Mike Freelander (Macarthur, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm one of the last speakers, and much has been said in a very bipartisan way about the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Improving Supports for At Risk Participants) Bill 2021, but I thought it was worth adding my perspective. This bill, of course, implements recommendations of the Robertson review into the death of Adelaide NDIS participant Ann-Marie Smith, and I support it very, very strongly. But it is worth taking several steps backwards to examine the role of the NDIS, the importance of the NDIS and what it means.

From my perspective as a paediatrician, I just want to take the House through a little bit of the history of the NDIS. I started as a medical student in 1972 and I had an uncle who was a paediatrician, and his name was John Davis, always known as Tubby Davis—he was a big man. I remember doing a ward round with him when I was a medical student, and we saw a little girl with Down syndrome. Her parents were very, very anxious—they were older parents—about this little girl, a sweet little girl she was. She'd been quite sick in hospital following complications from cardiac surgery and was recovering. I remember Tubby took me and a couple of other medical students and the resident and the registrar and a couple of the nursing staff into the side room of the Department of Paediatrics then at north shore hospital and he said to me, in front of everyone, 'What do you think these parents are most worried about?' Obviously, at that stage, the worry was if she would get over this cardiac surgery, if she would get over the complications, if she would go home, and that's exactly what I said. But Tubby said, 'Well, that might be the immediate worry, but what these parents are worried about is what's going to happen to their child when they pass away.' That was a very important lesson to me, and throughout my career that was the thing, in dealing with children with disability, that always worried the parents—what was going to happen to their child that they'd cared for and nurtured? It didn't matter what problem the child had, what physical disability, intellectual disability or illness the child had; those parents always worried about what would happen to their child when they could no longer look after them. I saw parents go through incredible difficulties trying to put money aside so that their child could be looked after when they either were too infirm to look after them or, in fact, had passed away.

I had a conversation with Julia Gillard—it would have been around 2007-08, at a meeting that Chris Hayes, when he was the member for Werriwa, had where she was the guest speaker—where she said to me, after she heard that I was a paediatrician: 'We must do better for people with disability. We must make sure that we as a society care for them.' Indeed, she was the epicentre of the beginning of the thinking about the NDIS, and, in fact, was the prime minister that brought it in as a way of supporting people with disability. It's been a wonderful thing. I acknowledge the member for Maribyrnong and I acknowledge Prime Minister Abbott, who also supported the NDIS. It has been a wonderful thing for people with disability. For many of the patients I cared for, it has been transformative, and transformative for their families. It's been a great thing that has nurtured families and nurtured people with disability, and we now know many of them can become productive members of our society and can be supported as they age.

In Australia this has been an ongoing thing in the way we care for people with disability. Many people from New South Wales may remember the Richmond report. The Richmond report was produced by David Richmond, a health bureaucrat, who was asked to inquire into health services not only for people with psychiatric illness but also for people with developmental delays and intellectual disability. When I started my paediatric career at the Children's Hospital in 1978, at that stage there were the so-called special hospitals for special services—they had interesting sounding names like Peat Island, Collaroy Annex, Grosvenor Hospital and Allowah—where people with severe intellectual and developmental disability were housed. As a registrar at the Children's Hospital I was sent there to do clinics, to attend to the health needs of some of those people with severe disability. Some of the conditions they were kept in were less than perfect. Some were good. But there was evolving evidence at that stage that many people with developmental disability could become much more functional members of our society if they were placed in home-like settings rather than special institutions. So, in the seventies and eighties, this process of moving people with developmental disability out of these special institutions into group homes began. The Richmond report very strongly recommended that that be the case. There was increasing evidence that the outcomes were much better for these people if they were kept in a more home-like situation. So the Richmond report brought that to a head, and other states followed suit.

Funding which previously supported institutional care was supposed to be transferred to community care and support. Whilst that happened to a small extent, it was by no means complete. So many families were forced to care for their children and even their adult children at home without proper financial support, which meant that many of these people did not receive the intervention that would have made their lives a lot better. It placed an enormous financial burden on those families. The NDIS was brought in to improve the outcomes for those people and their families, and indeed it did. The relief of many people who had children with severe disabilities was palpable. They knew that the children they'd cared for and nurtured would be cared for for the rest of their lives. It was a way of all of us saying to families who had kids with disabilities: 'We are part of your journey. We will support you on that journey.' That was a very important thing, and it was wonderful for me as a paediatrician and for the families themselves. I saw many kids transition as adults into their own accommodation and their own care situations, group homes, and become independent members of our society. It was a great thing. Indeed, in my electorate of Macarthur there are now many group homes where these children who are now adults are living, that are providing good care for many of these kids.

