‌Crimes (Coercive Control) Amendment Bill 2024

Ms Castley, pursuant to notice, presented the bill and its explanatory statement. Title read by Clerk.

MS CASTLEY (Yerrabi) (2.46): I move:

That this bill be agreed to in principle.

Today I present to the Assembly a bill to amend the Crimes Act 1900 to legislate a standalone criminal offence for coercive control. Before I begin, I would like to take a moment to sincerely thank everyone who was involved in the development of this bill: frontline services, ACT Policing, community advocates and, most importantly, the victim-survivors who have shared, with great courage, their lived experience of the tragedy that is coercive control. I would also like to take this opportunity to thank my colleague Mr Cain and his office for their in-depth research and invaluable legal expertise. I thank the PCO. There have been many back and forth emails with us, so thank you to that team. I also thank my office, who have worked tirelessly on this bill.

Coercive control is an emotional issue for everyone, particularly for those of us who have lived through and survived domestic and family violence. I will begin by outlining some of the harrowing facts around coercive control. One woman has been violently murdered every four days this year, and 99 per cent of intimate partner homicides are preceded by coercive control. New South Wales, Queensland, Tasmania, Western Australia and South Australia have all either criminalised coercive control or committed to doing so. Five out of eight jurisdictions nationwide are currently heading down a path of criminalising coercive control.

Queensland criminalised coercive control this year, with bipartisan support. The Queensland legislation followed the horrific murder of Hannah Clarke and her three children, a case which has raised widespread awareness of coercive control for some people for the first time. I want to acknowledge the tireless work of Hannah’s parents, Sue and Lloyd, in the prevention of domestic and family violence. I thank them for advocating for the criminalisation of coercive control. I believe they are dialling in to watch today. Sue Clarke echoed the calls of countless victim-survivors and their loved ones when she said that the fight is not over until coercive control is criminalised throughout Australia.

While this Labor government prides itself on being a nation leader in certain policy areas, when it comes to coercive control the ACT is falling behind. A New South Wales parliamentary inquiry into coercive control found that inconsistent laws between jurisdictions pose an extra barrier to justice for victim-survivors of domestic violence. The legal framework we use to prevent and address domestic violence should be consistent with that governing 70 per cent of the country. We too must go down the sensible path of criminalising coercive control. It is a form of domestic violence and, if we are to prevent domestic violence and intimate partner homicide, it needs to be treated as such.

This bill specifically legislates a standalone criminal offence for coercive control, defining the offence as a course of abusive conduct. It lists forms of abusive conduct which constitute coercive control when present in a pattern over time. The bill’s">

‌Building and construction—National Construction Code

MS ORR (Yerrabi) (2.59): I move:

That this Assembly:

1. notes that:

   1. the National Construction Code (NCC) is updated every three years, based on industry and public feedback and policy directions from governments between publishing cycles;

   2. in preparation for the next edition of the NCC, the Australian Building Codes Board (ABCB) is seeking feedback from the public and industry on the NCC Public Comment Draft;

   3. the Public Comment Draft is an opportunity to provide feedback on the proposed changes for the next edition of the NCC, and is currently open from 1 May until 1 July 2024;

   4. the NCC is Australia’s primary set of technical design and construction provisions for buildings, and the ABCB on behalf of the Australian Government and each state and territory government, produces and maintains the NCC; and

   5. the NCC will also be presented to ministers responsible for building standards at a federal and state/territory level for their consideration;

2. further notes:

   1. a focus and priority in the 2025 Public Comment Draft is to provide adequate and equitable female toilet facilities by:

      1. increasing the number of female toilets (closet pans) in single auditorium theatres and cinemas (Class 9b buildings), from the current male to female average of 1:1.25 to 1:1.8; and

      2. requiring dispensers for sanitary products in female toilet facilities in commercial buildings; and

   2. research from the NCC shows that females access a toilet facility 1.3 times more often and spend 1.6 times longer using a toilet facility, compared to males;

3. calls on all Members of the Legislative Assembly to affirm their support for addressing period poverty and supporting the improvements proposed in the NCC to help address the gender inequality around accessing toilet facilities; and

4. calls on the Minister for Sustainable Building and Construction to reflect the view of the Assembly in her representations at the ministers’ forum.

I rise today to address a critical issue that affects half our population: the adequacy of female toilet facilities in public and commercial buildings. This matter, often overlooked, plays a significant role in promoting gender equality and ensuring the dignity and comfort of women and girls. The availability of and quality of these facilities directly impacts women’s daily lives, their ability to fully participate in public activities and their overall wellbeing.

The National Construction Code, commonly known as the NCC, is Australia’s primary set of technical design and construction provisions for buildings. The Australian Building Codes Board, on behalf of the Australian government and each state and territory government, produces and maintains this code. The National Construction Code ensures that our buildings are safe, sustainable and meet the needs of all users.

The NCC is updated every three years, incorporating industry and public feedback, as well as policy directions from various government levels. In preparation for the next edition of the NCC, the Australian Building Codes Board is currently seeking feedback on the NCC public comment draft. This draft provides a valuable opportunity for the public and industry to comment on the proposed changes, with the comment period open from 1 May until 1 July 2024.

A key focus of the 2025 public comment draft is the provision of adequate and equitable female toilet facilities. The proposed changes include increasing the number of female toilets for single-auditorium theatres and cinemas, or class 9b buildings. The current male to female toilet ratio is an average of 1:1.25 and the proposed change aims to improve this ratio to 1 : 1.8, reflecting the higher frequency and longer duration of female toilet usage. Research conducted by the NCC found that the NCC compliant single auditorium theatres and cinemas have queuing times for females of up to 14 minutes at peak periods.

The second proposed change is sanitary product dispensers. The proposal includes the requirement for dispensers of sanitary products in female toilet facilities within commercial buildings. This measure is essential for addressing period poverty and ensuring that all women have access to necessary hygiene products when they need them.

