS Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment (Sunsetting Review and Other Measures) Bill 2021 41

Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment (Sunsetting Review and Other Measures) Bill 2021

Second Reading 41 11:46 Ms PRICE 249308 Durack 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. 11:53 Mr GILES 243609 Scullin 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 E0D Is the amendment seconded? Ms Stanley 265990 I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak. The DEPUTY SPEAKER E0D 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. 12:00 Ms HAMMOND 80072 Curtin 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. 12:10 Mr HAYES ECV Fowler 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. 12:21 Mr CONNELLY 282984 Stirling 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. 12:33 Mrs ARCHER 282237 Bass 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. 12:41 Dr MARTIN 282982 Reid 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. 12:47 Ms LIU 282918 Chisholm 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. 12:53 Mr CONAGHAN 279991 Cowper 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. 13:02 Mr ANDREWS HK5 Menzies 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. 13:10 Mr TIM WILSON IMW Goldstein 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. 13:20 Ms BELL 282981 Moncrieff 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 265967 Order! It being 1.30, the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour. STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS 56 STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS Afghanistan 56 13:30 Mr ROB MITCHELL M3E McEwen [by video link] We are seeing a crisis unfolding in Afghanistan, a crisis that is a result of this government doing too little, too late. We've known for a long time the issue that Afghan interpreters have faced, and the threats that they've faced and that their families have faced are real—and this government has sat on its hands and done absolutely nothing. Earlier this year, as far back as January, the government was made aware of the issues facing the Afghan interpreters, and it did nothing. When it closed the embassy in May, all it did was hasten the need to get the Afghan interpreters to safety. Let's remember, these men, predominantly men, put their lives on the line for the Australian Defence Force. They wore our uniforms and they were paid by our government. Yet we see them being left and cast aside as if they amounted to nothing, because the government had a political problem. What we've seen once again is the typical characterisation of this government: let's wait and do something, too little, too late. These people should have been out. One of my greatest regrets is that the former Minister for Home Affairs is now the Minister for Defence. He never had the decency to meet with Australian Defence Force war veterans who were trying to save the lives of the interpreters who helped save theirs. It is a systemic problem with this government that it is all talk and no action. It is all about spin and marketing. Meanwhile, lives are being put at risk, lives that were used to help save Australian soldiers— (Time expired) Afghanistan 56 13:31 Mr ALEXANDER M3M Bennelong [by video link] The Taliban resurgence has been rapid and absolute, sweeping resistance before it and leaving fear and uncertainty in its path. Every night our televisions are full of images of crying children, despairing parents and heaving throngs of people, all aiming to be the lucky ones to get on a plane out of Afghanistan. Our government is doing great work in an incredibly tough situation, getting people on planes, but, despite this, getting on a plane is very difficult. Soon the planes will stop flying and the world's next refugee crisis will be upon us. It will be the responsibility of those countries that have been involved in the rebuilding of Afghanistan to step up. Over the past 20 years, we have worked with Afghans to help them dream of a renewed country, with opportunities for all. In light of our not having achieved this goal, we cannot leave those we have worked alongside to suffer while we wash our hands. Australia must be generous and lead at the forefront of this humanitarian response. Australia is a generous country. When the world is in crisis, we open our doors, as Ben Chifley did after World War II, as Malcolm Fraser did after the Vietnam War, as Bob Hawke did after Tiananmen Square and as Tony Abbott did after the Syrian crisis. We owe it to the people of Afghanistan. We should open our doors once again. Prime Minister 57 13:33 Ms MURPHY 133646 Dunkley [by video link] My community, like communities across our nation, is in lockdown today because of the Prime Minister's stubborn insistence that the vaccine rollout was not a race, because of the Prime Minister's failure to listen to calls last year to obtain more, and more types of, vaccines, because of the Prime Minister's failure to start this year with any of the necessary sense of urgency to get the vaccine into arms, until delta gave him no choice, and because of the Prime Minister's refusal, over 18 months of this pandemic, to set up a national, safe quarantine system. We're in lockdown because of the attitude the Prime Minister took to the two main jobs he had this year—the vaccine rollout and national quarantine—which is the same one he took to last year's devastating bushfires: 'I don't hold the hose, mate.' How can it be that we are last in the developed world when it comes to having our population fully vaccinated? It's simply not good enough. Every day, members of my community do everything they can to contribute to the public health response. They have sacrificed: they have juggled working from home with helping their children with remote learning. They have worked on the front line as health professionals and carers, and as cleaners, childcare workers and disability support workers, for the benefit of others and at risk to themselves. They have lost their jobs and they have missed weddings and funerals, birthdays and anniversaries. We have missed our families and our friends deeply, and we still do. The Prime Minister might want to deny the impacts of his failures on Australians, but we're not going to forget them easily. COVID-19: Victoria 57 13:35 Dr ALLEN 282986 Higgins Fighting COVID has been a marathon event, not just here but right around the world. With every vaccination, COVID becomes a less-deadly disease for all of us. But we can't forget the shadow impacts that COVID lockdowns have on mental health, particularly on our young. Today, the Murdoch Children's Research Institute released a report outlining the enormous impact COVID is having on the mental health and wellbeing of our young, particularly the most disadvantaged. It says that prolonged school closures and lockdowns can exacerbate these impacts. The report backs the prioritisation of vaccination of teachers, early educators and school staff to help kids to get back to school sooner—and so do I. The students of Victoria have missed 146 days of face-to-face learning, one of the highest rates in the world, and they are facing a second year of lockdown, more than any other state in this country. A petition circulating now from concerned parents, many from the electorate of Higgins, '#VCEwhereistheplanDan', is calling for a COVID-safe plan for when and how their children will do VCE in just under 10 weeks. The Victorian Premier should be leading with a plan, not waiting for parents to petition him. I call on the Victorian government to act and to develop a COVID-safe plan now so that Victorian students can resume their education journey as soon as possible. Sydney Electorate: Australian Labor Party 57 13:36 Ms PLIBERSEK 83M Sydney [by video link] One of the great difficulties of this COVID lockdown period has been that we have been separated from friends and family at some of the most difficult times in our lives. It has meant, for example, that we've not been able to get together to farewell family members and friends. During lockdowns in recent times, we've lost four Sydney Labor members. Four people from our Sydney Labor family have died, and it's with great sadness that I acknowledge their passing today and offer my condolences to their friends and family. Vale Terry Murphy, who served on both the South Sydney and City of Sydney councils. During his years as an alderman he spent the weekend sitting at a bus stop, talking with residents and listening to their concerns. His commitment to his community will always be remembered. Vale Anne Lawson, a trailblazing feminist who fought for women's rights in the business sector. She ran a local women's writing group and helped her friends publish their life stories. I'm thankful for her long shifts volunteering on the pre poll at election time. Vale Virginia Walker, the founder of the Bridge for Asylum Seekers Foundation, who helped to raise $5 million to support asylum seekers and who was awarded an Order of Australia Medal for services to refugees. And vale Ethel Driscoll, a bedrock for Sydney Labor, for her local Beaconsfield branch and for the many Labor candidates she helped tirelessly, including me. In more than a decade of holding mobile offices in Beaconsfield, Ethel never missed a single one. (Time expired) Lei, Ms Lina 58 13:38 Mr ANDREWS HK5 Menzies With the Tokyo Paralympics about to commence may I take this opportunity to extend my best wishes to all our Australian competitors, but particularly to a constituent of mine from Templestowe, Lina Lei. Lina's table tennis odyssey began in her native Sichuan in China when she was five years old. By the time she was 15 she had become a world para champion in singles and teams, and two years later claimed the first of her Paralympic gold medals at Athens in 2004. Tokyo will be Lina's fifth Paralympic competition, having competed not only in Athens but in Beijing, London, Rio and now in Tokyo. Born with a deficiency in her lower right leg, she kept herself a force in the sport over so many years, winning every gold medal up for grabs at Paralympic level and world para championships, an extraordinary run of success. Indeed, she has eight Paralympic medals, including five gold medals—no mean feat. After Rio, Lina Lei came to Australia and she will represent this country for the first time in Tokyo. Currently aged 33, she remains a force at the international level. Her motto is 'never give up'. Best wishes to Lina and to all the Australian Paralympians. Afghanistan 58 13:39 Mr ZAPPIA HWB Makin The situation in Afghanistan is both horrific and tragic. People, including children, women and the elderly, are desperately fleeing Afghanistan, or attempting to flee, in fear of their lives. They are pleading for help from the rest of the world. Here in Australia, members of Australia's Afghan community hold grave concerns for their loved ones, family members and friends stranded in Afghanistan. By all accounts, including views of people with military experience, the withdrawal of allied forces from Afghanistan has been poorly executed, leaving vulnerable Afghan people at the mercy of the Taliban and other rogue forces. Afghan people who in any way assisted the allied forces, and minority groups, including the Hazara people, are particularly at risk. Prime Minister Morrison's response to this terrible humanitarian crisis has, to date, been inadequate, uncompassionate and apathetic. People's lives hang in the balance. I call on the Morrison government to urgently do all that is humanly possible to ensure the safety of vulnerable people in Afghanistan. This is not the time for political spin, procrastination, empty statements or weasel words. It is a moment in time when political leadership is vital, but it is sadly lacking in the Morrison government. Dent, Mrs Sheila Mary (Mary) 58 13:41 Mrs ARCHER 282237 Bass I rise today to pay tribute to Northern Tasmania's Mary Dent, who passed away recently at the age of 92. Born Sheila Mary Wilson in Birmingham, England, in 1929, Mary migrated with her family to Tasmania in 1931. She attended West Launceston Primary School and then went on to Broadland House as a boarder during World War II. At the age of 17, Mary began work at the Launceston public library, in the old Mechanics Institute building, and it was Wal Sutherland, an assistant librarian, who saw Mary's promise and encouraged her to undertake training at Sydney public library. This training set Mary on a career spanning more than 40 years, where she developed a particular passion for local history and was a source of vital support and guidance to history researchers as well as many visiting scholars who were drawn to the Launceston library by its rich collection of rare Australian books. Mary was a fierce defender of the library's local history collection, ensuring that the remarkable legacy created by the city for the city was carried on under her watch. More than 20 years after starting her career and undertaking various roles in the library, Mary gained her full professional qualifications in 1981 before retiring in 1988. Recognised as someone who was loyal to her principles and to the goals of her profession, the fields in which Mary worked are the richer for her contribution over many decades. Vale, Mary Dent. Afghanistan 59 13:42 Ms STEGGALL 175696 Warringah [by video link] The unfolding humanitarian crisis in Afghanistan is devastating. The images played into our lounge rooms or on our newsfeeds are heartbreaking: desperate Afghanis clambering onto the undercarriages of US Army planes; parents passing young children over barbed wire at the airport; families and individuals in distress and in fear of their lives because of their involvement in Western forces or their support for women's rights and their belief in advocacy for genuine democracy. You can't watch these scenes and not be moved and compelled to action. Like many of my parliamentary colleagues, I've been inundated with emails and messages from local residents expressing their concerns. For those of you wondering what you can do to help, I encourage you to reach out to one of the many aid organisations that are providing assistance to the people of Afghanistan. There are a range of agencies focusing on various groups, and it's easy to make donations or lend your support. And to our young veterans: please, know that we remain as proud of you as ever, not least for the hundreds of thousands of people's lives who are better off because of your service. Again, reach out to one of the support groups: Open Arms and Soldier On, or, in Warringah, the Veterans Centre Sydney Northern Beaches and Dee Why RSL. To all these young men and women: you are not alone. We thank you profoundly for your service and we commit ourselves to supporting you, now more than ever. Afghanistan 59 13:44 Ms BELL 282981 Moncrieff In this last week, we' ve seen tragic scenes in Afghanistan, and the people of that country now face the uncertainty of Taliban rule. My thoughts and prayers are with them at this time. I wish to honour all ADF members, t hose who served in Afghanistan , and the families of the 41 Australian lives lost in this conflict. In particular, I wish to honour the over 2,500 veterans in Moncrieff and two individuals from my electorate. Lieutenant Colonel Garth Callender served for 25 years , with distinction in combat, intelligence, training and strategic roles. He's the author of After the Blast , which chronicles his military deployment and recovery from the attack in Baghdad in 2004. He now chairs the Bravery Trust for veter ans who face financial hardship resulting from injury or illness sustained during their service. He continues to serve Australians with distinction. My thoughts are with Garth , his lovely wife , Crystal , and his children. I make special mention of Jess e Bird , an awarded rifleman from 1 RAR , who served from 2007, fought in Afghanistan and , after his return home in 2010 , tragically took his own life. I posthumously honour Jesse and pay my respect s to his family. Jesse's mum , Karen Bird , a constituent and now friend of mine , has worked tirelessly to ensure Jesse and many like h im will rightly be remembered at the Australian War Memorial , with a sculpture in recognition of those who experienced and witnessed the traum as that can result from military service. I thank Garth Callender and Jesse and Karen Bird for their service to our nation. COVID-19: Lockdowns 59 13:45 Ms STANLEY 265990 Werriwa I recently rose in this place to address the burden of lockdown restrictions on my community. Too many have lost livelihoods because of the restrictions on travel and authorised work. I've had constituents in tears because, as construction workers, they cannot work. Unable to attend a work site, either their contracts are being given to someone else or they face the likelihood of paying non-completion fines. Many of my community tell me they are still waiting for the promised monetary support, having applied several weeks ago. Friday's announcement that there would be a curfew for the LGAs of concern was another blow. This further entrenches a double standard that is creating a deep divide in Sydney. I am wholeheartedly supportive of governments doing their best to try to combat COVID-19. I support scientists, and I support the chief medical officers, but I don't understand the logic of a curfew in some areas and in not others. The restrictions in the Penrith LGA are a clear example: twelve suburbs are included while the rest of the LGA is