Prime Minister Gillard, when she introduced the NDIS, knew that whilst it was a significant cost to our society its value was immeasurable. The hope that this scheme evoked in so many families and my patients was wonderful. Many of the families that I'd cared for over the years had their lives changed so much for the better when the scheme was introduced. They were no longer walking the journey alone. They would no longer have to battle for every bit of access to even small amounts of support from the rest of society. It would be provided because that was their right and their due, and it was a wonderful thing to see.

As a doctor, I saw many kids with very high needs. This scheme also revolutionised the way we went about providing supports for them and the interventions that they needed. It took an unbelievable financial burden off these families. I don't know how many of these families had afforded the care for these kids. Some of these kids required multiple medications and special transport. People had to buy special cars to transport kids with wheelchair needs. Kids with cerebral palsy required multiple surgeries. It really removed a financial burden from many of these families.

Much like Medicare, the NDIS will go down as one of the greatest social reforms we've seen in this nation. Ultimately it will be one of Labor's greatest achievements and legacies, one for which I'll be forever grateful to Prime Minister Gillard and others, as I've mentioned.

We cannot ever forget why the NDIS was established and what the scheme aimed to do. So many participants in the scheme have now seen their access to supports limited by the limitations put on the scheme by this government. The latest idea of having independent assessments was just another bureaucratic step to try and reduce access to the scheme for people with disabilities. I acknowledge, however, that many on the other side do understand the value of this scheme and I'm very glad that the government finally stopped the process of independent assessments. It would have been a disaster for many of the families that I look after, and I'm very glad that the government finally saw at least some light.

There are, however, still concerns about the oversight of the scheme, and the terrible situation of Ann-Marie Smith—may she rest in peace—was a sign that we still need to have significant oversight of how the scheme is administered and the supports that we are providing to people with severe disabilities. I'm very pleased that the Morrison government has finally taken action to address the recommendations of the Robertson review. However, as is typical for this Prime Minister and this government, it's a little bit too late. The report was handed down over 10 or 11 months ago and it has been over a year since Ann-Marie Smith passed away.

However, her legacy will be that we make sure that correct oversight is given to the NDIS and that people are provided with the supports that they need. To me, this scheme is of enormous value to our society, and I hope that this government does not continue its attacks on the NDIS. I think that it generally has bipartisan support but that many on the other side, whilst they appreciate the cost of everything, don't appreciate the value of anything—particularly the NDIS. I'm so grateful for all my patients and I will continue to do my best to make sure that they get the best possible access to the NDIS that they can get. I still think there are parts of the scheme that need to be fully supported by this government, such as it being patient centred and making sure that the people who require extra supports get them. In particular, I believe that people with severe disabilities should be supported as far as they possibly can be to lead independent lives.

I think there are many issues with the NDIS which need to be supported more—in particular, areas such as housing; access for people in rural and regional areas; and early intervention support for very young children with severe disabilities, prior to them starting school. We know one thing that supports them is early intervention programs; the sooner they can get access to early intervention, the better. I have been working particularly and very strongly with the Shepherd Centre, which provides support to children with severe and profound hearing loss, to get early intervention support from birth. That is very important for their ultimate outcomes in terms of speech, learning and development.

So I commend this bill to the House. I think this government needs to understand what enormous value this scheme has to the Australian people and I will continue to support it.

Milton Dick (Oxley, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Improving Supports for At Risk Participants) Bill 2021. Today we debate and discuss vital support for disabled Australians. I thank the member for Macarthur for his very wise words. I know of his deep compassion for and also his knowledge of some of these issues that we're facing. I want to start today by acknowledging the sacrifice of so many people who are living with, dealing with or supporting those with disabilities in this country. While we are debating this important piece of legislation today we'll also be looking at and supporting our Aussie Paralympic heroes who are representing our nation in Tokyo.

At the end of question time today, the Prime Minister mentioned the successes of our Paralympians so far, and I know we're going to have plenty more of those to come. Nowhere are the values of courage and determination on better display than at the Paralympics—there is nowhere a better example of the extraordinary things that people with disabilities are capable of, if they receive the opportunities and support they need to thrive. With your indulgence, Deputy Speaker Vasta, I want to acknowledge one Australian who I'll be cheering on of all the Paralympians: a local called Taymon Kenton-Smith, a Paralympic archer and a terrific guy.