These changes are not just about increasing the number of toilets or providing sanitary products; they are about recognising and addressing the specific needs of women and people who menstruate, ensuring their comfort and dignity in public and commercial spaces. By improving toilet facilities, we are taking a significant step towards equality. I, for one, am very supportive of these proposed changes and would like to see them incorporated here in the ACT.

The impact of these changes will be profound, reducing queuing times and providing necessary hygiene products. That will make spaces more accessible and comfortable. This is particularly important in venues such as single auditorium theatres and cinemas, where queues for female toilets are common. These queues not only cause discomfort but also impact the ability to enjoy and participate fully in public life.

It is worth noting that the proposed changes are grounded in extensive research and consultation. The ABCB has gathered data highlighting the disparity in toilet usage between men and women and has engaged with stakeholders across the industry to ensure that the proposed solutions are both practical and effective. This is an evidence-based approach and underscores the importance of these changes and the need for their implementation.

Moreover, these improvements align with broader goals of promoting inclusivity and equality. By ensuring that our built environment caters to the needs of all individuals,

we are fostering a more equitable society. This initiative also sets a precedent for other areas where gender-specific needs must be addressed, reinforcing our commitment to gender equality in all aspects of public life.

As all members in this Assembly will know, I am very passionate about making improvements in this policy area. I have spent a great deal of time this term helping to address the shame and stigma around menstruation and menopause. The motion I am introducing today is a continuation of my work and advocacy in this area. I believe this work will tie in nicely with work that the ACT government is currently progressing and implementing, most notably the implementation of my period products and facilities bill, which the ACT government is now implementing.

We are now providing free period products at designated and accessible places across Canberra. We were the first state or territory to introduce and pass that legislation. While I note that other states, such as Victoria, are following our footsteps and policy, if not law, we can again be the first to throw our weight behind addressing adequate toilet facilities through this measure in the Construction Code. Through this work that I have done, it has become very clear that addressing period poverty is not just about supplying tampons, pads and other period products; it is also about providing facilities that people can access to hygienically manage their period. Toilets become a very important part of that.

My motion today calls on all members of the Legislative Assembly to affirm their support for these proposed improvements in the National Construction Code. Addressing period poverty and ensuring equitable access to toilet facilities is a matter affecting half of the population and should be recognised as a fundamental aspect of public health. Furthermore, I urge the Minister for Sustainable Building and Construction to reflect the views of the Assembly in her representations at the ministers’ forum. It is crucial that our collective voice supports these necessary changes, advocating for a future where our built environment adequately meets the needs of the people who live in it. I commend my motion to the Assembly. Thank you.

MR PARTON (Brindabella) (3.05): The Canberra Liberals will be supporting this motion. We thank Ms Orr for bringing it to the chamber. This is an important issue, and it is yet another reflection, I think, of how decisions that are made in this chamber have a genuine effect on the lives of regular Canberrans day to day. The National Construction Code sets a framework for the sorts of buildings that Australians want. As that code continues to change through time, it is so important that individuals and governments, and individual members of government, are able to guide its development.

I have learnt some things about gendered toilet habits from this motion that I did not know. I thank Ms Orr for educating me on this front, because I genuinely did not know that females access toilet facilities 1.3 times more often than males and, additionally, that they spend 1.6 times longer behind those closed doors than do menfolk. Who would have thought? In fact, it is probably not all that remarkable when you think about it.

It goes without saying that the Canberra Liberals support addressing period poverty, and we support the improvements proposed by the National Construction Code. I would think, respectfully, that it goes without saying that the minister responsible,

Ms Vassarotti, would reflect that view in her representations at the ministers’ forum. I would have backed her to do that even if this motion had not appeared. I would be gobsmacked if she did not. Nevertheless, it is important that we are talking about it.

I must mention that this caused a bit of a “Scomo and Jen” moment. Over dinner last night, at home, I was debriefing on the hard slog of the Assembly and I mentioned this motion to my wife. She said to me, “I will be most disappointed if you don’t support this motion.” She said, “Have you seen the line-up for the women’s toilets at the theatre?” Enough said. There is full support from the Canberra Liberals for this motion. It is pleasing to see that we are all on the same page on this important matter.

MS VASSAROTTI (Kurrajong—Minister for the Environment, Parks and Land Management, Minister for Heritage, Minister for Homelessness and Housing Services and Minister for Sustainable Building and Construction) (3.07): I rise to speak in support of Ms Orr’s motion regarding equitable access to toilet facilities. Anyone who has been to a sporting event, film, concert or theatre performance knows that we have an issue. Thankfully, the Taylor Swift concert was so riveting that few of us were prepared to take a comfort break! Jokes aside, this is an important issue of equity and demonstrates how biased our decision-making can be if we do not think about these things thoughtfully.

This is an issue that building ministers across Australia have been aware of, and it is one that I have spoken about at previous meetings as we tasked the Australian Building Codes Board, the ABCB, to prepare a consultation draft of the next version of the National Construction Code, the NCC. As noted, in response to this direction the ABCB has included this issue in the public consultation draft. The board has identified a new average ratio that would produce more equitable queuing times.

While workers found that existing washbasin numbers were still adequate, there are some changes that can be made to facilitate sanitary products being provided in toilet facilities of commercial buildings through requiring sanitary dispensers and product disposal units to help address the problem. This is the simplest and most effective solution within the scope of the NCC. These proposals were developed through discussions with the commonwealth Office for Women and members of peak technical committees, such as the Building Codes Committee and the Plumbing Code Committee. These changes are now out for public consultation as part of the raft of changes proposed for the 2025 National Construction Code. I can assure Ms Orr that I am already delivering on her calls to reflect the ACT government’s strong support for these measures in the next version of the code. When drafting was being developed, I spoke in strong support of this work.

We are expecting advice to be provided from the ABCB to building ministers in November this year, following close of public consultation, which is currently underway. Advice provided to building ministers just last week has confirmed the consultation is going well, with good engagement by industry across Australia. This consultation will conclude on 1 July 2024.