not. There are no physical or geographical boundaries separating these arbitrary suburbs either, here or in other parts of Sydney. These boundaries are mere lines on a map. This virus is unaffected by political spin and doesn't respect borders. We need to fight this as a health issue, and, to do so, it needs to be one rule for all. COVID-19 59 13:47 Mr CHRISTENSEN 230485 Dawson 'We swear by the Southern Cross to stand truly by each other and fight to defend our rights and liberties.' That is the diggers' oath, the oath taken by Australians in the gold mining town of Ballarat before they took a fateful stand against tyranny in what we now know as the Eureka Stockade, or the Eureka Rebellion. This past weekend, men and women across this country took another stand against tyranny. Just like at Eureka, the authorities disgracefully responded with guns, and Australians were fired upon. For them and many others across this nation, I want to say I stand truly by them to fight and defend their rights and liberties. We have had enough of all of the restrictions. The restrictions haven't stopped the virus, and they won't stop the virus. Australia will have to live with COVID-19, rather than in constant fear of it. We, the people, want our freedom back. We demand that there be no more lockdowns. We demand that there be no more curfews. We demand that there be no more mask mandates. We demand that there be no more state border closures. We demand that there be no more privacy invasion with mandatory QR code check-ins. We demand that there be no more discrimination between vaccinated and unvaccinated Australians. We demand that our freedoms be restored. And I demand that peaceful protesters—patriotic, freedom-loving men and women—never be fired upon in this country ever again. Afghanistan 60 13:49 Dr LEIGH BU8 Fenner Zaki Haidari is aHazara refugee from Afghanistan. A decade ago, the Taliban took away his father, Mahram. Zakihas not seen his dad since. The Taliban beheaded Zaki's brother, Ali, at a checkpoint when they discovered that Ali was carrying a student identification card. Zaki came to Australia in November 2012 and has been on a temporary visa ever since. Like the 30,000 other legacy case load visa holders, he must renew his visa every few years. Temporary visa holders have no path to citizenship and cannot sponsor family members. Their ability to travel overseas is heavily restricted. It is unthinkable that Australia would return a Hazara refugee to Afghanistan. Yet our cruel Prime Minister says that people like Zaki never have and never will get permanent residency status. The Prime Minister wants to keep Zaki living in limbo. He is a decent man. I got to know him through the Refugee Marathon Project. He would make a great Australian citizen. After the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre Bob Hawke offered asylum to 42,000 Chinese people. Tony Abbott offered 12,000 new refugee places to those fleeing Syria and Iraq. Yet the Morrison government has for months ignored warnings from Labor that it needed to do more to get vulnerable people out of Afghanistan. Its approach has been tardy and heartless when it should have been swift and generous. COVID-19: Lockdowns 60 13:50 Mr CONNELLY 282984 Stirling I'm reminded today of extracts from Rudyard Kipling's poem 'If': If you can keep your head when all about you Are losing theirs and blaming it on you … … … Yours is the Earth and everything that's in it, And—which is more—you'll be a Man, my son! Apart from Mr Kipling's gender-specific language there, this poem could scarcely be more relevant to our society today. As we continue to see state and territories coming on and off the high COVID case number list, it is so important we keep our heads. For those in lockdown, life is tough and getting tougher. But there is light at the end of the tunnel. This is spelled out in the national plan, as agreed by all state and territory leaders—a plan providing a solid pathway back to a more normal life. Once 80 per cent of the eligible population is fully vaccinated we hit phase C, the consolidation phase, which is where we learn to live with the virus. As the Prime Minister reiterated today, we must not fear the phases but embrace them. Lockdowns are unsustainable in the long term—unsustainable for businesses, for families with kids at school and for Australia's long-term prosperity and security. Today we hit 30 per cent of the eligible population being fully vaccinated. Our state and territory leaders now have the responsibility to be visionary leaders, not to peddle fear. This is a national plan, and it can only succeed with national cooperation. Australia is the lucky country not because of luck but because we continually and deliberately work at making it so. COVID-19: Vaccination 60 13:52 Ms TEMPLEMAN 181810 Macquarie When I listen to members opposite I wonder what planet they live on. Yes, of course we want to get out of these terrible lockdowns, but people also want to be vaccinated. That isn't easy to do if you live in the Blue Mountains or the Hawkesbury and you're not able to spend hours and days online or phoning GPs to try and get an appointment. Even when you do get one it's typically not until October or November, unless you're lucky—especially in the case where you need Pfizer. Not for the mum who's a nurse and doesn't want to risk taking COVID home to her unvaccinated children in her home, because she works in an area where COVID is much more prevalent than the Blue Mountains, but she can't get an appointment for her kids. The year 12 students in the Blue Mountains and the Hawkesbury can't get appointments. Breastfeeding mums can't get appointments. The aged-care disability and childcare workers and teachers see residents in the areas where they work being prioritised, yet they are not prioritised. There is no hub. The health minister has ignored requests for the Defence Force to get involved in operating hubs. Instead of telling people daily to get vaccinated we need to get enough supply for that to happen, and it has to be easy for it to happen. We need drive-throughs. We need mobile teams who can go into more remote communities or go into schools. These are the things that will get us out of this mess. Cowper Electorate: Roads 61 13:53 Mr CONAGHAN 279991 Cowper Yesterday I received a very welcome telephone call from the Deputy Prime Minister, advising he had just signed off on the first tranche of the $1.8 billion for the much-awaited and much-lauded Coffs Harbour Bypass. The first tranche, of $338 million, will see the commencement of major works in the not-too-distant future. To date local and regional builders are to benefit from the latest early works on the Coffs Harbour Bypass, with 13 projects signed up to already perform at-house noise treatments. The project team's local industry participation plan has seen more than 50 local businesses engaged so far and work is continuing on at-house noise treatments, with a large number of assessments completed on the eligible properties. A major project of the relocation of the Coramba water main is currently underway, with all three levels of government working closely together. The Coffs Harbour City Council is undertaking this massive task to carry out the relocation, and it's expected to be completed in December. I will continue to work with all levels of government to ensure that this project is delivered not only for the people of Coffs Harbour but also for the people of New South Wales. This is more than a bypass; it is a better way of life for the people of Coffs Harbour. Member for Dawson, COVID-19: New South Wales 61 13:55 Mr STEPHEN JONES A9B Whitlam It's easy to see that the Deputy Prime Minister's heart to heart with the member for Dawson has hit the point. Here he is standing in this place again today spreading his dangerous falsehoods, and we know how they end up. They end up with riots on the streets in Sydney and Melbourne and they end up with coppers in hospital. That's the end result of this sort of rubbish and nonsense. If these people can't agree amongst themselves, how the hell are they supposed to lead us out of the situation that we're in today? Last week the New South Wales government announced that the Shellharbour local government area would no longer be classified as part of Sydney. We welcome that. It means that restrictions can be eased on the basis of health risks within our community, not because we are stapled to Greater Sydney. The decision to keep Wollongong tied to Sydney, however, is crazy. It assumes, bizarrely, that Wollongong has got weaker links with Shellharbour and stronger links to Sydney, which is 90 kilometres away. This is not the case. The police area command which services most of Wollongong is in Shellharbour. The mass vaccination centre and the major hospital in Wollongong service Shellharbour. So it's time for the New South Wales government to end this crazy mess, put our regions back together again and enable us to get on with fighting this terrible virus. COVID-19: Vaccination 61 13:57 Dr MARTIN 282982 Reid There is no doubt that the past eight weeks of lockdown have hit the people of Reid hard. Four out of six local government areas in my community are now subject to some of the harshest restrictions we have seen. From the owners of small businesses that may never open their doors again to the individuals just surviving on COVID-19 disaster payments, people are hurting. And, while we all appreciate the need for lockdowns, we cannot deny the serious impact that they are having on the mental health of individuals. All of us know that there is one way out, and that is through getting vaccinated. Australia is a vaccination nation, and each day, more and more Australians are doing the right thing and getting vaccinated. More people are getting vaccinated to protect themselves and their family members. More people are refusing to listen to the sewer of pseudoscience on social media that peddles misinformation. Let's be clear: our COVID-19 vaccines are safe and effective and they are the way out of lockdown. The reality is that COVID-19 is not going anywhere. We must truly learn to live with it. That means staying the course and returning to normality once we hit those 70 and 80 per cent double-dose rates. Things are incredibly tough for the people of Reid, but we are a strong and resilient community, and we will get through this. Lingiari, Mr Vincent, AM 61 13:58 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler Earlier this month, we marked the 46th anniversary of Gurindji man Vincent Lingiari holding his hand beneath Gough Whitlam's to receive the red earth of his own land. With this symbolic act, land was returned to the Gurindji in what Gough called 'an act of restitution that would not stand alone'. Today, we mark the 55th anniversary of the act that started it: Vincent Lingiari leading his people off Wave Hill Station. It was one of Australia's most important industrial actions, and it was the birth of the land rights movement. If this was a little thing from which big things grew, this moment of courage and unbending dignity was one of the most seismic little things in our modern history. Fittingly, the Wave Hill walk-off is celebrated each year with the Freedom Day Festival in the Gurindji's traditional lands in the Northern Territory. I hope its place on our calendar grows in stature every year—except that, unfortunately, this year the festival, like so many other events, has been cancelled because of COVID. I intended to be there this Friday, but the health risks are just too high, given the urgent need to increase vaccination rates. We will put this pandemic behind us, and the Freedom Day Festival will continue for a long time to come and will come back stronger than ever. The SPEAKER 00APG It being 2 pm, the time for members' statements has concluded. MOTIONS 62 MOTIONS Afghanistan 62 14:00 Mr DUTTON 00AKI Dickson I rise to move a motion to suspend standing orders and advise the House that the Manager of Opposition Business and I have agreed that an absolute majority is not required pursuant to standing order 47(c)(ii). I move: That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent: (1) the Prime Minister moving a motion in relation to Afghanistan and speaking for 10 minutes; (2) the Leader of the Opposition speaking in reply for 10 minutes; (3) the Deputy Prime Minister, Deputy Leader of the Opposition, Minister for Defence and the Member for Gorton speaking to the motion for 5 minutes each; (4) debate on the motion then being adjourned, and resumption of the debate being made an order of the day for a later hour; and (5) any variation to this arrangement to be made only by a motion moved by a Minister. Question agreed to. 14:01 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook In accordance with the resolution, I move: That the House: (1) notes with great concern the urgent and dangerous situation in Afghanistan and the uncertainty ahead for the Afghan people; (2) acknowledges the role of Australia's service men and women during the last 20 years within the coalition forces, working with our allies and others, in the cause of fighting terrorism, promoting freedom and seeking to support the people of Afghanistan; (3) honours the sacrifice of the 41 Australians who have died in Afghanistan in the service of their country, and acknowledges the terrible loss suffered by their families; (4) recognises the service of the more than 39,000 Australian Defence Force men and women who served their country in this, our longest war, and the sacrifice of their families in supporting their service; (5) acknowledges the work of thousands of diplomats, aid workers, members of the Australian Federal Police and other government officials who have contributed to our efforts; (6) recognises the sacrifice of our coalition partners and our allies, who have seen their service men and women give their lives for the work they undertook in Afghanistan; (7) recognises the sacrifice of the people of Afghanistan, particularly those who have died in war or in conflict; (8) acknowledges and expresses gratitude for the important ongoing role of ex–service organisations in supporting veterans and their families; (9) commits to the continued work in providing support to all current and former service personnel and their families, and to those who work to serve Australia's interests at home or abroad; (10) acknowledges and commends the ongoing work and dedication to duty of those Australian personnel and officials who are providing and have provided assistance and support to those in Afghanistan in an extremely dangerous situation; (11) notes the Government is continuing to take urgent action to evacuate from Afghanistan Australians, Afghan visa holders and others, along with their families, in cooperation with other coalition partners, in extreme conditions; (12) notes more than 8,500 Afghans have been resettled in Australia since 2013, including more than 1,900 locally–engaged staff and their families; (13) notes the Government's work since April to bring out more than 430 locally–engaged employees and their families to be resettled in Australia, and that this number is increasing as further evacuations are now undertaken; (14) notes the Government is committed to providing at least 3,000 places for Afghan resettlement in 2021–22, with further commitments to increase the intake in following years; and (15) calls on any future government of Afghanistan to respect the human rights of all its citizens, especially women and girls, and for the international community to hold any future Afghan government to account. For almost 20 years, tens of thousands of Australians have served in Afghanistan under the authority and direction of successive parliaments. It is right that here in our national parliament we give an account of recent events, as well as begin a more considered reflection on almost 20 years in Afghanistan. Liberal democracies do not shy away from history. Debate, accountability and responsibility are fundamental to who we are. The situation on the ground in Kabul and across Afghanistan is dangerous and changing rapidly. The National Security Committee of cabinet has been meeting daily on Afghanistan, and Australia is working closely with our allies and partners. Our priority is the safe and orderly departure of Australian citizens, permanent residents and visa holders, including former locally engaged Afghan employees. I can report that, with the assistance of partners in the United Kingdom and the United States, we've been able to evacuate more than 1,000 people in 12 flights from Kabul since last Wednesday. The first people evacuated from Afghanistan landed in Perth, via Al Minhad Air Base, early on Friday morning, and another flight landed earlier today in Melbourne. The evacuation flights will continue for as long as we can continue to operate and get people out. This is an urgent and dangerous mission. The member for Herbert said it best when addressing the soldiers from 3rd Brigade departing on the first rescue mission last week: You are going into the belly of the beast, a place where the rule of law does not exist, on an operation that is dangerous, serious, and it's in our national interests for you to succeed. As we speak, more than 700 Australians are playing their part in this mission from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, the Department of Home Affairs, the Australian Border Force, and the Australian Defence Force. Many of these people have been deployed directly to Hamid Karzai