After being given a bow and arrow set in childhood, Taymon began shooting back in 2001 when he was only six years of age. At 14 he made a promise to his Nan to make it to the Paralympic Games. That year he received his first sponsorship, and in 2016 Taymon began to focus solely on his dream: being selected for the 2020 Paralympic Games in Tokyo. He did it. I want to give my best wishes to Taymon and to all of the Aussie Paralympic athletes who are in Tokyo, doing us proud, as I give this speech in the parliament. The incredible achievements and resilience of these athletes and all our disabled community is a testament to the importance of ensuring that we are fulfilling our responsibility to support and nurture Australians living with disabilities. We should all keep these Paralympians in mind as we debate this bill. They have achieved and will achieve incredible feats of athleticism, and they've done this while facing barriers that many of us could not even imagine.

Disabled Australians deserve our support, and they deserve the dignity of quality care. That's why I am speaking on the bill tonight and that's why I am in strong favour of the second reading amendment moved by the member for Ballarat, which is that the House today 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".

I don't think that's too much to ask for, and I think it's the least that this parliament should be doing.

Sadly, Ann-Marie Smith did not receive this support or care. Many speakers have indicated the tragic and harrowing circumstances of Ms Smith, and I'm sad to have to report to the House her chronic neglect, which I can only describe as appalling and ultimately led to her death. On 6 April, Ms Smith died of neglect after a series of failures in the NDIS system, which was built to protect her. Ann-Marie had cerebral palsy, and she lived alone with the support of the NDIS system which entitled her to six hours of support each day. We still don't know all the details about her tragic death, but we know she'd been confined to a single cane chair for more than 12 months. We know that on 5 April her carer found her unresponsive and called an ambulance. She had to undergo surgery to remove the pressure sores—the rotting flesh—from her body. She was placed in palliative care, where she passed away the very next day.

Her lack of care killed her. 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'. It was only when she was admitted to hospital that her situation was brought to light and the attending doctors made a complaint to the health authorities.

This is difficult to talk about, but it must be said. I know the shadow minister, Bill Shorten, has been fighting for justice for people like Ms Smith because their lives deserve recognition, and those responsible deserve the shame. But they need more than that. The company that was responsible for Ann-Marie's case, who so clearly failed her, was given a mere $12,600 fine by the NDIS watchdog—a $12½ thousand fine for contributing to the loss of someone's life.

An inquiry was launched by the South Australian government, but sadly this was not carried through by the federal government even after an NDIS participant died by neglect in Sydney—another tragic case. Faced with extreme pressure, the member for Fadden suggested that the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission should look into Ann-Marie's case. This would mean, in fact, that the commission would be investigating themselves, as their own action and neglect were contributors to Ann-Marie's situation. While this conflict should have been obvious, it was not until the opposition, through our shadow minister, Bill Shorten, publicly called it out and demanded an independent investigation that the watchdog appointed an independent judge to conduct a review. While this fell short of the national inquiry that is so clearly required here, at least it is closer. But the sense of urgency, sadly, just wasn't there for the government. As the member for Macarthur said, it was too little, too late—a hallmark of this government.

Finding out exactly what went wrong in Ann-Marie's case was clearly the best way to stop it happening again and the best way that we could save lives. Following a political and public scandal and a police investigation, the provider was finally deregistered, but what is evidenced here is another example of a government being forced to act by public pressure. I would like to think that best practice is in place for when there is a tragic loss of life, but this example demonstrates the clear fact that it is only when the actual pressure is put on—perhaps when there are bad headlines or when the public start contacting government members—that we see action. That's not good enough. It should be done because it is the right thing to be done. It should be done because it's the government's job to do it, not because it's become politically too hard not to.

The Robertson review was handed down with 10 recommendations, five of which the government now seek to implement. The government have had, as we have heard, over 51 weeks to deal with the recommendations of this review and to ensure that any legislation they introduced as a result went through an all-important consultation process, hence the second part of Labor's second reading amendment. The government didn't do this. They have instead rushed these measures to the chamber with zero formal consultation with disability stakeholders and the sector. Over the course of those 51 weeks, the government went through two NDIS ministers—two ministers and zero consultation. The Australian disability community deserve a say on legislation that will and should govern many aspects of their lives. Not to formally consult with them is an insult, and I really think the minister owes the sector an apology as to why there hasn't been adequate consultation. I don't say that with any glee or any joy. I just think that is a matter of best practice. Ministers, who are privileged to run departments, to stand in this place and to be responsible for good public health and social policy outcomes, should, at a minimum, be willing to listen and willing to consult, and that has not happened here. We can see the same non-consultative approach in this government's attempts to force through cuts and mandatory independent assessments explicitly against the wishes of people living with a disability.