The National Construction Code is a key mechanism for us to work with other jurisdictions to harmonise our rules around construction. This is vital to ensure that we

have a high level of building quality and ensure that we are protecting consumers and responding to their needs, as well as providing certainty to industry.

I am really proud of the leadership role that we have played in this forum to fight for better outcomes for the community, not just here in the ACT but for communities across Australia. We have played a leadership role in seeing the NCC of 2022 substantially lifting the bar in relation to energy efficiency and, for the first time, introducing minimum accessibility standards. I advocated strongly for the need to introduce these additions, both with my colleagues and in public. I am really proud that we were the first jurisdiction to fully implement the new version of the code, and we continue to play a leading role in relation to the next version of the NCC.

In addition to strongly supporting work on the issue that we are discussing today, we have also supported additional complementary consultation on suggested changes to enable the provision of all-gender sanitary facilities alongside male, female and accessible facilities. This aims to modernise and standardise the language, incorporate all-gender bathrooms into the NCC, and embrace diversity by reflecting it in our built environment so that we can make a positive contribution to the wellbeing of individuals within our community.

Last week at the building ministers meeting, I was delighted to gain the support of my colleagues to introduce a common methodology for measuring embodied carbon for commercial buildings in the next version of the NCC. Getting consistent methodology will be an important foundation for the work that we are doing here to position us to be a world leader around sustainable building. Having a common basis to measure carbon will support our local efforts, enable us to demonstrate leadership and support the work that needs to occur to decarbonise our building practices across the country. As you can see, the NCC is an important mechanism to support sustainability, accessibility and equity.

Once again, I thank Ms Orr for bringing this motion to the Assembly for consideration and I am very happy to support the motion. I guarantee that I will enthusiastically continue to champion this work at future building ministers meetings that I am able to attend. Thank you for bringing this to the attention of the Assembly.

MS LAWDER (Brindabella) (3.13): I rise today as shadow minister for women, but, also, I would like to think of myself as a passionate advocate for the rights and dignity of all women in our community. Today, we have the opportunity to support a motion that addresses a fundamental issue: gender equity in public facilities. For too long, women have faced the indignity of inadequate toilet facilities.

In some responses to the motion today, we have already talked about the familiar sight of long queues outside women’s toilets in theatres, cinemas, sporting venues and other places. This is not a minor inconvenience; it is a symbol of gender inequality in our society. Women use these facilities more frequently and spend longer in them, not by choice but by necessity. Women spend, on average, three minutes per visit in the toilet. Men spend, on average, two minutes in the toilet. There are a number of reasons for this. It could be a biological reason—for example, menstruation. Think about the process: getting into the cubicle, perhaps hanging your bag on the hook behind the door,

getting sanitary products out of your bag, unwrapping them, using them, getting rid of the used sanitary products, getting dressed again and getting out. Men do not go through that, generally speaking.

There could be health conditions that lead to women spending a longer amount of time in the toilet cubicle. Women have a shorter urethra than men, which may mean they go to the toilet more often, or they could have health conditions like cystitis. Somewhat shamefully, many cubicles do not have a sanitary waste disposal unit, so women who need to use a sanitary waste disposal unit are limited in the number of cubicles that they can use in some venues.

The type of clothing that women wear can also mean they spend longer in the toilet cubicle. They may have more layers. There is, of course, the torture instrument that was probably created by men: pantyhose. Many women of my mother’s age would not leave the house and go somewhere like the theatre without their pantyhose on, and it takes much longer to get them off and back on again after you have been to the toilet.

Women are more likely to have small children with them than men when they go to the toilet, which may mean they also have to help the child go to the toilet, but it also takes longer to wrangle a child while you are in a toilet cubicle. Finally, and very disturbingly, studies have shown that women are more likely to wash and dry their hands after they have been to the toilet than men.

All these things can contribute to the length of time that women spend in the toilet compared to men. I would like everyone to remember that women are more likely to wash their hands the next time a man offers to shake their hand. Please keep that in mind.

It is time our infrastructure reflected these realities. It is not a matter of women just deciding to take longer in the toilet. There are a number of perfectly valid and unavoidable reasons why women may take a bit longer in the toilet. If men took a bit longer and washed and dried their hands, I do not think anyone would be disturbed about that.

The proposed changes to the National Construction Code aim to correct this imbalance by increasing the number of female toilets in single-auditorium theatres and cinemas from the current male-to-female ratio of 1 : 1.25 to 1 : 1.8 and providing dispensers for sanitary products in commercial buildings. These measures are not merely adjustments at face value; they are essential steps towards ensuring that women can participate fully and comfortably in public life, and, for example, get back to their seat in a theatre before the next part begins.

Imagine the relief and dignity for a young girl caught off-guard by her period when she finds a sanitary product dispenser in her school or local commercial building, and picture the comfort afforded to a mother attending a theatre, knowing she will not have to miss the beginning of the second act because of a long queue. These are realities that many of us have seen, and this motion is seeking to improve them. In addition, by addressing period poverty we are taking a stand against a silent struggle that many women face. No woman should have to choose between basic hygiene products and other essentials. Providing these products in public facilities is a compassionate and necessary step towards equity.

Supporting this motion is about more than just updating building codes; it is about affirming our commitment to gender equality and the dignity of all women. It is about creating a society where women’s needs are recognised and met with respect and understanding. As shadow minister for women, I am pleased to support this motion today, and I believe all members of the Assembly will do so today. We can all send a powerful message today: we are united in our commitment to create a more equitable and inclusive society.

MISS NUTTALL (Brindabella) (3.17): I rise to speak very briefly in support of this motion, as the ACT Greens’ spokesperson for women and LGBTQI+ affairs. I echo Minister Vassarotti’s comments. It is great to see that the Australian Building and Construction Code, under the instruction of our governments, is acting to address major gender inequities in the provision of bathrooms for women in some major public facilities. Of course, there is more work to be done to ensure that everyone in Australia has equal access to safe and sufficient public bathrooms, and this very much also goes for gender-diverse folk who may not feel comfortable using women’s or men’s bathrooms. I am therefore very pleased to see that the board is also consulting on the inclusion of all-gender bathroom facilities in the National Construction Code.