International Airport in Kabul. We currently have two C-17A Globemasters, two C-130J Hercules and one KC-30A Multi-Role Tanker Transport aircraft deployed to the Middle East conducting and supporting evacuation operations. These evacuations are both dangerous and complex. Landing slots in Kabul are limited and the on-ground time is also limited. Access to the airport for those seeking to be evacuated is a major limiting factor and the approaches are very dangerous. I thank our key international partners, the United States and the United Kingdom, who are helping to secure Hamid Karzai International Airport, and our close friends in the United Arab Emirates, who have been generous hosts for Australia's evacuation efforts. We deeply appreciate their support. I was pleased to pass on our thanks directly to His Royal Highness the Crown Prince MBZ for his support. And I also thank our state and territory leaders for the reception arrangements they have so quickly and instinctively put in place, without having to be asked, to support the returning evacuees. Since April this year, we've been able to bring out more than 430 Afghan locally engaged employees and their families, who have been resettled in Australia. This is not a simple process. It has taken many, many months, both in preparation for the uplift at that time and since. This number continues to grow as each evacuation flight makes its way from Kabul back to AMAB. As mentioned, more than 1,000 people have already been evacuated on those flights since last Wednesday—as many as four flights going in every evening—including locally engaged Afghans and their families. They will add to the more than 8½ thousand Afghan nationals that have been resettled in Australia since 2013, including more than 1,900 Afghan locally engaged employees and their families. We're committed to doing the right thing by those who have stood with us, and that's what we've been doing for some period of time, and we're doing absolutely everything we can do right now to help them. I also want to address our humanitarian intake. Australia will welcome an additional humanitarian intake of some 3,000 Afghan nationals by next July as part of our annual program. I expect that this will increase in the years ahead. I commit our government to continue to increase our intake of Afghan nationals at elevated levels into the years ahead. At this stage, the 3,000 will come from our existing 13,750-person annual humanitarian program. But I want to stress that that 3,000 is a floor; it's not a ceiling. If we need to increase the size of the overall program to accommodate additional persons then we will. We will be resettling people who have legitimate claims through our official humanitarian program. We will not be providing a pathway to anyone who seeks to come here by any other means or changing the status of others who have come by other means. Next month, it will be 20 years since the September 11 attacks. Al-Qaeda, using the safe haven provided by the Taliban, attacked our way of life. Those attacks on freedom were subsequently mimicked by other extremist groups, such as Jemaah Islamiyah, in the years that followed. In 2001, when the Taliban refused to hand over al-Qaeda terrorists, Australia supported a US led operation to root them out and eliminate the capacity to stage more attacks against the West from Afghanistan. That we have hampered, interrupted and curtailed mass casualty attacks on so many occasions since then should be in no doubt and is a testament to all those who have served. That determination to keep the world safe from terror attacks has not changed and will not change. Together with our allies and partners, we also laboured long and hard to help the Afghan people secure a better future—to restore a broken state. We invested in schools, in health care, in power generation and more. We saw to the education of women and girls. Heartbreakingly, the fruits from those seeds of hope are now very uncertain. We must recognise with realism and humility the limits of our power and resources to secure the outcome so many Afghans, not least millions of women and children, yearn for. But let no-one say this noble endeavour was anything other than a sign of what marks Australian sacrifice for the good of others—the cause was and always will be a just one. It's been said that memory is a place where our vanished days gather. For all our veterans, police officers, diplomats, aid workers and others who have served in our name and in our cause, there is already a gathering of days. Today we recall the cost of this, our longest war. As the member for Canning might say, we're looking sacrifice right in the eyes. As former Prime Minister John Howard has reminded us, 'There is no hierarchy of sacrifice,' and I would add to that 'amongst those who fall in our name, in our uniform, under our flag, standing up for our values'. We honour the sacrifice of the 41 Australians who died in Afghanistan in the service of our country, and we acknowledge the terrible loss suffered by their families, whom I know that so many in this chamber know personally, as do I, and would have spoken to in these last days especially. We must acknowledge that for every name inscribed along the Hall of Memory at the Australian War Memorial there are thousands more who also paid a terrible price for their service: painful memories that cannot be shaken. I know many of you are asking a simple question: was it worth it? Yes, it was. We did the right thing. You did the right thing. As with any war, of course there were errors and miscalculations. History won't shy away from that, and neither will we as a free people. Yet, because of you who have served, your skill, your fearlessness and your courage, Australia is safer today because of your efforts and your sacrifice. Australia is better because of you. None of us can give a full answer to the questions you are asking yourselves and each other, and none of us can predict what lies ahead, but be assured of this: you are not alone. Be assured of this: Australia is proud of your service. I am proud of your service. Your families and all those who so dearly love you are so proud of you. And we are proud of your families, who have also carried the burden of your service, as only you can know, and we are deeply thankful to them. We are proud, too, of our defence personnel and officials working day and night right now to evacuate Australians in Kabul, and the many Afghans who have worked with us. And in keeping with the good and decent country you sought to serve, Australia will resettle thousands upon thousands, as we have already done, of Afghans who courageously stood with us. So, to the living, I say this: we will remember and honour your service. And to our fallen, we say: lest we forget. 14:15 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler This is not how Australia wanted it to end. The events in Afghanistan have been devastating for the Afghan people, dangerous for Australian nationals who remain in Afghanistan, traumatic for veterans of the conflict and terrifying for Australians who have relatives back in Afghanistan. It is also potentially lethal for the many Afghans who have worked with Australian troops and officials, over many years, and have not yet been given safe passage out. And it will have profound implications for the standing of democracy in the world, for global geopolitics and for our own national security which will reverberate for the decade to come. But, as Greg Sheridan wrote in the Weekend Australian: No one has been hurt as much as the 39 million people of Afghanistan, especially women and girls, who will be forced to live under an Islamist terrorist theocracy with a history of extravagant and often depraved violence. These have been testing times—times when genuine leadership matters most. While a full and dispassionate reflection on Australia's experience in Afghanistan will need to come, our focus now must be on the current crisis. Labor strongly supports the work of the Australian interagency team on the ground in Kabul. They must be given every form of support they need. They've been presented with an almost impossible task, one made all the harder because this effort was launched far too late. Providing support to those who supported Australians on the ground is more than just a moral obligation; it is a national security imperative. I do not understand why a team of the kind that we only recently deployed was not in place in Kabul the day the government announced Australia's intention to leave nearly three months ago. As we evacuated our own personnel, why didn't we evacuate Australian nationals at the same time, as well as loyal Afghans who had worked for Australia and whose lives would be in jeopardy as a result? The confusion over the fate of the 200 embassy security guards who were told on Saturday to contact a migration agent—it is almost unbelievable in its sheer callousness. It contrasts starkly with the leadership being exemplified by veterans who served in Afghanistan, who have rallied behind their Afghan mates. It also contrasts with the appeals of community organisations, MPs from both sides and former prime ministers Howard and Rudd. The very real risk that some will not be able to be reached is something that could and should have been avoided. This is particularly difficult for the families of the fallen and those who served alongside them. Today I pay tribute to those 41 Australians who made the ultimate sacrifice. Today, once again, we honour you—those who are still wondering about the arbitrary lottery that determines which is the wrong place and the wrong time, the twist of fate that has left them here among the living while their mates now belong to memory. As the flame burning eternally across the lake reminds us, we cannot and will never forget them. Let me say this: the debt we owe to our men and women in uniform who have served in Afghanistan is beyond measure. We are safer because of you. We honour those who went, those who never came home, those who never came home the same and those who are there now, trying to salvage some good out of the chaos of Kabul airport. However, there is no evading the fact that this is an occasion when gratitude and pride must stand alongside sorrow. As I said, this is not how Australia hoped it would end. It was never going to be easy. Afghanistan has long been a leveller of great powers. Ambitions have crumbled and giants humbled there. We saw early success in the mission to prevent Afghanistan being used as a base by al-Qaeda to launch acts of terrorism. But, as the mission turned to the long-term task of building an environment where terrorism could not find new opportunities, it was always going to be difficult, and government attention was quickly drawn to other events. As the grim tide of the Taliban floods back in, we must try to draw some solace from the thought that the vast majority of Afghan lives touched by Australians were touched very much for the better. As they carried on with this mission, even during those times when they were dogged by misgivings, the men and women who served in Afghanistan in our name reminded us what courage and honour truly are. The ADF, our diplomats and aid workers made a positive difference in the lives of the Afghan people. They made a difference for all those women and girls who were released from the darkness in which the Taliban had kept them. We can be proud that Australians created the beginnings of what should have been a brighter future, and we hope we have helped in planting the seeds of what might still become that better time in the future. Our veterans are not bronze sculptures on a cenotaph; they are flesh-and-blood human beings, left to shoulder superhuman burdens. Let us work to lighten their burdens. I say to our veterans: no-one who has served as you have can pretend to feel what you feel, to know what it is like to live back in this world, in this familial life, but to have part of yourself that still dwells in that one. You have the gratitude of the nation. As a nation, we cannot turn our backs on the truth of what has happened here, no matter how hard. We will work our way through the findings of the Brereton report commissioned by this government and all the lessons to be learnt. If freedom, democracy and the defeat of terrorism have been our cause, then it is a vitally important way to honour those who have fallen in the prosecution of that cause by attending to these values, both at home and in the wider world. And what of those brave Afghans who repaid our soldiers' courage with their own, putting their lives on the line to help us help their compatriots? They believed in the promise we held of a better future. So many Afghans have risked it all. They have struggled and sacrificed to create a better country for themselves. Now we are witnessing scenes where, for some, clinging to the outside of a departing aircraft somehow represents greater hope than staying to face the new reality. There are many Australians today who are desperate and anxious about their family in Afghanistan, who have been waiting months and in some cases years to get their partner visas or family reunification visas issued and have their families join them. MPs have been besieged with hundreds of desperate requests and stories that just break your heart. We need to look beyond the current evacuation to ensure that Australia plays a role in the global and regional humanitarian and refugee response as well as the ongoing political challenge that has become necessary following the Taliban's return. The Taliban have said that they have changed and will be more respectful of human rights, but the violence and chaos around Kabul airport does not augur well. We must continue to speak up for our values. For the Taliban leadership and as the alternative Prime Minister of this country I would say this: the Afghanistan you now claim to rule is radically different to the one you had enslaved 20 years ago. If you say there will be no retributions, you will be held to that by the international community. If you say that women and girls will not be treated as second-class citizens, you will be held to that too. If you say you are somehow different to the Taliban who provided safe haven to Osama bin Laden to conduct the September 11, 2001 attacks that killed Australians, then the international community will hold you to that as well. I also say this to the Taliban: If you are claiming to be different, then one simple, practical proof is to create a safe and orderly humanitarian corridor to Kabul airport right now for anybody who wants to leave, instead of threatening children with guns. We in Australia should demand nothing less. Together with the international community, we must pay close attention to ensuring that Afghanistan does not again become a safe haven for terrorism. As other countries have done, let us step up and do the right thing by those who assisted us. Our international reputation is at stake—our national security demands nothing less—and so is the way that we see ourselves as a people, as a nation and as the bearers of values that we believe are worth looking up to. Let us be worthy of the hope that we gave. 14:25 Mr JOYCE E5D New England Afghanistan; Afghanistan wars—a foul flame for moths of the most arduous and brutal battles noted through history, whether by Darius I, by Alexander the Great in 330 BC or in the evacuation of Kabul and the engagement by Soviet forces in 1979 for a decade. And now, for us, Afghanistan has been a moth to the flame of nefarious and evil purposes availing themselves of the cover between mountains, between tribes and between powers. In that cover they have managed to promulgate the fear and the terror which they have put forward on other people within the world. I commend the comments of the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, with a few minor exceptions, which I hope to address. The first question has to be: why did we get involved? We got involved because of the fact that a terrorist organisation drove two planes into the World Trade Center. We got involved because a terrorist organisation drove a plane into the Pentagon. We got involved because they tried to drive one into the Capitol—or maybe it was into the White House. They failed only by reason of the exceptional actions of those who were on the plane, who put forward their own lives to crash that plane. We got involved because of the actions of terrorists—like at the Sari nightclub, where 88 Australians were murdered. We got involved because of the bombings at the embassy in Jakarta. We got involved because of the bombings at the Marriott hotel. We got involved because of the 56 lives that were lost in the buses in London and the terrorist attacks there. We got involved because of the bombings in the African embassies in Tanzania and Kenya. The role of the infantry corps in Australia is to seek out and close with the enemy, to kill or capture him and to repel attack by day or by night regardless of season, weather or terrain. It's to seek out and close, to protect Australians. Our troops sought out and closed with the enemy in Afghanistan so we did not have to engage with them in Sydney, or in Melbourne or in Adelaide. These people sought out and closed with the enemy because of the protection of the Australian people. These people sought out and closed with the enemy because we honour our agreements, and in the 70th year of the ANZUS treaty we showed the worth of our mettle by standing with our allies in the United States to make sure that we did not let this obscene form of terrorism go unchecked. Right now there are members of the Australian Defence Force who continue to put their lives on the line. We are making sure that we offer the people the same sort of protection and the same sort of freedoms that we have here. We honour those who worked in the diplomatic service. We honour those who, right now, are trying to give to people the same life, the same freedoms and the same protections which we in this nation take as a birthright. We recognise that we have parliamentarians—the Minister for Defence, the shadow minister for defence, the shadow minister for veterans' affairs and the Minister for Veterans' Affairs—who are making sure that we see this task to the end. To the 39,000 Australians who served, to the 41 who died, to the hundreds who were maimed and to those who continue on that path to deal with the torments of what they experienced, we want you to know that we will always respect you. To those who died, we will never forget you. Lest we forget. 