We've had eight years of the current government, and it's clear that this watchdog is not doing the job it should be doing. Disabled Australians deserve dignity, respect and quality of care. It is this watchdog's job to ensure that they get it, and above all it is this government's job to ensure that they get it. In this instance, and possibly many others that we will never know about, they've failed.

The vast majority of carers and providers do the right thing, and I want to acknowledge the outstanding work of all of the people in the sector, the unsung heroes who have worked so hard during the pandemic, in stressful situations, dealing with health situations and dealing with clients that are deeply frustrated and concerned. I know my own office has been dealing with family and loved ones, particularly at the height of the pandemic and the start of the botched rollout, when we didn't have access to vaccines for the most vulnerable in the community, despite the government's promises. Despite them getting up in this chamber and talking about the plan, the plan, the plan, the plan, there wasn't a plan in place to protect vulnerable Australians. There has never been a plan under which the Prime Minister has delivered what he said he would. We were told 'by Easter'—remember that, the commitment to 'by Easter'?—and people working in the sector are still not protected.

I want to acknowledge all of their work and salute them for their efforts—for the extraordinary work that they do, going beyond the call of duty. I've sat down with carers, and they've been in tears sharing with me their stories about what they've had to go through during the pandemic. We know the job of a carer, particularly in the NDIS space, is very difficult, and they deserve much, much more from this government. Ann-Marie's death calls into sharp relief the need for urgent and proper reform, based on meaningful consultation. Instead, we have a bill before us that was not formally taken to disability community consultation, and it implements just five of Mr Robertson's review team's recommendations.

This bill is welcome, because something is better than nothing, but we should be aiming far higher for our disabled community and for those who work in, and support so many in, the disability sector. I know in my own community the amazing organisations that offer so much support, whether that be through respite or through daily care—the wonderful NDIS providers. It's not an easy situation to navigate. The system has had its glitches over the years. The government has bungled a number of issues, whether it be support for younger people with disabilities or being able to navigate the complex system and the hurdles that this government has put into place. Many people have triumphed and got through, and their quality of life has greatly improved. We know the NDIS was a wonderful legacy of the Labor government, implemented by then Prime Minister Julia Gillard. It has continued to operate, but perhaps not with the level of support that it once was desired to have. I'm confident that this legislation, passed tonight, will improve the situation somewhat, but there is still a long way to go.

I urge the Morrison government to afford Australians living with disabilities the respect of a proper consultation process. So, if there is one takeaway for Minister Reynolds's office—I hope they and the bureaucrats are watching this debate this evening—it is that they learn the lessons of the past and not make those mistakes again. And the best way they can do that is by meaningful consultation with people who are working in, living in and dealing with the disability sector in this country, because those communities deserve nothing less than a government willing to listen and a government willing to act.

Graham Perrett (Moreton, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

[by video link] I speak today on the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Improving Supports for At Risk Participants) Bill 2021, and I do so from Yuggera and Turrbal lands here in Brisbane. This bill implements 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. Her death was a tragedy. The review was conducted by the Hon. Alan Robertson SC, who made a number of recommendations for legislative change to improve the protections for participants who are at risk of harm. The recommendations which this bill implements include facilitating better exchange of information between the agency and the commission, the disclosure of information to relevant state and territory bodies, and clarification around the scope of reportable incidents.

I wouldn't be sitting here debating this bill today if Labor's shadow minister for the NDIS, the member for Maribyrnong, had not pressured the Morrison government to establish the Robertson review after the horrible death of Ms Ann-Marie Smith. And I should point out that the member for Maribyrnong has been a champion of the NDIS ever since Jenny Macklin was the lead minister and it was just a policy idea in the Labor locker. So I do thank him personally for the great work he's done in this area.