From what I have heard, the current code does not make it easy to set up all-gender bathrooms, and often accessible bathrooms are forced to double-up as all-gender bathrooms. While there are, of course, gender-diverse folk with a disability, these are two distinct cohorts with very different needs. As dry as the National Construction Code perhaps seems, this is an excellent example of how these kinds of codes impact the rights and wellbeing of everyone, including women and gender-diverse folk. It is so important that all governments work to ensure that the needs and rights of every Australian are properly considered in every piece of legislation and regulation that materially impacts their lives.

I thank Minister Vassarotti for the great work she has been doing in this space. I thank Ms Orr for her sustained advocacy and for bringing forward such an important issue.

MS ORR (Yerrabi) (3.20), in reply: In closing, I would like to thank members for their support today. I wish to pick up on a comment by my colleague, Mr Parton. I am not going to pick on him, because it is actually really great that we have had one of the male members engaging in the motion I have moved. We always hear from the females, but it is good to have some of the men getting on board. I am going to paraphrase because I am not going to get it quite right. Mr Parton said something along the lines of: “Why wouldn’t we do this? It seems like a bit of a no-brainer.” That is a pretty fair question. I take that as maybe a bit of a sign that, within this place, we will come to a better understanding.

But I would remind Mr Parton and anyone who has asked that question that it was not long ago that there was not even a requirement to have female toilets if you were not expecting females to be in a building. For instance, when the first female was elected to the federal parliament, Parliament House did not have a toilet for her. Under the Construction Code, it never had to be built until there was a female in the building. That is one very visible example, but there are many examples where we might scratch our heads and say, “It’s a bit of a no-brainer” and they really need us to focus and make changes. As I mentioned in my own comments, if we are going to be serious about

addressing period poverty, which has been a passion of mine throughout this term, we need to get the facilities, not just the products.

This is a really important step forward. I am glad the minister feels emboldened and empowered to go forward and argue for this. I would say it is a great first step. While I note this is about commercial buildings, there is a lot more opportunity for us to really look at how we provide these facilities, particularly within workplaces, and we will continue to advocate for that. But I am glad that we can highlight this issue and drive this change where possible to continue the good fight.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

‌Gambling—poker machines

MR PARTON (Brindabella) (3.22): I move:

That this Assembly:

1. notes that:

   1. the recently announced ACT Labor gaming policy would see ATMs and EFT withdrawals banned at all licenced clubs despite a move to cashless gaming;

   2. Government policy overseen by the Greens Minister would see the establishment of an expensive Central Monitoring System apparently funded by clubs;

   3. both governing parties look set to attempt to outdo each other on machine reductions with the most recent Labor plan aiming for a reduction to 1,000 machines by 2045; and

   4. the overwhelming reaction from clubs is that either one of these policy proposals will lead to the entire collapse of the community club sector in the ACT;

2. further notes:

   1. the Labor-Greens Government has made numerous previous commitments regarding club diversification yet failed to achieve any of them;

   2. the community clubs sector in the ACT supports hundreds of community organisations that simply would not exist without their support;

   3. there are 43 licensed clubs in the ACT employing over 1,700 staff and supporting huge local supply chains in food and beverage;

   4. our clubs manage and maintain a swag of sporting infrastructure including 400 hectares of greenspace for community use, and support nearly 400 sporting groups;

   5. official data from the ACT Gambling and Racing Commission shows that over the last 10 years, our clubs have provided more than

      $150 million in community contributions;

   6. our clubs have contributed over $300 million in gaming taxes in that same period;

      
      

      
      

   7. during the Covid period, Canberrans flocked to Queanbeyan clubs in unprecedented numbers during the six week period when ACT clubs were closed, but they had re-opened in NSW;

   8. Canberra’s community clubs help build social cohesion to tackle loneliness and social isolation; and

   9. the community clubs sector has been unfairly demonised by the Labor-Greens Government;

3. calls on the ACT Government to explain:

   1. how they intend to maintain all of the sporting infrastructure which is currently maintained by community clubs;

   2. how they intend to support the hundreds of community organisations that exist from club support;

   3. how they intend to replace the hundreds of millions in foregone gaming tax revenue;

   4. how they intend to support the 1,700 direct staff and other supporting workers in related industries who are likely to lose their jobs;

   5. whether a “club of the future” in the Molonglo Valley will simply be a government-run bar and restaurant; and

   6. report back to the Assembly by the final sitting day of August; and

4. further calls on ACT Labor to divest itself of all poker machines operated by the Canberra Labor Clubs and to hand them back, without any taxpayer funded compensation.

   Canberra has the single best community gaming model in the whole of Australia. Over a period of 40-odd years we have been able to improve a framework which sees not-for-profit community clubs manage and run poker machines, with a focus on harm minimisation and, additionally, a focus on genuine community benefit. Those benefits are felt every single day by most Canberrans. It is clear, after the events of the last week or so, that both the government parties are keen on destroying that model and effectively trashing the entire club sector. This motion seeks to call that out.

   The recently announced Labor clubs policy is a disgrace. Dr Paterson wishes to play political games at such a high potential cost. The Paterson policy announcements, which ultimately led to this motion, in my view, are reckless and selfish. They are selfish in that if the policies were fulfilled, the entire club sector would fold, but Dr Paterson does not care. She is on a mission. She is here to take skin off her governing partners—particularly Mr Rattenbury, in this instance. It is an attack on the entire Greens brand and it aims to out-progressive the Greens in this space.

   Additionally, Dr Paterson has made it abundantly clear during her time in this place that she has a personal mission to remove poker machines, by hook or by crook and whatever the consequences are. Dr Paterson has gone through a sham process of consulting with the clubs, through ClubsACT and individual clubs. I say “a sham process” because I am sure she would argue differently.