14:30 Mr MARLES HWQ Corio [by video link] I acknowledge the fine words of the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and the Deputy Prime Minister, and I acknowledge the members for Canning, Herbert and Solomon, all of whom provided service in Afghanistan. After the September 11 attacks on the United States, Australia's participation in Afghanistan was an act of duty to the alliance. But it was always so much more than that. On that day, almost 20 years ago, 10 Australians lost their lives. The following year, on 12 October, another 88 Australians perished in the terrorist attack in Bali perpetrated by a number of people who had received their training in terrorist training camps in Afghanistan. For us it was always personal. The objective was always to try and deny Afghanistan as a base for international terrorism. I'd like to believe that the achievement of that objective will endure. The international community sought to do more. Through our Defence Force, through our development assistance and through our aid, we sought to help Afghans recover from being subjected to one of the worst regimes of the latter part of the 20th century. In the nineties the Taliban's treatment of women was simply the worst in the world. Women were unable to be in public other than in the presence of a man. Girls were forced into marriage at ages as young as 12. Teenage women were prevented from having an education. Against that backdrop, the achievements of the last 20 years have been amazing. From almost nothing, by 2017 almost 40 per cent of eligible girls in Afghanistan were in secondary school: 3½ million girls were studying, with 100,000 of them going on to university. The maternal mortality rate fell by 64 per cent. The average life expectancy for Afghan women increased by a full 10 years. And that's just the start. Education is so powerful. Those women are still there, and, whoever is running Afghanistan in the future, I am certain that those women will ensure their country is forever changed for the better. But as we acknowledge those achievements and then watch the harrowing scenes of the Taliban retaking Kabul, all of us, particularly the veterans from Afghanistan, and, I suspect, Vietnam, are in a desperate search for meaning. What was it all for? I genuinely believe that the service of our men and women in uniform has made a difference to Afghanistan and the safety of the world. But what I know is that their service has made a difference to Australia, because at the core of serving in the Australian Defence Force is an idea of selflessness. Without any say in the decisions that we get to make here, the men and women of our Defence Force give their service and their sacrifice to our nation and to our fellow Australians without condition and without question. When Mark Donaldson runs across an open field exposed to heavy fire, knowing exactly what that's going to mean to him, in order to try and to save the life of a wounded interpreter, he obviously makes a statement about himself, but he says something about what the very best of Australia looks like. He, the 39,000 others who served in Afghanistan and the 41 who paid the ultimate sacrifice provide an example to all of us and to future generations about what the very best of the Australian character can be and about who we seek to be as a nation. When we remember Gallipoli, we don't do so because of the military significance of that campaign for the First World War. By all accounts it was a disaster. But we remember Simpson, a man who, day in, day out, knowing that each day might be his last, put himself in the face of fire to save his fellow countrymen until the day that was his last. We remember it because, despite the futility of the 3rd charge at the Nek, a group of Australians leapt out of that trench knowing that they would die because of what the idea meant to them, what it means to us now and what it will mean for future generations to be a member of the Australian family. So, yes, I think a difference has been made to Afghanistan, but whatever the future is for that country the deeds of our servicemen and women now belong to Australian history. They honour all of us. They will be a source of pride forever and for that, to them, we are eternally grateful. 14:35 Mr DUTTON 00AKI Dickson I join the fine words of the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition, the Deputy Prime Minister and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. Many of us in this place remember vividly the debate that took place 20 years ago, the presentation given by Prime Minister Howard after having been in the United States at the time of the strike against America with those planes going into the World Trade Centre. Our nation felt it deeply at the time. Anybody in this chamber, and many thousands around the country, can recall where they were at the time of that attack. It was an attack on us, as it was on America, our allies and those that share our values around the world. We took the right decision to go into Afghanistan. We took the right decision over a long period of time to stay in Afghanistan. There are many to whom we owe a very significant debt: Sergeant Andrew Russell, Trooper David Pearce, Sergeant Matthew Locke, Private Luke Worsley, Lance Corporal Jason Marks, Signaller Sean McCarthy, Lieutenant Michael Fussell, Private Gregory Michael Sher, Corporal Mathew Ricky Andrew Hopkins, Sergeant Brett Ian Till, Private Benjamin Ranaudo, Sapper Jacob Daniel Moerland, Sapper Darren James Smith, Private Timothy James Aplin, Private Benjamin Chuck, Private Scott Travis Palmer, Private Nathan Bewes, Trooper Jason Thomas Brown, Private Tomas Dale, Private Grant Walter Kirby, Lance Corporal Jared MacKinney, Corporal Richard Edward Atkinson, Sapper Jamie Ronald Larcombe, Sergeant Brett Wood, Lance Corporal Andrew Jones, Lieutenant Marcus Sean Case, Sapper Rowan Robinson, Sergeant Todd Matthew Langley, Private Matthew Lambert, Captain Bryce Duffy, Corporal Ashley Birt, Lance Corporal Luke Gavin, Sergeant Blaine Diddams, Lance Corporal Stjepan Milosevic, Sapper James Martin, Private Robert Poate, Lance Corporal Mervyn McDonald, Private Nathanael Galagher and Corporal Scott James Smith. These names, and in addition Corporal Cameron Stuart Baird and Lance Corporal Todd Chidgey, and the 39,000 who have served in our country's name in Afghanistan deserve our honour. There is an enormous amount that we've learnt from our battles in Afghanistan. We have learnt to treat the members of the Australian Defence Force better; to recognise the hurt, the pain and the suffering the loved ones of the names that I've just read endure to this very day and will for the rest of their lives. But it is important for us to recognise that their sacrifice has made a significant difference to the lives of those in Afghanistan, a generation of young women and girls who otherwise would have faced certain brutality, and there are many other gains that we've recognised. I want to say thank you very much to the serving men and women of the Australian Defence Force and our other agencies in Afghanistan, in Kabul, right now. The stories of bravery will become obvious to Australians over the coming days and weeks. The stories that have been recounted to me already and the way in which those officers are saving lives now should keep every Australian in the safe knowledge that we are proudly and honourably served by those men and women. Their courage continues, and continue it must. We took very sage advice from the Chief of the Defence Force only a couple months ago to withdraw our people from the embassy and from Afghanistan. We were ahead of the game in the sense that we were criticised at the time, but it was the right thing to do. At the same time, with the surge of activity, we were able to bring out people who had provided support to us, who had saved Australian lives over the course of this two decades, and that work continues today. We will make sure that we dedicate ourselves to helping those who have helped us. We are a better country for the way in which we have adhered once again to our values and to our beliefs. We do those a great service who have worn the uniform in our country's name over many, many generations. We stand proudly with the United States and our other allies today, and every day into the future, because we fight for what is good and what is right, and that is what is demanded of our country. 14:40 Mr BRENDAN O'CONNOR 00AN3 Gorton [by video link] I rise to speak to this important motion, following the contributions of the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition, the Deputy Prime Minister, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and the Minister for Defence. This is a very important national and international debate, but of course today our focus is on what's happening in Afghanistan. We continue to witness, as we debate in this House, the shocking events unfolding in Afghanistan. For some, these devastating scenes are felt more keenly. For the Afghan people, and especially for women and girls, this is an unfolding tragedy, with worse to come. The promise of a peaceful, stable, democratic, inclusive society has not been realised. For the Afghan-Australian community, who watch on in despair as their friends and family are faced with the awful truth of Taliban control, I say that our thoughts are with you. Our remarkable veterans and defence personnel who've been beseeching the government for months to act have had one simple message for me to convey to this House: 'If you want to do more to support the veterans' community in this hour, get our friends out of Afghanistan now.' That is their simple message. There is, and will continue to be, analysis, commentary and debate as to the merits or otherwise of the 20-year mission, along with the understandable concern about the manner of the withdrawal. For now, though, we must focus on what can be done to help those who helped us and need our help now. We need to ensure every Australian citizen and permanent resident is brought home and that every Afghan national who worked and fought alongside our defence personnel, aided and protected our embassy, provided security to prime ministers and ministers—as I can personally attest—is afforded safe haven here or, for now at least, in a third country. Beyond that, we must play a significant role and do our fair share in the humanitarian response to provide refuge for those fleeing persecution. For all of the criticism I've heard about the mission, I've yet to hear a simple plausible alternative to this UN sanctioned operation. To those who say, 'What was the point of it all?' I say, 'Diminishing the capacity for terrorists to wreak global havoc was cause enough.' But there was more. In 2011 I visited Afghanistan, as Home Affairs Minister, to thank the Australian Federal Police officers I'd farewelled in Canberra only months before for training hundreds and hundreds of Afghan national police in order to build the civil capability required of that nation. I saw girls join boys in walking to school in Kabul, which was unthinkable under the Taliban, and I met with women in professional roles that had been denied them so long. Those rights, however, should be afforded to every citizen of every country and those rights have disappeared within the blink of an eye. For now we should record our sincere appreciation for the efforts and sacrifices of our defence personnel, our aid workers, our Federal Police and our embassy staff. Right now we need to help those who helped us. We need the government to focus on doing what it can do, in every conceivable way, to ensure that those who were told that they would call Australia home, if required, get that opportunity. There is more to say about this matter in the weeks and months ahead, but right now our focus, our thoughts and our efforts must be on the situation in Afghanistan, in order to ensure we do everything we possibly can to help those who helped us. Debate adjourned. Ordered that the resumption of the debate be made an order of the day for a later hour. MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS 68 MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS 14:45 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook I inform the House that the Minister for Agriculture and Northern Australia will be absent from question time today and for the remainder of the week, and the Deputy Prime Minister will answer questions on his behalf. The Minister for Veterans' Affairs and the Minister for Defence Personnel will also be absent from question time today and for the remainder of the week, and the Minister for Defence will answer questions on his behalf. The Assistant Treasurer will be absent from question time today and for the remainder of the week, and the Treasurer will answer questions on his behalf. The Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs will be absent from question time today and for the remainder of the week, and the Minister for Home Affairs will answer questions on his behalf. May I thank all members of this place who have remained here in Canberra to enable these sittings to continue, and can I thank you, Mr Speaker, and the President of the Senate for the work you have done to enable us to do that here. 14:46 Mr BURKE DYW Watson on indulgence—Just in response to what the Prime Minister just raised: it sounds like video presence won't be used by ministers during question time. I respect that for today this has been organised and the moment will have gone, but, unless someone is unwell or prohibited from being able to participate, ministers should be available for questions. We have video presence available. There will be some who, because of the lockdown rules, are unable to go to their electorate office, and that is respected. But it sounds like, from what the Prime Minister has described, that even those ministers who would be able to get to their electorate office for video presence will not be available for question time for the remainder of the week. The SPEAKER 00APG I can't really make any comment on that. As I said, video presence is available and the requirement is that members are trained, and that they do so from their electorate offices—as we know, without me going over all that again. For the circumstances of individual ministers and their attendance, that's not a matter for me; that is a matter for the Prime Minister. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 69 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Afghanistan 69 14:48 Mr KHALIL 101351 Wills [by video link] My question is to the Prime Minister. I worked in Iraq as an adviser for Australia to coalition forces. After the United States began its withdrawal in 2007, one of our interpreters, Ali, was beheaded by al-Qaeda in Baghdad, his body dumped on the roadside. Prime Minister, how many of the Afghans who helped Australian defence forces will be left behind in Afghanistan? 