This report, commissioned by the coalition government, fell short of what the Australian Labor Party actually called for, which was a broad, independent inquiry into NDIS safeguarding, locking in those checks and balances. The terms of reference for the Robertson review were targeted only to review the adequacy of the regulation of the supports and services provided to Ms Ann-Marie Smith. Nonetheless, the review made a number of recommendations for legislative change to improve the protections for other participants at risk of harm. I'm grateful to former Federal Court Justice Alan Robertson for the recommendations he has made and support their implementation through this bill that is currently before the chamber. In terms of what that review found specifically in relation to the death of Ms Smith, it did not find any wrongdoing by the commission, whose remit is to protect NDIS participants.

Ann-Marie Smith was a 54-year-old NDIS participant—which, in my opinion, is so young. She died on 6 April 2020 from severe septic shock, multiple organ failure and a multitude of other complications after being confined to a cane chair 24 hours a day for more than a year. How could this happen in a country like Australia? The provider was issued a fine of $12,600 for failing to notify the commission of Ann-Marie's death within 24 hours. It appears that this is the only fine the commission has issued against a provider since it was set up in 2018—three years, one fine.

Four months after Ann-Marie's death a banning order was issued to the provider, Integrity Care. Listen to those two words: Integrity Care. That's surely the most ironic name since I saw the credits for The Never Ending Story! I will acknowledge that Lionel Hutz actually owns that joke. Since Ann-Marie's tragic death the commission has still only issued a handful of infringements. It's clearly not good enough that this can happen in Australia. We're not talking about a one-off event. This was horrific systemic abuse that occurred over 12 months and more.

The NDIS commission regulates providers, but the NDIA actually administers the scheme to participants. If you remember, it's all about giving people control over their lives. After the inaugural NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commissioner, Graeme Head, was appointed, he said in a speech:

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

Where were those regulatory teeth when Ann-Marie Smith was being neglected so severely by her carer? Why wasn't the commission overseeing the care she was receiving through NDIS funding? One of the problems highlighted by the review was the lack of information sharing and the buck-passing between the NDIA and the NDIS. I hope that the recommendations made by the review implemented by this bill will go some way to making providers more accountable and, more importantly, ensuring that this can never happen again.

I'm very concerned that there's been no meaningful consultation with disability stakeholders prior to the introduction of this bill. Nothing about us without us. That's stakeholder 101—a lesson that this government needs to learn. Sadly, I'm aware that refusing to consult has become a feature of this coalition government. We've seen it time and time again. Bills are introduced but no prior consultation has occurred. On many occasions we've seen non-political stakeholders saying, 'If you'd asked us we would have told you that this won't work or we would've told you how to make it better to improve it.'

The Robertson review did not have statutory powers, meetings were held over two days, and submissions were not made public. There's been no wider sector or parliamentary engagement communicated by the Morrison-Joyce government in the development of this bill. It's so important that we include lived experiences in the legislative process. Only lived experiences, especially in the disability area, can truly reflect whether these reforms will be effective in practice or whether more or other recommendations from the review should be legislated.

There is some concern from disability rights organisations and advocates about the information-sharing provisions in this bill, in particular how 'vulnerable' will be defined for the purposes of identifying and protecting certain participants. Vulnerability is not actually defined in the act. There's no doubt that Ann-Marie Smith was vulnerable. Sadly Ann-Marie is not the only vulnerable person who has died because of the coalition's mismanagement, and I would suggest hardwired underspend, when it comes to the NDIS. Tim Rubenach, from Tasmania, died while waiting for a wheelchair from the NDIS. There's David Harris from New South Wales. Mr Harris's funding was cut off because he missed an annual review meeting. Cleaners and other NDIS-funded support workers stopped visiting. David was dead in his Parramatta unit for two months before, tragically, his body was discovered by the police. There's also Liam Danher from Queensland. Mr Danher was 23 years old, with a severe intellectual impairment. He lived with autism and epilepsy. His parents had applied for funding for a seizure mattress that would sound an alarm in the event of an epileptic fit. The application was met with knockbacks and requests for more documentation to justify the $2,500 to be spent on the life-saving mat. On 5 February this year Liam's parents awoke to find Liam dead in his room, having died of a seizure in his sleep. These deaths, and there are many more, are all tragic, and many of them, perhaps all of them, could have been prevented.

The National Disability Insurance Scheme is a proud Labor legacy—and I particularly thank former Prime Minister Julia Gillard for what is surely one of her greatest legacies—but, under the coalition, it has been gutted and mismanaged. The coalition has ripped 4.4 billion out of the NDIS. Institutionalised underspending is what we've seen, budget after budget. More than 1,200 Australians have died while waiting to be funded by the NDIS. The coalition even shamelessly tried to ram through an unpopular independent assessment scheme, before it eventually decided to scrap it altogether after community pressure.