   When her plans were laid out last week, it was a pretty big surprise to all those in the sector. They were blindsided by this. I know that one club group has already moved to

   
   

   
   

   put the wheels in motion to sell some assets, as a consequence of last week’s Labor announcement, because they reckon the world’s about to change. Craig Shannon from ClubsACT specifically said in the Riotact last week that there had been no consultation on this plan. He was, at the time, panicking, mainly about the amendments from Dr Paterson, which were to be debated tomorrow.

   
   

   He said many things in the media, but I think my favourite quote was this:

   
   

   It is potentially going to become easier to use meth in this town than to use a poker machine.

   
   

   It potentially casts Mr Rattenbury in the role of saviour of clubs in the ACT. That is exactly what Dr Paterson has attempted to do. Dr Paterson wants Canberrans to believe that she is the only pure one in this space. She wants to force Mr Rattenbury to effectively provide a lifeline to our clubs. What a mess.

   
   

   It is one of the reasons that this motion of mine specifically refers to the Canberra Labor clubs. Dr Paterson is here as a member of ACT Labor. They operate a number of clubs in this city, under the banner of her political party. Those clubs have, over a long period of time, donated many thousands of dollars to her political party. How Dr Paterson can come into this place or indeed wade into any public conversation with a straight face and talk about harm minimisation from poker machines, while clubs under her party’s banner continue to operate nearly 500 machines, is beyond me. I am sure it is beyond Mr Rattenbury.

   
   

   If our community clubs are important to you—and this is a message not to Dr Paterson but to everyone—you should be well aware that if the government does not change in October it is highly likely that our wonderful club sector will fade away. There are over 40 licensed clubs in the ACT, employing over 1,700 staff and supporting a massive local supply chain in food and beverage. Our clubs maintain over 400 hectares of green space for sporting use. Who is going to do that? Has the government got the money to do that?

   
   

   They manage six golf courses. They manage 20 bowling greens, three cricket fields, five football fields, a yacht club, a basketball stadium, a BMX track, countless gymnasiums and a multimillion-dollar health and wellness building. When you close the clubs—I want to know, and Canberrans want to know—who is going to run those facilities? Where is the money going to come from? Who is going to do that? I want to know where the $150 million that has flowed to community groups in the last decade will come from. I want to know what impact the forgone revenue of $300 million in gaming tax in that same period will have on the budget.

   The longer COVID shutdown of our clubs in the ACT demonstrated clearly that, when there are no poker machines operating in our city, the thousands of Canberrans who wish to play the pokies simply flock across the border to Queanbeyan. They just go to Queanbeyan. During those six weeks of COVID shutdown in the ACT, for the first time in the history of this data, a Queanbeyan club made it into the top 10 of poker machine turnover on the ClubsNSW table for that month. That had never happened before in the history of the data, and it was not just one Queanbeyan club; it was three of them. I went

   
   

   
   

   to the big clubs in Queanbeyan during that time. The car parks were full of cars with blue numberplates.

   
   

   If you leave the progressive parties in place, there is no surer thing than that we will be establishing Queanbeyan as the Las Vegas of New South Wales. There is certainly not going to be any effect on gambling harm. All we are going to do is trash this sector. I can tell you that over in Queanbeyan they are over the moon about. You have to go back into history and look at what happened in the lead-up to the clubs being established here in Canberra in the 1970s. I cannot remember. Mick probably can—sorry, Mick! We all know that the buses were full of people going to Queanbeyan. Then, after a while, people in Canberra said: “We are a bit jack of this. How about we just set up some clubs here?”

   
   

   I know that Mr Rattenbury is trying to look like the middle man here. He is trying to portray himself as looking for a sensible outcome. But does anybody believe that he will continue to be the protector of the clubs on the other side of October? Everyone in this place, including Dr Paterson, believes that Mr Rattenbury is going to find himself under enormous pressure from his “wowsery” Greens party members, hundreds of them. Ms Vassarotti knows them by name! He will find himself under enormous pressure from his party members. Although he seems quite sensible and reasonable today, he will not be able to swim against that nanny state tide from his party membership.

   
   

   Whichever of the progressive parties is in charge of the gaming space after October, it is curtains for the clubs as we know them. Both governing parties talk loudly about their efforts to help our clubs diversify. They are fast-tracking it. There is a fast track to get it happening, and they are simply not doing it. Clubs are being held up in the planning process for years and years on projects and, in the process, they are losing money hand over fist. It is sending some of them to the brink. If we are currently seeing the government fast-tracking diversification, I would hate to see what a John Setka style slowdown looks like. Honestly, if the club sector were the AFL, the Victorian division of the CFMEU would be most pleased about the impediments that have been put in place, stopping them from building absolutely anything.

   
   

   I must go back to one of the first parts of my motion: the bizarre position from Dr Paterson that she is going to rip out all of the ATMs from clubs, ban all the EFT withdrawals at those venues and then make all the gaming cashless. What is that about? If you are making the gambling cashless, even though you are not sure exactly how you are going to do that, why on earth are you going to rip out the ATMs and ban EFT withdrawals? It is ludicrous.

   
   

   What is this suggestion from Dr Paterson about the ACT government helping to establish a community club in Molonglo without poker machines? What is that? Is that just a government-run bar and restaurant? What is that? We have the single best gaming model in the country, and we have the best community clubs model in the country. And once they are gone, they are gone.

   
   

   DR PATERSON (Murrumbidgee) (3.33): I reject most of what Mr Parton said just then, but I do thank him for bringing the motion to the Assembly today because it provides me with an opportunity to talk about ACT Labor’s comprehensive plan to

   
   

   
   

   transition the club sector from a dependence on gaming machine revenue and to address the significant levels of gambling harm that occur in our community.