14:48 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook The Australian government will continue to do all within its power to ensure that we are able to bring out and continue to evacuate those Afghan nationals who have worked with Australians during the time of our service in Afghanistan, as we have been doing for the last eight years. Some 1,900 Afghans who have worked with Australians as part of our service there, and their families, have already been resettled in Australia. They are already living here; they are amongst us. We welcome them gratefully for their service together with Australian servicemen and women and for the many other roles they undertook. And, from April of this year, 430—before these most terrible events befell Afghanistan that have necessitated the evacuations that are now taking place—had already come to Australia, over those months, as we worked steadily, as we have done for many, many years. Now, I thank the member for his service in Afghanistan, as we've acknowledged many members of this place who have performed many roles in Afghanistan—particularly those who've served in uniform. We thank them for their service, and we understand that. And that is why our government has continued, year upon year, going back to 2013, indeed, when I was minister for immigration; the number was in the hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of these visas we were able to process, to get those who were affected to Australia at that time. And that has continued. In fact, it was a matter that I was able to discuss with Prime Minister Johnson, only last week, who was pleased to learn how much Australia had been doing—particularly as a share of our population—compared to so many others who have been involved in that theatre. So we will continue to expend every effort we possibly can, as we have been doing these many long years. It is not a simple task. It is not a task that can be done in the past, in a way that can overlook the many factors that Australians would expect us to undertake in bringing people to Australia from a place such as Afghanistan. But we have been about that job for many years. We have been getting people out. And we are getting people out right now—and not just those Afghans who've a visa to come to Australia, I hasten to add. We are also doing that for Afghan nationals who will be going to other places—to the United Kingdom, to New Zealand, or, potentially, to Canada—if they need that assistance, and we will continue to provide that support, as a coalition, as we work together to get as many people as we can from that desperate situation that suggests. But the government will continue to apply itself, as we have done, each and every year for these many years, and with the utmost of urgency. COVID-19 69 14:52 Dr MARTIN 282982 Reid My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister please outline to the House how the Morrison government's national plan continues to chart Australia's way through the COVID-19 pandemic and provide hope to the country, including through our vaccination program, so that we can live with the virus and build a stronger country on the other side? 14:52 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook I thank the member for Reid for her question, and I was pleased to be able to join her while talking to thousands of local constituents recently, as we were able to talk through their questions and respond to their questions as they are moving through the difficult lockdown in Sydney, and the many other questions about the vaccination program and the progress that is being made there, including the national plan. And that national plan is our pathway to living with this virus, which we must do. We must be able to live with this virus. We can't live in fear of it. The national plan that has been agreed, right across the country, by all states and territories in the Commonwealth, is based on the best science, best health advice and best economic advice as well. That is what has informed that national plan—a process that began back in February of this year, further accelerated in March of this year and was agreed in July and in August, as we continue to consult and develop carefully and consultatively that plan that has brought all together. It was determined the safest and most practical jumping off point for Australia to go into this next phase, where we can live with this virus, in a way that we indeed must, to make our break from the debilitating cycle of lockdowns that Australians are living with now. Those lockdowns are necessary now, but, when we reach those marks, we must begin to say goodbye to them. We must break that cycle. And the national plan is the way to break that cycle. It provides the hope and it provides the certainty needed for Australians to plan for their future and for businesses to understand the direction, and it has been laid out for them, and Australians are counting on its delivery, when seven and eight out of 10 of them have been able to go and get their vaccination—two doses—knowing that that national plan will support their future. And so with this national plan, we must walk it forward not walk it back. We must embrace it, not fear what becomes of it, as a case number focus gives way to managing the serious issues of illness and hospitalisation. We must prepare for it, which means we must vaccinate. We must continue to prepare our health systems. We must continue to set out the very clear and sensible rules that will continue to operate when we move into phases B and C of the plan. And we must of course adjust our mindset and prepare the country for what life will be like as we move to those next phases. Our plan is in place and it is agreed. We are making progress against that plan, with over 17 million vaccines having been administered around the country, with over 30 per cent of the country now having received two doses and 1.8 million vaccinations in a week— (Time expired) Afghanistan 70 14:55 Mr BRENDAN O'CONNOR 00AN3 Gorton [by video link] My question is to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister was warned repeatedly by veterans and by former prime ministers that time was running out to evacuate Afghans who worked with the Australian Defence Force. The Prime Minister failed to act early enough and has now been forced to admit that people will be left behind. Why won't the Prime Minister take responsibility for this failure? 14:56 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook I completely and utterly reject the assertion made by the member—absolutely! And I thank every Australian who, for these past eight years—and, particularly, in these past six to eight months—have been doing the work to actually bring people here to this country: 430 people resettled since April alone and 1,900 over these many years. I must admit I find it disappointing that on a day such as this, when we're supposed to come together, that even on this matter politics knows no bounds with those opposite. It knows no bounds in the suggestion that has been made by the member. This government has been working steadfastly, consistently and urgently for years to bring people out of Afghanistan, and we continue to do that now. I reject absolutely any suggestion that the government has not been seeking to do that. I can only ascribe to that member, in putting that forward, a motive that is not fitting of this day. COVID-19: Regional Australia 70 14:57 Mr CONAGHAN 279991 Cowper My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister. Will the Deputy Prime Minister inform the House how the Morrison-Joyce government is guaranteeing the essential services that regional Australians rely on as the government continues with its plan to address the impacts of COVID and drive the vaccination rollout in the regions? 14:57 Mr JOYCE E5D New England I'd like to acknowledge the honourable member for Cowper, especially for his efforts towards the $1.46 billion on the Coffs Harbour bypass, which is certainly a vital service. It provides a vital service in that transport corridor—the duplication of the Pacific Highway, which was started by former Deputy Prime Minister Truss and continued by former Deputy Prime Minister McCormack. And it continues as we speak. I also acknowledge, in the reference to services, the aviation support packages that this government has put in place so that during this COVID crisis we have the capacity to keep planes in the air, whether the Regional Aviation Network Support scheme, the Tourism Aviation Network Support scheme or the Domestic Aviation Network Support scheme. And I also acknowledge that the payments for those who are in hotspots is $750. These things are all crucial in keeping services moving during this period of time. We also note that just today we've announced the ag visa. The ag visa is vital for us to keep our agricultural sector working. It's vital because unless someone picks the fruit there's no-one working in the packing shed. Unless someone picks the fruit there's no truck driver to move the fruit. Unless someone picks the fruit there's no market to sell the fruit. Unless someone operates the dirtier sides of an abattoir chain, such as packing offal, then there's no section of the chain that's working and other workers lose their jobs. I was surprised that even meat workers unions approached me to make sure that we get this visa in place so that they can have a full contingent of labourers and so they can all keep their jobs. The ag visa is vital in the provision of the service of labour so that we have the capacity to get people into the paddocks when we are stripping the grain crops that are so important for some of our export dollars. In regional Australia, which is the source of so much of our export wealth—from minerals to agriculture—it is vital that this government supports the services which support the export of that product. I acknowledge that the member for Cowper has within his seat the town of Dorrigo. And from Dorrigo came Mark Donaldson VC, who so many people in the seat of Cowper and especially in the town of Dorrigo are so proud of. So on this day when we're acknowledging the services, one of the important services are those who have put their lives on the line, as they have done in Afghanistan and continue to do to this very moment. Theirs is the most important service of all. COVID-19: Lockdowns 71 15:00 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler My question is to the Prime Minister. In June, the Prime Minister congratulated the New South Wales Premier for not going into lockdown. In July, he said lockdowns were a 'necessary tool'. In August he pushed New South Wales to lock down harder and also said, 'For the lockdown to work the lockdown must work.' Today he switched again, saying lockdowns must end. When the Prime Minister's story changes so often, how can Australians have confidence going forward? 15:01 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook The Leader of the Opposition is deliberately mischaracterising. Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG Members on my left! Mr MORRISON E3L It's quite simple. It's very simple. I'll set it out for the Leader of the Opposition. The national plan says we are, right now, in the suppression phase. In the suppression phase—that is, until we reach 70 per cent of the country being vaccinated—lockdowns are an important part of the suppression tools used by state and territory governments. And that position of lockdowns becoming the more prominent tool was arrived at after the lessons learnt in New South Wales as a result of the delta variant. It's that simple. The Leader of the Opposition now wishes to suggest that, moving to a point after we reach 70 per cent, we should have lockdowns in that arrangement. The plan is very clear. Right now, the national plan is to suppress the virus as much as we possibly can. The delta variant was a changing circumstance which has adjusted the responses that states and territories are making. All through the COVID pandemic, we have sought to adjust our responses to deal with the information that is in front of us. This national plan means that, when we reach 70 per cent, we can begin saying goodbye to those lockdowns, because, once you hit 70 per cent, lockdowns on the scale we are seeing today will do more harm than good at that time. That is the medical advice, that is the scientific advice and that is the economic advice. That's why the national plan is so important. Those opposite may seek to undermine the national plan, they may seek to run down the national plan, they may seek to steal the hope of Australians and hope for the worst, which is the woo-hoo moment that the Leader of the Opposition might seek, but we will keep faith with that plan and we will keep faith with the implementation of that plan. So I call on the opposition to support the national plan, rather than seek to undermine it, as they have sought to undermine the government every step of the way through the pandemic. COVID-19: Vaccination 71 15:03 Dr HAINES 282335 Indi My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, there are now outbreaks of COVID among children across Australia, including in Shepparton in regional Victoria, right next door to my electorate. Yesterday I spoke to a constituent who needs to access child care to perform an essential service as a frontline health worker. She's keeping her son home from child care, fearful that he will contract COVID. What guarantees can you give to anxious parents like her that everything is being done to keep our children safe? 15:04 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook I thank the member for her question. I will ask the minister for health to add to my answer. If the minister for education wishes to add further to the answer as well, in relation to childcare arrangements that have been announced today, that would certainly be helpful. We have received some interim advice from the immunisation advisory group which means that, for children aged between 12 and 15, we will be able to move to the position of being able to vaccinate children in those circumstances. I am advised by the Chief Medical Officer that there is nowhere in the world where vaccinations currently are being offered as part of a formal program to children under the age of 12. We do note that cases are presenting in children under the age of 12, but I'm also advised by the Chief Medical Officer that the serious illness that is associated with COVID is not presenting in them in the same way as with those of older ages. I have a 12-year-old child. I have no doubt that parents across the country will be concerned about the impact of COVID on those younger age groups. Our next phase is to ensure that we're moving through vaccination of 12- to 15-year-olds, and that will be addressed this Friday. In addition to that, the advice of the Chief Medical Officer is that we should be seeking to vaccinate parents. Vaccinating parents, those who children come in contact with, is the most effective way of ensuring that children, particularly those who are under 12, are at a reduced risk of being infected by the COVID-19 virus. Those are the two principal lines of effort we're working down. I'll ask the Minister for Health and Aged Care to add to my answer. 15:06 Mr HUNT 00AMV Flinders To the member for Indi, this is one of these matters on which we spent an enormous amount of time seeking advice from the Chief Medical Officer. I'm pleased that we are in a position, subject to the advice of the Australian Technical Advisory Group on Immunisation, to move to extend vaccination to all 12- to 15-year-olds if that is the advice. At this stage, we have today expanded the eligible 12- to 15-year-old category to include all NDIS participants, on top of immunocompromised children, Indigenous children and remote children. In addition to that, a very important factor, as the Prime Minister alluded to, is that although children are not immune they have been overwhelmingly protected. Thankfully, no child under the age of 14 has lost their life in Australia. We have, tragically, had a 15-year-old die, but the circumstances are under investigation. We have a hospitalisation rate of two per cent—mostly for observational purposes, but there are very sick children amongst them—of those children who have been diagnosed. That compares, obviously, with hospitalisation rates across the states of between 40 and 70 per cent for over-70-year-olds. These actions are being taken, and the higher the vaccination rate the more every child is protected. (Time expired) COVID-19: Support Payments 72 15:07 Ms LIU 282918 Chisholm My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer update the House on the unprecedented scale of the economic support the Morrison government continues to deliver and our commitment to provide more and more jobs for Australian families and businesses? Is the Treasurer aware of any alternative policies? 