The Morrison government's neglect of the disability sector is impacting people all over the country, including right here in my electorate of Morton. I was contacted a few months ago by a constituent whose husband lives with a disability in a residential facility. She told how he had not been able to access the COVID vaccine. She explained that her husband, like many people with a disability, has a suppressed and compromised immune system, which makes going out into the community unsafe. Sadly, the staff at her husband's residential facility also had not been vaccinated. This is in Australia in 2021. The residents of this facility were told to find their own vaccinations. This would have been impossible without putting these vulnerable people at risk. The residents and staff at this facility were all in priority 1a of the vaccine rollout, or stroll-out, as it's been called.

Just over a quarter of Australians in the National Disability Insurance Scheme are fully vaccinated, way behind the national average. Deputy Speaker, don't look at the coalition announcements and press releases. Look at their actual achievements. Just over half of NDIS participants in group homes have been fully vaccinated. Shame! This group was in phase 1a of the rollout. They were supposed to have priority access and to be fully vaccinated months ago. This week, Sam Connor, the president of People with Disability Australia, said it was 'unconscionable that we have not protected the people most at risk.' This is neglect by the Morrison-Joyce government on a grand scale.

The coalition have completely bungled the vaccine rollout. The Prime Minister had two jobs to focus on: a speedy, effective rollout of vaccine, and quarantine. And we know that he has failed at both. He didn't order enough vaccines. He said we were at the front of the queue, yet he couldn't even find the front of the queue—or the end of the queue, in fact. He said it's not a race, but it is a race, a life-saving and important race. It always was a race. When he's called out on his failures, as happens in question time, he says 'It's not my job', or 'It's a matter for the states'—basically, 'Blame anyone but me.' Because of the Prime Minister's failures, the health of Australians living with a disability—some of the most vulnerable people in our society—has been put at risk.

I welcome the bill's aim to improve the support and protections to NDIS participants who may be at risk of harm, and I acknowledge the government's implementation of the recommendations of the Robertson review in this bill, even if it has taken 12 months since the report was handed down. But I also wish to note the lack of consultation with people with disability on how these changes will impact on their lives. Consultation is a continuing failure of the Morrison government. People with disability deserve better. In fact, all Australians deserve better.

Craig Kelly (Hughes, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise this evening to speak on the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Improving Supports for At Risk Participants) Bill 2021. I note the introductory comments from the member for Macarthur, a paediatrician before he came to this place. A few minutes ago, he told the story of how, as a doctor, he had to tell parents of a newborn child that their child had Down syndrome and what the parents' reaction was. I don't have that experience as a doctor; I have that experience as a parent, and that's the position that I come from in this debate. We have a special obligation as a society to look after our children with disabilities and to support them as they grow into young adults and to old age. I think there are good intentions everywhere that we will do the best for those with disabilities.

The New South Wales health department, only a few days ago, on 20 August, was mentioned on the NDS website, which said:

Those areas of concern take up a very large chunk of Sydney: Bayside, Blacktown, Burwood, Campbelltown, Canterbury-Bankstown, Cumberland, Fairfield, Georges River, Liverpool, Parramatta, Strathfield, and also some suburbs of Penrith. Disability care workers that live or work in those areas are being ordered by the New South Wales government to have their first COVID vaccination by 30 August. I greatly fear that there will be many disability care workers that will not want to take the vaccination and will leave this sector desperately short of workers.

But the question is: is this policy of the New South Wales government correct? Is it wise? Is it what the latest science says? We always must remember:

When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?

As one of our greatest Prime Ministers, Prime Minister Menzies, said:

... today's truth is frequently tomorrow's error.

If truth is to emerge in the long run and be triumphant, the process of free debate, the untrammelled clash of ideas, must go on. We should not take New South Wales's health dictate for what it is. As members of parliament, we have an obligation to question it and debate it and to look at the latest science.

What does the latest science say? I have a letter written by none other than Dr Peter A McCullough of the USA. Peter McCullough MD, MPH, FACC, FACP, FAHA, FASN, FNKF, FNLA, FCRSA—a gentleman; a respected medical expert with more letters after his name than are in the alphabet; someone who has written countless peer reviewed papers. He has had COVID and his family has had COVID, and he treated them. We could not listen to anyone with higher credibility. What did he write? I would like to quote this directly so it's in the Hansard and everyone in this parliament has no excuse for not understanding what Dr McCullough has written. He writes:

A groundbreaking preprint paper by the prestigious Oxford University Clinical Research Group, published Aug. 10 in The Lancet, includes alarming findings devastating to the COVID vaccine rollout.