   
   

   Once again, the Canberra Liberals come into the chamber in complete denial of the harm that is caused in our community as a result of EGMs. Any starting point for this discussion has to come with the recognition and acknowledgement of the harm that is caused by poker machines. The 2019 ACT gambling survey found that 31 per cent of people who use EGMs experience gambling harm. One person out of every three at any point in time—in a venue right now—is experiencing harm. That is approximately 20,000 Canberrans—significantly more than the 0.3 per cent who experience harm from methamphetamine.

   
   

   The data also tells us that those most likely to experience harm are male. They are predominantly aged under 45, they are born in Australia and they do not have a university degree. Additionally, those who experience harm have an annual income of less than $80,000 a year. Apparently, Mr Parton does not meet these people, does not hear their stories of child neglect, of family violence, of intergenerational debt, of suicide—the insidious by-products of the harm from poker machines. These are stories that play out in our ACT community every single day. These are the stories that Mr Parton and the Canberra Liberals either do not hear or choose not to hear.

   
   

   ACT Labor will legislate to see the club sector transition out of poker machines over the next 20 years. There are other industry sectors—for example, fossil fuel industries—that are under significant public and political pressure to transition the industry because of the harms that occur. This is exactly the point that we are at with poker machines in the ACT. The money produced by those machines is equivalent to a dirty fuel. The clubs, as long as they are relying on that revenue, are dirty producers.

   
   

   Clubs have been a central social facilitator and contributor to our community. They have fostered the gathering and social lives and sporting lives of Canberrans for over 50 years. Clubs contribute significantly to jobs in our city. Clubs have provided a sense of community and family for many in the close-knit sector in the ACT. However, there is just one fact that we all cannot escape: it is all largely built from funds that have, over many decades, come at great cost to the health and welfare of our community. A transition out of poker machines will come at a cost—a cost to government and a cost to clubs. However, the 20,000 people in the ACT who experience harm from poker machines every year might actually receive some reprieve, and the generations of Canberrans to come may never understand the pull of a poker machine.

   
   

   I will be proudly moving amendments in the detail stage of the gaming machine surrender bill, on behalf of ACT Labor, to see significant reductions in EGM numbers over the next 20 years. That is a reduction of 500 machines in each term of the Assembly. ACT Labor is committed to working with the club sector to see a sustainable, thriving sector for the long term. We are committed to transformation in this sector. We are committed to working with the club sector, recognising the challenges that are being presented to date, which I have heard. I have been in significant consultation with the clubs for the last three years. I have been meeting very regularly with the clubs to discuss this. I have heard from them the challenges they have faced in diversification. We will seek to address that next term.

   
   

   
   

   We have a raft of practical reforms that will plan for, support, and see accelerated the transition of the club sector over the next 20 years. ACT Labor’s plan includes a consolidation review, where all the current funds, schemes, subsidies and concessions will be assessed and consolidated to further support divestment. We will see opportunities for divestment through the potential declaration of priority projects to help clubs play a role in easing pressures on housing and aged care. We will focus on an innovation fund for clubs, to encourage new ideas for divestment and to review identified planning challenges to make it easier for clubs to diversify. We will work with the small clubs to ensure their success into the future—a different future.

   
   

   We also will conduct a review into the community contributions scheme, which speaks to much of the concern raised by Mr Parton’s motion. We know that when revenue from machines decreases, so will community contributions. Accounting for this is part of the transition. Labor recognises the number of jobs created by the club sector. We will work with the sector to support a sustainable workforce of local jobs and see that workers receive any necessary training for upskilling required for their evolving industry.

   
   

   However, while the sector does transition out of reliance on machines, this transition is proposed to take two decades. Therefore, a raft of significant harm minimisation measures is needed to address the harm in the meantime. ATMs and EFTPOS withdrawals at club venues will be banned under ACT Labor’s plan. These withdrawals have been identified as the most frequent red flag harm behaviour on the ACT gambling incident register.

   
   

   ACT Labor will also introduce a rigorous, mandatory account-based cashless gaming scheme. Cashless gaming allows for the implementation of a whole suite of harm minimisation measures. We are proposing a mandatory pre-commitment scheme, seeing daily, monthly and yearly limits set by individuals. Under our plan, players will receive real-time player activity statements.

   
   

   ACT Labor proposes mandatory breaks in play. The evidence is clear that people who use EGMs for more than an hour continuously are at significant increased risk of gambling harm. Delayed top-up and delayed access to winnings are all measures ACT Labor proposes to address in venues. Self-exclusion will also be revolutionised under our plan. Self-exclusion will no longer work on the basis of facial recognition; rather, an individual will be banned from setting up a digital wallet. This will mean that they will still be permitted to enter a venue; they just will not be able to gamble.

   
   

   Again, I thank Mr Parton for the opportunity to talk about ACT Labor’s plan to address gambling harm. ACT Labor is the only party to have a clear and comprehensive plan for Canberrans to vote on in October.

   The Greens are pushing ahead at all costs to see the implementation of an accountancy tool, at a cost of at least $70 million. I maintain my serious questions on the logic of this significant investment in machines that does not include cashless gaming or pre-commitment, in and of itself, if the policy intention is to see the club sector transition out of machines. A CMS does not reduce gambling harm and it does not impact on money laundering, but it will provide a third-party gambling industry provider with all of the ACT’s EGM data, at huge cost. It has been more than two months since the

   
   

   
   

   market sounding for the CMS ended. When will the minister be transparent with the clubs and the community regarding the cost to clubs and the ACT government of the implementation of a CMS?

   
   

   Again, as with so many policy areas in this place, you have to just about beg for the Canberra Liberals to ever be up-front with a policy, to ever come up with an original thought. There is nothing on the table, Mr Parton. You came here to talk about ACT Labor’s policy.

   
   

   Mr Parton: Pretty much, yes.

   
   

   DR PATERSON: Yes; love it! ACT Labor is committed to working with the club sector to transform the club sector, for a long-term but different, innovative and exciting future.