15:07 Mr FRYDENBERG FKL Kooyong I thank the member for Chisholm for her question and acknowledge her experience in small business before coming to this place. Just last week, we did a tele town hall with thousands of people across the electorate of Chisholm and talked about our plan out of this crisis. Last week, we got the jobs data for the month of July. Unemployment fell from 4.9 to 4.6 per cent. There were 2,200 jobs created across the national economy, and the unemployment rate fell to a 12-year low. Normally that would be a cause for celebration, but not now, not with millions of our fellow Australians in lockdown. Those numbers were very much a tale of two cities—Melbourne and Sydney. In Sydney, we saw the impact of lockdowns, with the number of hours worked falling by seven per cent, whereas in Melbourne—because, at the time the survey was taken, Melbourne was coming out of lockdown—we saw an increase in hours worked of 9.7 per cent, showing how resilient the Australian economy is and showing its ability to bounce back. It also shows how our economic support, both business support and income support, is targeted at those who need it most, particularly for those who've lost hours of work, with payments of $750 a week. Around $4 billion to 1.6 million people is now already out the door, and we have reached agreement with every state and territory about bilateral business support on a fifty-fifty basis. This is helping to support the economy at this time of need. But there's also a light at the end of the tunnel for those millions of Australians who are doing it tough, and that light at the end of the tunnel is our plan that was agreed to at national cabinet. Australians can't live in lockdown for ever. Indeed, we must learn to live with COVID. And the Australian people have to be prepared for what that means: there will be more cases, there will be serious illness and, indeed, there may be tragic deaths. But at the same time, our plan agreed to by national cabinet is the pathway out, and that is for vaccination rates of 70 per cent and 80 per cent, because in that report it says that at those levels we will see these stringent lockdowns become unlikely. And this is our pathway out of the crisis: vaccination rates at 70 per cent and 80 per cent. And we have seen in the last week alone 1.8 million doses of the vaccine being delivered. So there are some difficult times ahead, and our economic support is being delivered right across Australia. But we stand with Australians and we seek to implement the plan agreed by national cabinet that all states and territories need to adhere to. COVID-19: Morrison Government 73 15:11 Mr BUTLER HWK Hindmarsh [by video link] My question is to the Prime Minister. Does the Prime Minister stand by his announcement that: … when we reach the 70 per cent and 80 per cent thresholds the findings are clear that we can move forward with our reopening plans regardless of case numbers … 15:11 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook Indeed I do, and that's the advice that I have. That advice, confirmed just over the weekend, as we continue to work with the Doherty Institute, is advice that was provided by the Secretary of the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet to the members of the task force that was set up earlier this year. That task force I asked to be set up, led by Secretary Gaetjens together with all of the department secretaries and directors-general of Premiers' departments around the country, to actually work together, drawing on the Doherty advice as well as the advice that came through from all the treasuries, both at state and territory level, that went into formulating the very plan that has been agreed to by states and territories and the Commonwealth. As we're advised, the starting point does not influence the overall conclusion of the model is what we learned on the weekend, and the overall conclusions of the model will remain valid. Now, sensitivity analysis has been done on these issues for many, many months, and we'll continue to do that. But it's a very simple question. And I'd be interested to know, when those opposite have the opportunity to make remarks on these matters in other places: if we're not to open up at 70 per cent and 80 per cent, then when? When is that going to happen? At what point? At what point are we going to continue to have to ensure that Australians suffer under the conditions that have been necessary—I don't doubt that they've been necessary, not at all; but there comes a time when you have to step out. And the national plan sets it out at 70 per cent and at 80 per cent, and we must now prepare for those times. And, of course, at those times, case numbers will be higher—of course they will, as we're seeing all around the world. But those who think— Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG Members on my left! Mr MORRISON E3L that Australians must remain locked down forever are not in sync with where the Australian people are at. The SPEAKER 00APG The Leader of the Opposition. Mr Albanese R36 Mr Speaker, can I ask if the Prime Minister can table the advice that was received on the weekend that he was quoting from? The SPEAKER 00APG Was the Prime Minister quoting from a confidential document? Mr Morrison E3L I was. Opposition members interjecting— Mr Albanese R36 Mr Speaker— The SPEAKER 00APG The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. As members will know, the practice is I ask the question and get the answer, and we now don't have a debate about it. COVID-19: Vaccination, COVID-19: Treatment 73 15:14 Mr FALINSKI G86 Mackellar [by video link] My question is to the Minister for Health and Aged Care. Will the Minister please update the House on Australia's COVID-19 vaccines and treatment strategy? 15:14 Mr HUNT 00AMV Flinders I want to thank the member for Mackellar for his question. I know that he has supported his community through some of the most difficult and challenging lockdowns that the world has seen and that Australia has seen. What we do know in particular— Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The members for Newcastle and Macarthur will cease interjecting. Mr HUNT 00AMV What we know in particular is that the global pandemic continues unabated; in fact, numbers are climbing globally. There's a rolling seven-day average of over 600,000 cases a day and over 8½ thousand lives lost per day. Whilst we have great challenges, we have been mercifully spared that which has beset so much of the world. One of the things that are occurring now is that we're seeing vaccine rates accelerating to national record levels: 139,000 on Sunday, 335,000 over the weekend, 1.8 million Australians vaccinated in one week—the population of South Australia and more. These are Australians who stepped forward to protect themselves, protect their friends, protect their families, protect their country. Every vaccine helps protect each one of us, but every vaccination helps protect all of us. That's what Australians are doing in record numbers—at a rate, I'm advised, that is in excess of the highest seven-day average in the UK and comparable to the highest in the United States. What it means in practice is that we now have national vaccination rates of 17.15 million Australians who have been vaccinated, or 52.8 per cent with first doses amongst the eligible population, and over 30 per cent with second doses amongst the eligible population—perhaps most significantly, amongst our most vulnerable older citizens, which is why we are seeing a dramatically different outcome in New South Wales now, as opposed to Victoria a year ago. We have vaccination rates for our over 50s of 75 per cent plus, for our over 60s of 80 per cent already, and for our over 70s of 85 per cent. Australians have been stepping forward to arm themselves, to protect the nation, to take the steps that will help protect each individual and every individual, and they're doing this at the same time as we're bringing forward new treatments, such as sotrovimab, which is now being supported by the TGA and will be made available to protect Australians. COVID-19 74 15:17 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler My question is to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister confirm that Australia has had a 'war footing', a 'bridge to recovery', an 'allocation horizon', a COVID app 'sunscreen', ramp-ups and resets and tickets to freedom? Now, on the basis of Doherty institute updated advice, he says that rising cases won't stop us reopening. Why won't the Prime Minister make available that advice? Don't Australians suffering under lockdowns have a right to see it? 15:18 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook The Leader of the Opposition continues to seek to undermine the national plan. Opposition members interjecting— Mr MORRISON E3L His introduction to that question, Mr Speaker, was intended for no other purpose than to just undermine the national plan, which has been his practice. The Doherty modelling was released in full—released in full— Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG Members on my left! I'm trying to listen. Mr MORRISON E3L after it had had the opportunity to be reviewed and briefed upon by Professor McVernon to the national cabinet, as well as to the National Security Committee of cabinet. And once those cabinet deliberations had been undertaken and there had been discussions about its findings and the plan was agreed to, then the Doherty modelling was released in full—in full— Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG Members on my left! Mr MORRISON E3L in full, Mr Speaker. So the government have been completely transparent when it comes to the modelling that has been provided by the Doherty institute, and we will continue to be when and if further information is presented in that way. The SPEAKER 00APG The Prime Minister will resume his seat. Mr Albanese R36 Mr Speaker— The SPEAKER 00APG The Prime Minister has just indicated he has concluded his answer. Afghanistan 74 15:19 Ms BELL 282981 Moncrieff My question is to the Minister for Defence. Will the minister update the House on Australia's efforts to bring back Australians and Australian visa holders from Afghanistan? 15:19 Mr DUTTON 00AKI Dickson I want to thank the honourable member for her question and thank her for the representations she has made to me on behalf of veterans over a long period of time. I also acknowledge that Signaller Sean McCarthy went to Trinity Lutheran College in the member's electorate of Moncrieff. He was one of the 41 names I read earlier—one of those heroes, one of those names that will be etched in our nation's memory and consciousness forever and to whom we owe a great deal. Along with 39,000 other men and women of the Australian Defence Force, they have served our country with great distinction. They have brought to the country of Afghanistan the opportunity for a generation, in particular of young girls and women, to be educated, to be treated decently and to be provided with a future. I want to, again, commend the efforts of the Australian Defence Force personnel, the members of the contingent there, which includes the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and also the Department of Home Affairs and other agencies who have a presence in Kabul at the moment. We have put in place over recent months a lot of planning and have actioned outcomes, which have seen us repatriate back to our country, from April of this year, over 400 of those people that have supported us in our endeavours in Afghanistan. Mr Speaker, as you know, we took a decision, to close our embassy in May of this year, again, ahead of many other countries. We took the security advice and we made a prudent decision that was in the best interest, based on national security. The work that is underway at the moment by some 250 ADF deployed personnel to support the operation includes five aircraft: two C-130s, two C-17s and a midair refueller, the KC-30. We have an incredible relationship with our coalition partners, in particular the United Kingdom and the United States, with whom we've been working very closely and on whom we have relied intimately—and, similarly, them on us. I'm very grateful for that support and for the fact that we, as a country, have had an incredibly proud record over the last eight years of bringing out 1,900 locally engaged employees and their family members, and, as I said, 430 since April. That is more than many other countries have committed to over that eight-year period. Indeed, over that period we have settled or issued visas for 8½ thousand Afghans to call Australia home, and we are a better country for their presence. Our efforts will continue, and we're very grateful, in particular, for the efforts of the Australian Defence Force personnel in Kabul. COVID-19: Morrison Government 75 15:22 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler My question is to the Prime Minister, and I refer to his previous two answers. Two questions ago, the Prime Minister stood at that dispatch box and said that he was giving new advice based upon the Doherty institute updating its advice to the government. Why is it that the Prime Minister thinks that Australians don't deserve to see that advice immediately, given that the government is changing its position on the basis of that advice? 15:23 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook First of all, the government has not changed its position. Our plan has been set out very clearly about how we are responding to COVID-19 and that when we reach 70 per cent and when we reach 80 per cent we can move through to phase B and phase C of that plan. Those marks have been set by the Doherty analysis that was undertaken. There were further discussions with Doherty over the weekend that were oral. There was oral advice that was provided to the government, and I can ask the minister for health to update further. It should not come as a great surprise to those opposite that the government would be taking oral briefings from its advisers. I do that absolutely every single day, as people who come to us and are advising us provide us with that advice. Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The Prime Minister will resume his seat. Members will cease interjecting. The Leader of the Opposition on a point of order? Mr Albanese R36 Point of order, Mr Speaker: I asked that the Prime Minister table a document that he was reading— The SPEAKER 00APG What is the point of order? Mr Albanese R36 It goes to relevance, Mr Speaker. The Prime Minister is now saying that there's no updated advice, whereas previously he said he was reading from it and it was confidential. The SPEAKER 00APG I ask the Leader of the Opposition to resume his seat. Mr Hunt interjecting— Mr Hill interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The Minister for Health and Aged Care will cease interjecting. The member for Bruce is warned. There's no point of order because the Prime Minister is being relevant to the question. He might not be answering it in the way the Leader of the Opposition wants, but that's existed since question time began—in 1901, I should say! Mr MORRISON E3L Even in the point of order, the Leader of the Opposition again seeks to misrepresent. He again seeks to misrepresent and he seeks to undermine, and that has been his practice for the last 18 months. Our position is very clear: the national plan sees Australia starting to break free from lockdowns when we get to 70 per cent vaccination rates and 80 per cent vaccination rates. Why is Labor seeking to undermine that position? I do not understand why the Labor Party would be seeking to undermine confidence in a national plan that sees Australia say goodbye to lockdowns, but that is what the Leader of the Labor Party is doing. Afghanistan, National Security 76 15:26 Mr STEVENS 176304 Sturt My question is to the Minister for Home Affairs. Will the minister please update the House on how the Morrison government continues to resettle Afghan nationals in response to the serious situation in Afghanistan and is delivering on keeping Australia's borders secure and Australians safe? 15:26 Mrs ANDREWS 230886 McPherson I thank the member for his question. Of course, Australians right across the nation are deeply concerned at the evolving situation in Afghanistan and the images that we have been seeing, particularly over the last week, have really underscored how significant and how diabolical the situation currently is in Afghanistan. Our priority has been the safe departure of Australian citizens, permanent residents and visa-holders, and that includes Afghan former locally engaged employees. Since 18 August, we have facilitated more than 1,000 people on 12 flights out of Kabul, working with both the United Kingdom and the United States. Of course, that work continues. We are working to swiftly process applications from Afghanistan, with at least 3,000 of the 13,700 places in our humanitarian program dedicated to ensuring that Afghan citizens are offered protection by Australia. As the Prime Minister has said, that is a floor, not a ceiling. Priority is being given to persecuted minorities, to women and children and to those people who have a family connection with Australia. Australia has a very strong and generous resettlement program, and, in fact, since 2014 we have welcomed 8½ thousand Afghans under the humanitarian program. Australians can be proud of that. We can all be very proud of that record, and we should be proud of the fact that, as a member of the international community, we are most definitely playing our part. We are very mindful of the messages that are being sent to potential people smugglers overseas, and I say that because that is an issue that this government has been very focused on for many years. It is the action that we have taken in relation to programs such as Operation Sovereign Borders that has kept us safe within Australia. Over the previous years, we have kept that vigilance, and we will be maintaining that into the future. The last thing that we want as a government—and that we should want as a nation—is for the people-smuggling trade to start up again. We have, as I've said, been focused over the last couple of years making sure there is strong messaging going into key parts of, particularly, South-East Asia. Recently, we have stepped up that activity. We've recorded videos, they're being translated into a number of languages and they are being distributed widely across the local region. Our message is very clear: if you arrive in Australia illegally, you will not be able to settle here. Mr Morrison E3L Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. The SPEAKER 00APG The Leader of the Opposition, on a point of order? It can't be on relevance, because question time is over, so I will do it on indulgence. STATEMENTS ON INDULGENCE 76 STATEMENTS ON INDULGENCE Questions Without Notice 76 15:30 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler Mr Speaker, on indulgence, this goes to the running of the parliament. Today, the government offered us a full question time—that was supposed to occur—and now question time has been shut down because this Prime Minister is under pressure. The fact is— Honourable members interjecting— Mr Gosling interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG Members on both sides. The member for Solomon. The Leader of the Opposition has the call. Mr ALBANESE R36 We have been cooperative, and will continue to be, in order to allow this parliament to function under the difficult circumstances of restricted numbers et cetera. But the cooperation has to go two ways, and the government keeping its word would be a nice start. Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG I just say to the Leader of the House and to all members present: any discussions that occur prior to question time are none of my business, but the Practice does point out clearly that the Prime Minister—or indeed a duty minister such as the Leader of the House, if the Prime Minister isn't here—can conclude question time at any time, even during the asking of a question. QUESTIONS TO THE SPEAKER 77 QUESTIONS TO THE SPEAKER Questions Without Notice 77 15:31 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I have question to you, Mr Speaker, and it goes to the functioning of the parliament and it goes further to a question that I previously raised referring to House of Representatives Practice, which says that ministers should be available during question time. I would ask you to consider that further and whether advice could be given to those ministers who we understand—there might be some reason why—can't attend. House of Representatives Practice, at page 549, is very clear: … it has been traditionally expected that all Ministers who are Members of the House, unless sick, overseas or otherwise engaged on urgent public business, will be present at Question Time. Could I ask you to confirm whether it's possible if ministers attend virtual parliament—a large number of members of the Labor Party are actually doing their job and attending parliament— Ms Catherine King 00AMR Including shadow ministers. Mr ALBANESE R36 including shadow ministers—and if you could give consideration to whether ministers could be asked questions during question time in a virtual fashion. 15:32 The SPEAKER 00APG I can answer the question, which I think was right at the end. In terms of what I'm responsible for, and the Clerk and others, it's providing a video presence for members, who have been trained, from their electorate office, with a background that is as close to parliamentary as possible, and that is available. Certainly, without going through all of the agreement, it allows all members participating to speak in debates but not to move motions, and they can't vote, but it enables the asking of questions and it enables the answering of questions as well. So that's really my side of it. Did the Leader of the House want to enter the discussion? Mr Dutton 00AKI Reluctantly, Mr Speaker. Just on indulgence, on the point made by the Leader of the Opposition, I would just direct you to page 263 of Practice which, under the heading 'Announcements of ministerial arrangements' says: The Prime Minister from time to time informs the House of changes in the Ministry, of the absence or illness of Ministers, of any acting and representational arrangements that are made within the Ministry, and of changes— And it goes on. Mr Speaker, as has been the practice over the course of this unusual period with COVID, the reality is that the Prime Minister has made arrangements for ministers who are unable to be here to be represented by ministers who are. That is the practice that's been adhered to, and the line today from the Leader of the Opposition that somehow there's been a deviation from that doesn't represent fairly what has been the case since the start of this COVID period. The SPEAKER 00APG The only point I would make—as I said, it's not for me to ensure anyone attends, whether they're a minister or not—is, certainly, when ministers aren't here and someone's acting, it has been custom to explain the reason why they're not here, as in they're either overseas, which was more pre-COVID, or are giving a speech or are unable to be here for whatever other reason. So I just point that out. STATEMENT BY THE SPEAKER 77 STATEMENT BY THE SPEAKER COVID-19: House of Representatives Procedure 77 15:35 The SPEAKER 00APG I'm not going to keep updating the House on all the changes that you are now familiar with. There are some more obvious ones here today. There is one other change I'll just advise members—and I haven't advised the Leader of the House or the Manager of Opposition Business of this yet, but I will now, so apologies for that—in terms of the health advice and keeping maximum ventilation in the chamber, having the doors open. You'd be familiar with that. We'll do that in divisions as well. I will say, perversely, 'Lock the doors' but the doors won't be locked and the attendants will make sure no-one else enters. AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORTS 77 AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORTS Report No. 1 of 2021-22 77 BILLS 78 BILLS Customs Amendment (Banning Goods Produced By Forced Labour) Bill 2021 78

Customs Amendment (Banning Goods Produced By Forced Labour) Bill 2021

First Reading 78 Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment (Sunsetting Review and Other Measures) Bill 2021 78

Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment (Sunsetting Review and Other Measures) Bill 2021

Second Reading 78 15:38 Mr CHRISTENSEN 230485 Dawson 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. 15:53 Mr BYRNE 008K0 Holt [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. 16:08 Mr PITT 148150 Hinkler 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 HK5 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. Third Reading 82 16:11 Mr PITT 148150 Hinkler by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Improving Supports for At Risk Participants) Bill 2021 83

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Improving Supports for At Risk Participants) Bill 2021

Second Reading 83 16:13 Ms BURNEY 8GH Barton 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. 16:29 Ms BELL 282981 Moncrieff 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. 16:39 Ms CATHERINE KING 00AMR Ballarat 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 265967 Is the amendment seconded? Mr Hill 86256 I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 265967 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. 16:43 Dr ALLEN 282986 Higgins 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. 16:52 Ms THWAITES 282212 Jagajaga [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. 17:06 Dr WEBSTER 281688 Mallee [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. 17:14 Ms COKER 263547 Corangamite [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. 17:26 Ms LIU 282918 Chisholm 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. 17:33 Mr HAYES ECV Fowler 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. 17:46 Mr VASTA E0D Bonner 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 265979 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. 17:53 Ms TEMPLEMAN 181810 Macquarie 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. 18:08 Mr ENTSCH 7K6 Leichhardt 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. 18:17 Mr ROB MITCHELL M3E McEwen [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. 18:28 Mr WALLACE 265967 Fisher 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. 18:43 Dr MULINO 132880 Fraser [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. 18:58 Dr MARTIN 282982 Reid 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! 19:07 Mr ZAPPIA HWB Makin 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. 19:20 Mr STEPHEN JONES A9B Whitlam 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. ADJOURNMENT 110 ADJOURNMENT Prime Minister 110 19:30 Mr WATTS 193430 Gellibrand On the first day of parliament this year, the Prime Minister bragged that Australia was 'the envy of the world'. He told this House that the sacrifices that Australians had made in 2020 had 'bought valuable time' and that the 'preparations' he was making would see Australia 'emerge from 2021 even stronger'. Well, look at us now! While other countries who fared far worse in 2020 are now opening up, our two biggest cities and the nation's capital are all in lockdown. Australians in Victoria, New South Wales and the ACT are in no doubt that the Prime Minister's failed preparations are the reason they're in lockdown today. The Prime Minister had two jobs to prepare Australia for 2021: a speedy and effective rollout of the vaccine and a safe national quarantine system. He has utterly failed at both. He squandered the sacrifices that Australians made in 2020 and has left half the country facing another completely unnecessary and wasted year in 2021. This has been the underlying theme of the pandemic; on all of the big decisions during this crisis, the Prime Minister has made the wrong call. It's been one failure of leadership after another. The Prime Minister was wrong to reject the introduction of wage subsidies at the beginning of the crisis. Labor had to drag him, kicking and screaming, to implement JobKeeper early in the pandemic. He was wrong to resist establishing dedicated quarantine facilities for the first 18 months of the pandemic. He was wrong not to treat the vaccine rollout as the urgent priority that it always was, saying on multiple occasions, 'It's not a race,' and leaving Australia inexcusably vulnerable to the delta variant as a result. He has been wrong on lockdowns so many times that it's hard to keep up—most recently, and three days before New South Wales Premier Berejiklian announced the current Sydney lockdown, he praised the New South Wales Liberal Premier for her delaying, telling this House: I commend the New South Wales Premier for the way that she is handling the outbreak in New South Wales, the fact that she hasn't gone to lock down Australia's biggest city. That was a catastrophic misjudgement that not only the rest of Australia is now paying the price for but New Zealand too. He was wrong to withdraw JobKeeper too quickly while the vaccine rollout was progressing too slowly, and while Australian workers and businesses were still vulnerable to further outbreaks. We're now seeing the consequences: last Friday night, the demand by Australians for food relief was so great that the queue of cars waiting to access Foodbank Victoria in my electorate extended for nearly four kilometres, and would have been longer if Victoria Police had not intervened to prevent the queue from blocking traffic on the West Gate Bridge. Still, in the face of this suffering in our community, the Morrison government continues to insist that we don't need JobKeeper. They just couldn't be more out of touch. Adding insult to injury at every stage, this Prime Minister has ducked responsibility for his failures. He told Australians, 'I don't hold a hose, mate,' as he sunned himself in Hawaii—on vacation while Australia burned. He repeatedly insisted, 'It's not a race,' as he failed to pick up the phone and produce more vaccines, leaving Australia vulnerable. He shrugged, 'I wish it were different,' when telling Australians that the crisis in Afghanistan now meant that he couldn't guarantee the safety of Australians and their families, or the interpreters who helped protect our troops, despite being begged to act and to change the situation himself every day for the past three years. This Prime Minister is like the middle-management boss from hell: incompetent at his own job, passing the buck and blaming those around him for his own failures, and bullying anyone who calls him out. When Australians desperately needed a leader they were left with a smirk and a shrug. An emoji would have been as effective. Tomorrow marks three years since this Prime Minister assumed office: a man who has failed upwards from every job he has had and a man who has always had a plan for himself but never a plan for what he actually wanted to do or how to go about it. And now this man has nowhere to fail up to—no other job to move on to, leaving those around him holding the bag. We are seeing the consequences of that as a nation. On every challenge facing the nation, we see plenty of three-word slogans, plenty of marketing strategies and, increasingly, plenty of complete rebrands. But we see no action and no delivery and, over and over again, we see problems allowed to fester and grow until they reach crisis point. Then we see crises met with rushed, half-baked responses designed only to get through a media cycle and then the inevitable failure to deliver is met with yet more buck-passing and refusals to accept accountability. Never has an Australian Prime Minister done so much damage by doing so little in such a short period of time. No wonder the Prime Minister's new slogan is 'moving forward'. Australia does need to move forward and move on from the Morrison government. (Time expired) Agricultural Visas 111 19:35 Mr O'DOWD 139441 Flynn Today our government, the National-Liberal government, has announced a great event. We have introduced the agricultural workers visa—a great announcement by Minister David Littleproud and, of course, it has the approval of cabinet. This will build on an already successful Pacific island scheme. This announcement will deliver one of the government's best commitments to the agriculture industry. It will put in place a broad-ranging visa that will cover all aspects of agriculture, including the meat processing, fisheries and forestry sectors. The government will now commence negotiations and consultations with industry to inform the detailed management, implications and implementation of the visa. The visa's regulatory framework will be in place by the end of September. The first workers will arrive once the negotiations with partner countries are completed—and there are some negotiations still to go with state governments. The visa will be applied to skilled, semi-skilled and unskilled workers across a broad range of agricultural industries. As I said before, it will take in meat processing, fishing and farming. Even before COVID, there was a shortage of labour in the agricultural world. We desperately needed fruit packers, pruners, people working in packing sheds, tractor drivers, truck drivers and fork-lift operators. We need people to market the products. A lot of these products are sold overseas, and we need people to go out and sell the products. We need office managers to process the paperwork. We need wheat harvesters. Currently we have a great bumper wheat crop in Western Australia. The only problem is we haven't got enough harvester drivers to take off the wheat. This is the issue we have had and this is why as a government we had to do something about it. The visa will provide a basis for ongoing growth in our primary industries. We want to grow agriculture to $100 billion by the year 2030. It currently sits at around $66 billion. The agricultural visa will be demand driven and, once in place, it will self-perpetuate and do its own thing. And, at the end of the day, if a person who comes to work on our farms would like to stay in Australia, there is a way for permanent residency at the end of a qualifying period. It will be open to applicants from a range of countries, and that's still to be negotiated through bilateral agreements. The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade will commence these discussions very soon. It could include countries like Korea, Vietnam, Singapore, Thailand and, of course, the Philippines. These visas will supplement the existing Seasonal Worker Program and Pacific labour schemes. Under these schemes, we also employ a lot of people from Fiji, Kiribati, Nauru, Papua New Guinea, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Timor-Leste and Vanuatu. These programs will remain the mainstay. You might have noticed that some months ago we announced we'll bring another 12,500 workers in to support that scheme. This is a form of foreign aid: the workers come to Australia—they love the wages, of course—and they earn much more than they could back home. It's a really good scheme. The farmers love them because they can get their crops off, and the fruit doesn't fall on the ground and waste. Morrison Government 112 19:40 Ms STANLEY 265990 Werriwa One of the hallmarks of the Morrison-Joyce government is the avoidance of responsibility and accountability. Throughout this pandemic we've seen countless instances of the Prime Minister shifting blame, passing the buck and refusing to admit or acknowledge any problem this government faces or has caused. The government failed to introduce a national quarantine system where we would have been able to efficiently control overseas cases of COVID and prevent the virus from escaping into our communities. If we'd had quarantine, Australians would not still be stuck overseas missing their loved ones, and three major cities would not be in lockdown. We've had the failed vaccine rollout. Especially in my community, older people and essential workers have found it almost impossible to get vaccinated, and for many days last week the Macquarie Fields vaccination hub saw lines of over two hours in the cold. The government was asked by the opposition last year on multiple occasions to secure more than two deals for vaccinations. It is appalling that they outright refused a deal like the one Pfizer had on the table in July 2020. The Prime Minister, it seems, did not make a call to the Pfizer CEO until he was shown how to actually do his job by a former PM. He does, however, make a concerted effort to get on the phone when he's sorting out a job at the OECD. Failures have consequences, and the recent lockdowns across the country are the fruits of this government's negligence. But the incompetence and inaction doesn't just stop with the current lockdowns. In 2019, Labor went to the election promising measures and funding based on expert advice to improve the environment. Policies included emission reduction targets, $200 