…   …   …

While moderating the symptoms of infection, the jab allows vaccinated individuals to carry unusually high viral loads without becoming ill at first, potentially transforming them into presymptomatic superspreaders.

This phenomenon may be the source of the shocking post-vaccination surges in heavily vaccinated population globally.

And that's exactly what we are seeing in New South Wales today. Dr McCullough continues:

The paper's authors, Chau et al, demonstrated widespread vaccine failure and transmission under tightly controlled circumstances in a hospital lockdown … The data showed that fully vaccinated workers — about two months after injection with the Oxford/AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine (AZD1222) — acquired, carried and presumably transmitted the Delta variant to their vaccinated colleagues.

Ross Vasta (Bonner, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Member for Hughes, I remind you that we're debating the honourable member for Ballarat's amendment at the moment.

Craig Kelly (Hughes, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Absolutely. This is the NDIS, and this is the real concern that we have on the NDIS. There's been a widespread debate, and we need to debate all issues of concern with our NDIS. Dr McCullough continued:

They almost certainly also passed the Delta infection to susceptible unvaccinated people—

Ross Vasta (Bonner, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The member for Hughes will take his seat, and I call the honourable member of the opposition.

Andrew Leigh (Fenner, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Treasury) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Deputy Speaker, the honourable member is defying your ruling. There are other places where he can pursue his conspiracy theories, but they are not relevant to this debate nor to the second reading amendment.

Craig Kelly (Hughes, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I take the strongest objection to the member—

Ross Vasta (Bonner, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! I give the member for Hughes the call, but I remind him that we are debating the second reading amendment, and I want to make sure that he is relevant to the bill before the House.

Craig Kelly (Hughes, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Deputy Speaker, just to be clear, we are debating the National Disability Insurance Scheme. This has been a lengthy and widespread debate, and many participants in this debate have talked about the importance of vaccinating NDIS participants and also their workers. This debate is about improving supports for at-risk participants. This is exactly what I am referring to, and I take great offence to the member sitting there at the desk saying that Dr Peter McCullough is some conspiracy theorist. We are talking about one of the most highly credentialed doctors in the world, and you call him a conspiracy theorist. Shame on you! Let me continue with what Dr McCullough said. I hope the member at the desk there is listening and gets the wax out of his ears. Dr McCullough said:

This is consistent with the observations in the U.S. from Farinholt and colleagues, and congruent with comments by the director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention conceding COVID-19 vaccines have failed to stop transmission of SARS-CoV-2.

Dr McCullough continues:

Thus, we have a key piece to the puzzle explaining why the Delta outbreak is so formidable — fully vaccinated are participating as COVID-19 patients and acting as powerful Typhoid Mary-style super-spreaders of the infection.

Dr McCullough concluded in this letter:

Vaccinated individuals are blasting out concentrated viral explosions into their communities and fueling new COVID surges. Vaccinated healthcare workers are almost certainly infecting their coworkers and patients, causing horrendous collateral damage.

Continued vaccination will only make this problem worse, particularly among frontline doctors and nurses workers who are caring for vulnerable patients.

Health systems—

Dr Leigh interjecting—

Ross Vasta (Bonner, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order, member for Fenner! The member for Hughes has the call.

Craig Kelly (Hughes, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I hear the gentleman at the desk there. He obviously knows far better—

Ross Vasta (Bonner, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Member for Hughes, you have the call. Do not engage with the member for Fenner.

Craig Kelly (Hughes, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Professor Peter A. McCullough concluded:

Continued vaccination will only make this problem worse, particularly among frontline doctors and nurses workers who are caring for vulnerable patients.

Health systems should drop vaccine mandates immediately, take stock of COVID-19 recovered workers who are robustly immune to Delta and consider the ramifications of their current vaccinated healthcare workers as potential threats to high risk patients and coworkers.

I do not know if Dr Peter McCullough is correct or not, but I know that we should be listening to what he says and we should be debating it. When it comes to Australians with disabilities who are under our National Disability Insurance Scheme, we owe them the precautionary principle and we must be very careful about proceeding down a path with the NDIS, governed by New South Wales Health, that is in direct contradiction to the latest science that Dr McCullough outlines in the letter that I have just read into Hansard.