   
   

   MR RATTENBURY (Kurrajong—Attorney-General, Minister for Consumer Affairs, Minister for Gaming and Minister for Water, Energy and Emissions Reduction) (3.41): I thank Mr Parton for bringing forward his motion. I move the following amendment circulated in my name:

   
   

   Omit all words after “That this Assembly”, substitute:

   “(1) notes that:

   1. clubs are a valued part of the Canberra community that contribute in a variety of ways;

   2. harm from gambling, including from electronic gaming machines in ACT clubs, is a serious problem for individuals and communities, and needs to be addressed, and this requires changes to clubs’ financial models;

   3. the Government should enact improved gambling harm reduction measures, while working with clubs to assist their diversification and sustainability; and

   4. ACT political parties have, and are expected to, develop and announce a range of policies relating to gambling harm and clubs in the lead up to the 2024 election; and

1. calls on all political parties to support evidence-based and best practice gambling harm reduction policies that also consider the ongoing sustainability of ACT clubs.”.

   
   

   This amendment seeks to find principles we can agree on as we go forward in this rather difficult and complex environment. What we have heard from today’s discussion is a series of interchangeable terms being used, that people are possibly misunderstanding each other’s proposals—that would be my generous description of it—and that there is a lot of scope to actually land a good outcome in this space. The amendment acknowledges that we absolutely need to reduce gambling harm. I have been on the record talking about that for a long time. I have been striving to achieve it, and there is still a possibility to get this done.

   
   

   The amendment acknowledges that gambling harm from pokies, or electronic gaming machines, is a critical part of this. It also acknowledges that clubs are an important part

   
   

   
   

   of the community and that they provide a variety of benefits, as Mr Parton’s motion spells out in some detail. We need to balance these two things. We need to reduce or eliminate gambling harm, and the clubs need to transform their financial models in order to achieve this. But we also want to assist clubs to remain sustainable. This transition is not necessarily going to be pain-free for clubs, because the reality is that, with pokies, clubs are providing a harmful and addictive product to the community. They also have to provide protections on those products to ensure people are not harmed. Just as there are regulations and restrictions on other harmful products, if pokies are going to stay in the community, they are going to have some restrictions and harm-reduction measures on them.

   
   

   I know Mr Parton is a great supporter of clubs. I think the challenge for him and his party is what they will propose to help people suffering gambling harm and how they will help prevent this harm. Gambling causes significant harm to the ACT community. The harm occurs to people who suffer losses from gambling. The harm can include financial, health and relationship problems. But the harm also extends to people’s families and the wider community. For every person whose behaviour is classified on the Problem Gambling Severity Index as “problem gambling”, six other people are negatively affected. There is also an unfortunate correlation between the more vulnerable parts of the community, the lower socio-economic areas, and gambling harm. It is often the people who are already doing it tough who have those difficulties compounded by gambling harm.

   
   

   People and their families, friends and communities are suffering from gambling harm and are sometimes, as we have seen in recent times, tragically taking their own lives. Some people think that gambling harm is an inevitable part of gambling—that it is the risk they take if they indulge. That is a very Liberal and individualistic view of the world. It overlooks the insidious, manipulative and deliberately addictive nature of gaming machines. There are rooms of people who are researching, testing and putting their heads together to find the most effective way to keep people playing gaming machines; the most effective way to take people’s money; the newest devious psychological tactics designed to trap and confuse gamblers.

   
   

   The might of the gambling industry is what the everyday person is up against. Any adult can gamble at any time—when they are not feeling their best, when they are struggling with stresses and pressures in life, when they have experienced loss or trauma, or when they are depressed, sick or in a poor mental state. All the time, the machines and so-called games are unfettered and designed to manipulate them and take what they can.

   
   

   We have thousands of these addictive machines across the ACT that can trap and ruin people. More than $180 million dollars a year of net revenue is handed over by Canberrans to gaming-machine owners in our city, including, as Mr Parton noted, through the many hundreds of Labor Club machines. They have very limited restrictions on what people can bet and how long they can play, and not one thing on how much they can lose. The only help comes after the fact. At the least, we need guardrails to protect people from devastating loss. We need to protect Canberrans from loss and harm. That is what a caring and responsible government does.

   
   

   My amendment also acknowledges that there is going to be a range of gambling policy discussions in the context of the election. Because of the unusual politics that some

   
   

   
   

   have chosen to inject into this discussion, I have also made it clear that I have a significant harm-reduction proposal before government at the moment, for which I continue to seek endorsement. The “calls on” component of my amendment asks for all parties to support evidence based and best practice gambling-harm reduction policies that also consider the ongoing sustainability of ACT clubs. As a simple statement, that is something we can all agree to. The debate lies in how we get there.

   
   

   I think it would be appropriate to comment on the Labor Party policy released recently, as Mr Parton’s motion makes considerable discussion of it and both previous speakers have spoken about it in some detail. There is a lot to discuss about it—firstly, whether it is, in fact, an effective harm-reduction policy; and, secondly, as Mr Parton detailed, whether it damages clubs without even achieving the harm-reduction aim. I will not go into this in great detail, but I will note the strange circumstances in which that policy arose and how it has been received by key stakeholders. It was useful to hear a bit more detail about that. The past week has felt like we are in a weird parallel universe, where we had a major national policy announced to introduce nuclear power, with a one-page press release, and a major ACT gaming policy announcement, with little more than a page-long press release. The parallels were not lost on me.

   
   

   Clubs have obviously savaged the plan that was released, concerned about how it would impact their viability, but a large part of their critique is that they were blindsided and not consulted—that the Labor policy was put out in a hasty, non-consultative fashion. The key part of Labor gambling policy is to reduce the number of electronic gaming machines to 1,000 by 2045. One of the important things to understand about reducing the number of pokies is that, on its own, it is not going to protect people from harm. Reducing the number of pokies, even by large amounts, does not necessarily lead to a reduction in expenditure or harm. You can look at a variety of examples around the world demonstrating this or you can just think about the situation logically: if people are spending unwisely on pokies, and perhaps they have an addiction, they are still going to spend their money when, under this plan, there are 3,000, 2,000 or 1,000 pokies around the city in the coming decades. Those machines, if they are still out there, need guardrails on them to protect people from harm. Those are measures such as limits on how much people can bet and lose.