million for a native species protection fund, $200 million for Indigenous rangers to manage the land and $80 million to establish the national aerial bushfire fighting fleet of aircraft. All of these would have substantially mitigated the devastation of the bushfire crisis. Yet, the Prime Minister decided no action and more holiday was the preferred course of action. It's clear under this government the nation is simply not prepared for climate change and the more severe fires, floods and cyclones that it will bring. We need to invest in disaster mitigation and clean energy, and we need to do it now. But this government provides safe haven for climate deniers who publicly undermine climate change on social media, in the papers and on the floor of both this House and the other place. This government also has a shameful record when it comes to preying on the disadvantaged. The NDIS has been hit with successive cuts and has been undermined and mismanaged by the government at every turn. My constituents, disability groups, and state and territory ministers have continually expressed their disappointment with cuts to the NDIS. The $4.6 billion underspend in 2019 and consistent undermining with the discussion of compulsory independent assessments have left the sector with little confidence. Then there's robodebt. The government announced in 2020 they would refund all the money illegally obtained under the scheme. It was a scheme, however, that they knew was illegal. It was a scheme that unfairly targeted vulnerable Australians for over four years. Then we come to the NBN rollout. I still have complaints from constituents who are not yet connected to the NBN or who have poor service. Residents of Long Point who were promised connections two years ago still don't have them, and they have to rely on expensive wi-fi. They don't even have mobile reception. Clearly, this government has form when it comes to failed rollouts. This is a direct result of poor Liberal government planning and out-of-touch policies that will leave Australia in the backwater of internet speeds for years to come. Last, there is the great legacy of this government, the rorts—the sports rort, the JobKeeper rort, the car park rorts and the Leppington Triangle land deal. I'm not sure there is a program that has not been used seemingly for political advantage. The Prime Minister said he'd create a national integrity commission over 900 days ago. To date, all we have is a proposal from the Prime Minister for a secretive and toothless integrity commission. Corruption, abuse of public money and dodgy deals cannot be tolerated, and neither can incompetence, hiding in a crisis, failure to plan, cruelty to our most vulnerable and wholesale rorting. Australians and my community expect better of their government. COVID-19: Lockdowns 112 19:45 Mr TIM WILSON IMW Goldstein Now 18 months into this pandemic, we have reached an inflection point. With horrific tolls, many nations have frontloaded COVID's impact and are now navigating the delta variant; whereas our geography has afforded us the privilege of time to prepare, we are not immune and have rear-ended COVID's tail. Many Australians have rightly questioned the measures taken and their justifications. The question is whether these are ordinary times with temporary, extraordinary impositions or temporary, extraordinary times with necessary impositions. Are our governments needlessly at war with our freedom to defeat a secondary threat, or are we being called to sacrifice to defeat an invisible enemy that poses an existential threat to the health of the nation? The former, of course, will lead you to conclude the sacrifice too great; the latter, reluctantly, necessary. There will never be a universal settlement on the balance of freedom and security in a pandemic. The spirit in which most Australians have sacrificed was out of a shared interest in the welfare of the nation—and what is the nation but the sum of its people? In lockdowns, the alpha strain met its match, though we should not forget that Victoria and New South Wales defeated outbreaks with and without lockdowns. In delta, lockdowns have met their match. A kinetic war ends through defeat, truce or victory. A war against an invisible enemy only ends with succumbing, because behind the alpha and delta variants are gamma, eta, iota, kappa and lambda variants and no doubt more, each with their own risk profiles and deadliness. We are in extraordinary times, but this is not a sustainable way to live. Children are denied rites of passage in education. Young Australians are denied their first steps on the jobs ladder. Families and friends are denied connection. Retirees are denied their sunset years. In human history, we have only eliminated one significant virus completely—smallpox—and even then it was only one variant. The responsibility of elected government is to steer us towards normalcy and for parliament to draw a line in the sand on the empowerment of government at the expense of the freedom of citizens. We all want COVID zero, but aspiration must meet reality. During a crisis, we have a responsibility to those we represent to speak with candour so that Australians can make informed decisions to protect themselves, their families and their communities. Pursuing COVID zero is akin to defying gravity. If we could, then why not pursue annual flu zero transmissions and subsequent deaths? Because we know it would be a promise based on deceit, as is COVID zero. COVID zero is a soothing lie fraudulently paraded as health security, which escalates vulnerability and risk over time. As Indigenous Australians tragically experienced, the more the gap between affected and unaffected populations widens for prevalent diseases and viruses and their complementary resistances and antibodies, the greater the eventual human cost. How we respond now speaks to the character of our nation. We should not cower to the threats posed by an invisible enemy, because it brings into question our fortitude confronting a physical one. We all take on the burden of leadership through our responsibility to each other. As citizens, we have a responsibility to get vaccinated to secure our own health and minimise the risk to each other. Our first line of defence is you and your family. Those who choose not to get vaccinated accept that they walk with the stalking shadow of a potentially engineered aggressor, carrying only their natural armour. It remains an oddity that some choose the long-term risk of a potentially lab generated virus over the safety of an equally lab engineered vaccine that has been through rigorous clinical trials. The rest of us who carry a vaccine shield must rebuild the community connection in commerce that has been sacrificed in the pursuit of health and safety. As communities, we each have a responsibility to support each other as our neighbours and to ensure that health and wellbeing carries on through these difficult times. We also have a responsibility to those that fight to defend and support us, particularly healthcare workers. Councils are the nucleus of mass-scale community coordination and they should always have been approached as such. And what of the states and the Commonwealth? As the Prime Minister said today: if not at 70 per cent and 80 per cent, when? That's why the four-step Commonwealth-state agreement to transition to a post-COVID environment must be upheld. As citizens and communities accept their responsibilities, states must accept their responsibility to reopen our closed state borders and remove limitations on citizens' freedoms. The Commonwealth must follow and reconnect to the world. Knowing we cannot build a future without secure foundations, people inevitably retreat to safety for themselves and their families. The easy and populist choice for leaders is to pander to that yearning, as the state premiers have chosen to do. If you hold the title, lead. If you have accepted responsibility, rise to it. Afghanistan: Morrison Government 113 19:50 Mr HILL 86256 Bruce Razia is a citizen from my electorate. She's lovely and kind. She and her husband fled the Taliban 14 years ago. Her sister and mother are alone in Kabul, unable to even leave the house now and get food. The Taliban are back, driving around their district looking for women. Razia's mum and sister are only in Afghanistan as they've been waiting over four years for the Morrison government to process their visas. Abdul is an Australian citizen from my electorate. He's in Kabul with his pregnant wife and his two-year-old Australian child. He's only in Afghanistan because he's been waiting for three years for the Morrison government to process his wife's visa. I shamed the government into granting his visa last week. Abdul then emailed me photos of his bruises, after he was beaten trying to get to the airport. They'll keep trying. There are thousands of cases like this. No words are adequate to describe the helplessness, the trauma and the despair which Australians with a connection to Afghanistan feel about the return of the Taliban. My community has more Afghan Australians than any other in this parliament. They talk to me about phone calls hourly to their wives, daughters, sons, sisters, mothers, brothers—crying, knowing that every call may be the last. What can you possibly say to Hasan from Narre Warren, an Australian citizen, with his daughters and his wife stranded in Kabul—they have also been waiting for years for their visas to be processed and are now facing, in their own words, 'a fate worse than death'. Thousands of Australians and their families should have been out of Afghanistan years ago. They're only there because they've been waiting for this miserable, nasty government to process their visas: a government whose tardiness is matched only by its malice. The Morrison government has been running a blatantly discriminatory visa program for years. If your husband or wife is from Afghanistan, it takes on average 43 months for them to get their visa; from America or Western Europe, seven to nine months. This is not due to national security. It's a result of deliberate, systemic, effectively racist discrimination in the visa program, which started when this Prime Minister was the immigration minister. And the consequences are now clear. My community tells me that Australians and their loved ones will now pay with their lives. I hope it's not too late to save many thousands more, but there can be no doubt about this Prime Minister's culpability. He will never be able to look these Australians in the eye. He must go to his own grave bearing the shame and the stain of these deaths. The negligence of this government in abandoning interpreters and others who helped us is also clear. Last week the PM said: … despite our best efforts, I know that support won't reach all that it should. … We wish it were different. Well, it could have been different and it should have been different. The government was warned for years about the risks of these delays, and no amount of prime ministerial spin and marketing and blame-shifting can cover up his government's moral failure to issue the visas and bring these people to safety. Nor can it account for his own moral failure and his tone-deaf response to this crisis—his nonsensical position that refugees safe here won't be sent back to Afghanistan, but they can't stay permanently. When, exactly, does he think it will be safe for the Hazara people, or women, or anyone else to return to live under the Taliban? Afghan Australians have been in this country since 1860. Now is the moment for urgent, national generosity, but, as always with this failed Prime Minister, it's too little, too late. From an abject lack of preparation for the worst bushfires to the failure to build a safe quarantine system, from being stingy and slow in securing enough vaccines to dragging his feet on economic support for his lockdowns, and now his lethal negligence in Afghanistan, this Prime Minister is always too little, too late, always refusing to take responsibility. Afghanistan was this country's longest war, costing 41 Australian lives, 261 ADF casualties and billions of dollars. It's a debate for another time: What was it all for? What went right? What went wrong? What lessons must be learnt for the future? But it cannot just pass with a prime ministerial shrug of the shoulders: 'We wish it were different.' The focus right now has to be, urgently, on cleaning up the government's mess as best we can. But I call on the government to commit to a full and transparent public inquiry, on the whole 20 years but particularly on the failure of the last few weeks and the failure of the visa program for years, risking the lives of Australians and their loved ones. Robertson Electorate: World's Greatest Shave 114 19:55 Mrs WICKS 241590 Robertson [by video link] In June, before the New South Wales lockdown, I had the opportunity to visit St Joseph's Catholic College in East Gosford and meet with some incredible young women who had participated in the World's Greatest Shave. This is a really important initiative. It raises funds for those suffering from blood cancer and encourages Australians to shave their heads in solidarity with the 50 people who are diagnosed with this cancer every single day. Funds raised help those with blood cancer to navigate the uncertain time following diagnosis by helping to provide accommodation near life-saving treatment at no cost, and specially trained blood cancer support workers. Donations like these provide hope for countless people and further the work of scientists who are researching important future treatments. St Joseph's at East Gosford had a goal of reaching $20,000 in donations, but they were overwhelmed with support and raised a total $34,320, an incredible effort. Local hairdressers from the Central Coast volunteered their time to help, and the whole school community gathered. Some of the students that I spoke with told me how their classmates and teachers had actually stayed back after the school bell to stand in solidarity as the girls who were participating courageously shaved, coloured or cut their hair. I really commend those involved, including Sophie Holliday, who was team captain and who helped to organise the day; Emma Gulliksen; Phoebe Sheridan; Louise Smith; Tony McCudden; Lucy McMahon; Anita Moelzer; Stephen Lobb; Charlotte Soares, Ella Rigas; Gabrielle l'Olive; Jess Taylor; Kirk Mercer; Isabel Clark; Lucy Ross; Rose Beynon; Emma O'Brien; and Isobel Hanna. Some of the students shared with me what motivated them to get involved. One young woman said she participated because 'At St Joseph's we lost a teacher who was very special to all of us. Her name was Mrs Pourbozorgi, and, although I didn't know her well, I'd heard amazing things about her.' She said, 'I was also cutting my hair for all of those who face cancer. I'm not sick. My hair will grow back. And being kind is the easiest thing in the world.' Another student said, 'Cancer has touched a lot of people in my family, people my parents know, and, more recently, it touched someone who was really special to me. I decided to do the World's Greatest Shave to honour one of my favourite teachers, Mrs Pourbozorgi, who passed away earlier this year from cancer. Mrs P was special. She was caring, loving, funny and always pushed me to be my best, and she enjoyed joking around with us. When she passed away I was devastated. I wanted to do something to honour her memory, so when Sophie Holliday started the campaign for World's Greatest Shave I knew that was exactly what I wanted to do. After all, it's just hair, and if I can help find a cure for something so horrible I will help in any way I can.' Another student said to me, 'I immediately jumped on board when I found out about the initiative, which was a huge shock to my family, as I have always hidden behind my long, blonde hair. Thirty-four thousand dollars later I'm so proud of what our team has accomplished. I'm also so proud of our entire school for pulling through. Nerves really hit when the big day came, and it definitely proved to be an emotional event, with the entire school staying to watch each of us participate. Even my fellow year 12 students, during their half day when they were free to go home, they stayed. Everyone offered their support, especially my twin sister. As the last piece of hair was shaved off, I turned to witness her trying to hold in tears, which then had me doing so as well.' Another student said, 'Hope is one of our school's core values, and the World's Greatest Shave was an opportunity to raise donations that contribute to giving hope to those affected by blood cancer.' The efforts of these young women cannot be underestimated, particularly as they are approaching major events in their own lives, including graduations and school formals. They are mature beyond their years, and they demonstrate the profound impact that a teacher can have on the lives of their students. Mrs P was clearly no exception. She made a profound, incredible difference in the life of every single one of the students she taught. She will be missed by the entire school community and by generations of students to come. Following the efforts of the students at St Joseph's, St Patrick's primary school, just down the road, decided they too would get involved, and they held a 'crazy hair day', with a gold coin donation, encouraging students to be as creative as possible with their hair. They raised $500, a great effort, and I really want to congratulate them. House adjourned at 20:00 NOTICES 115 NOTICES