As I said, I come to this debate with a special personal interest in the National Disability Insurance Scheme. I want to make sure that everyone under this scheme gets looked after as best as they possibly can. We owe that to them. Unlike the member for Fenner, who sits at the desk and wants everyone to be quiet and censored, I believe we owe it to them to debate the facts on the table to ensure that we are giving the most disadvantaged and people with special needs and disabilities in this country every possible chance. That is what I have done today in putting this evidence on the table. If Dr McCullough is wrong, let others debate the facts. Let others come in here and quote other peer reviewed science that shows the contrary. If not, they simply should shut up.

Ross Vasta (Bonner, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! I call the honourable member for Watson.

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for the Arts) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I wish to raise a point of order on relevance. I don't want to be seen to be weighing into the debate about the science back and forth as to what's being put by the member for Hughes, but I do want to refer to the importance of simply being relevant to the point of discussion. If, for example, this speech were being given during the adjournment, I would not raise a point of order. If it were being given as a motion or given as a 90 second statement, I wouldn't be raising a point of order. But relevance is no small issue, and I just want to quote from page 510 of Practice:

Of fundamental importance to the conduct of debate in the House is the rule that a Member should speak only on the subject matter of a question under discussion. At the same time the standing orders and practice of the House make provision for some major exceptions to this principle when debates of a general nature may take place.

It then gives examples of what those exceptions are. They're the adjournment debate, the address in reply to the Governor-General's speech, any appropriations bill, and on the question that grievances be noted. All of those opportunities are there. There is one change to a bill which is when a second reading amendment has been moved. That does broaden the debate. But the second reading amendment that's been moved deals with two issues. It deals with deaths by neglect within the National Disability Insurance Scheme as a federal government program and it deals with a commitment to genuine consultation on all major changes to the NDIS Act. I simply put it to you, Deputy Speaker, that there is no way that the comments that are being made now are relevant to what is before the House. If it was a different second reading amendment it might be different or if it were any of the exceptions it might be different.

Ross Vasta (Bonner, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! I thank the honourable member for Watson. I will make my ruling. The member for Hughes will be relevant to the second reading amendment debate, and I give him the call.

Craig Kelly (Hughes, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'll wrap up on the issue of relevance. This bill's title is the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Improving Supports for At Risk Participants) Bill 2021. It has resulted from a case of a death by neglect. I do not want to see any more deaths by neglect, no matter who they are by. That's why I wanted to make sure that that was read into Hansard today. If we are going to put restrictions upon workers in the NDIS system, we need to debate the science and we need to debate the restrictions. This subject is 100 per cent relevant to the debate. I call on other members of parliament that might disagree with me to read the science and make sure you are not falling into the trap of things that happened years ago. I thank the House.

Ben Morton (Tangney, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister and Cabinet) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I circulate an addendum to the explanatory memorandum to the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Improving Supports for At Risk Participants) Bill 2021, responding to comments raised by the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills in Scrutiny Digest No. 10 of 2021 and comments raised by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights in report No. 9 of 2021. I thank these committees for their consideration of the bill.

The Morrison government is committed to delivering quality and safe NDIS services to participants to meet their needs and support them to live free from violence, abuse, neglect and exploitation. This bill makes changes to the NDIS Act 2013 in response to issues identified in various inquiries into recent cases of abuse and neglect of people with disability, including the independent review conducted by former Federal Court Judge the Hon. Alan Robertson SC into the tragic death of Ms Ann-Marie Smith. Specifically, the bill strengthens information-sharing arrangements, allows conditions to be attached to the approval of quality auditors, enables the NDIS commissioner to further specify reportable incidents, and makes a range of other technical changes designed to improve operations of the NDIS commission.

In summary, these amendments will help ensure the wellbeing of NDIS participants, including those who are at a greater risk of harm, and ensure that the commissioner has clear and effective powers to regulate NDIS providers and respond to incidents of violence, abuse, neglect and exploitation. The government will continue to review and make adjustments to the NDIS Quality and Safeguarding Framework, the operations of the NDIS commission, and supporting legislation as required, to ensure a quality and safe market for NDIS participants. I cannot overstate this government's commitment to improving protections and safeguards for NDIS participants, especially those who are most at risk of harm.

Ross Vasta (Bonner, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

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, 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.

The question now is that this bill be now read a second time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.