   
   

   One of the key facts to understand about this policy is that it comes as an alternative to the well-developed, costed and expert-endorsed proposal that government could also adopt quite soon. That proposal is for mandatory precommitment, loss limits and a universal player card, all underpinned by a central monitoring system. You need the central monitoring system to make the protections effective and prevent people venue-hopping, and so that clubs themselves are not responsible for implementing a series of ad hoc measures. That proposal is universally lauded by credible harm-reduction advocates as an effective way to protect people from gambling harm from poker machines. It is what the Canberra Gambling Reform Alliance is calling for; it is what the national Alliance for Gambling Reform is calling for; it is what the ANU Centre for Gambling Research endorses as the way to reduce harm; and it is what the Justice and Community Safety Directorate researched and developed as an effective proposal.

   
   

   Instead, without any consultation or costing, or indeed community support, the Labor Party popped out a policy that does not have a CMS, does not link together machines,

   
   

   
   

   does not have universal loss limits and, instead, relies on reducing machine numbers, which is something we know will not deliver harm reduction. I think it is fair to say that the proposal has not been well-received. It was not received well by the club sector. One might anticipate that, but, more surprisingly and I think more importantly, it was also not received well by gambling harm-reduction advocates and experts. The national Alliance for Gambling Reform points out there will still be thousands of machines up to 2045 and still 1,000 in 2045, so this decades-long reduction in the number of machines does not achieve the harm reduction that it suggests it might. The national alliance goes on to say that the biggest knock against the ALP blueprint is the absence of a centralised monitoring system to link together venues and allow binding and default loss limits.

   
   

   The founder of the Hope Project and co-chair of the Canberra Gambling Reform Alliance wrote in the Canberra Times about Dr Paterson’s approach to gambling-harm reform. She criticised the plan to reduce the number of poker machines to zero over decades. That was the position, but now the claim is to just reduce them to 1,000, so I am not sure what the outcome is. It is a kind of prohibitionist model but not quite a prohibitionist model, and that is something that will hopefully become clearer over the coming months. The criticism was because the high level of gambling harm in the territory would continue for decades, even as the number of machines is reduced. Ms Seselja criticised that this approach came at the expense of a central monitoring system, which she says is needed to ensure people do not venue-hop to avoid reaching limits of gambling losses. In fact, she said that Canberra’s gambling industry must be rubbing its hands together with glee over the approach. It is as though, in order to avoid the effective proposal looming before them, the Labor Party desperately dived out of the way, off the sensible path and into a bramble patch.

   
   

   That is why I have moved my amendment today. I think there is going to be an ongoing debate. There is certainly room for some good discussion on this. I think there is a pathway through. That is why my amendment notes that we obviously need harm reduction. It is something that we have been striving for for some time. We also want to find a path for our community clubs to remain viable. We all understand the social impact they have in this city and the various roles that they provide, and Mr Parton has gone to some length to point that out. My amendment calls on all political parties to support evidence based and best practice gambling-harm reduction policies but to also consider the ongoing sustainability of ACT clubs. That is the challenge for the Assembly: to come up with a plan that delivers that, and to work together to get it done. I commend my amendment to the Assembly.

   
   

   MR CAIN (Ginninderra) (3.53): I rise to speak in support of Mr Parton’s motion, and I thank him for bringing it to the Assembly’s attention. I want to clarify for the record that I will be speaking in my capacity as an MLA, a member for Ginninderra, rather than as a committee chair. The community club sector in the ACT is hugely important to the city of Canberra and the lives of Canberrans. Canberra has been long regarded as a club town, which is a point of difference from the pub-preferring cities of Melbourne and Sydney.

   
   

   As Mr Parton’s motion highlights, the community club sector employs over 1,700 staff, manages over 400 hectares of community green space and

   
   

   
   

   supports nearly 400 community sporting clubs. Hear, hear to them! In my electorate of Ginninderra we love our community clubs, from the Burns Golf Club, to Raiders Belconnen out in Holt, to the Belconnen Soccer Club to the north, in McKellar. There is also the Belconnen Bowling Club in Hawker and the Southern Cross Club in Jamison to the south.

   
   

   There also happen to be two large Labor clubs owned by ACT Labor: the Ginninderra Labor Club and the Belconnen Labor Club. Ginninderra residents love their clubs because they provide amazing hospitality, service and support for community organisations and a safe place to catch up with friends and family. These clubs build a level of social cohesion that is really important to communities, especially when times get tough.

   
   

   The ACT Labor-Greens government have made numerous commitments regarding their plans for the community club sector in the ACT. These commitments, more often than not, seem to demonise this important sector of the local economy. ACT community clubs have contributed over $300 million in gaming taxes over the last 10 years and over $150 million in community grants and contributions. These community clubs, especially the ones in my electorate of Ginninderra, are vital to the economic and social wellbeing of our community. Industry stakeholders are hugely concerned about the impact that this government’s commitments could have on the sector—including, potentially, the collapse of the club sector in the ACT.

   
   

   The gross irony is that few benefit more from community clubs than ACT Labor and the ACT Greens themselves, be it through the Canberra Labor Club group or the CFMEU-owned Tradies club group. Labor and the Greens cannot have their cake and eat it too. They are promising substantial reform that could risk the viability of smaller community clubs, all while the pokie-filled giants of Belconnen Labor Club and Tradies Dickson fill their preferred parties’ pockets. It is the height of hypocrisy that those opposite are acting holier than thou on these issues when they attend sub-branch meetings next door to party-owned poker machine rooms. This hypocritical government needs to be forthright with Canberrans and the community club sector by appropriately expanding its agenda, just as Mr Parton has called for.

   
   

   Canberra is a club town through and through, and the benefits of this status should not be underappreciated. It is very disappointing to see the amendment moved by the Leader of the Greens in this Assembly, when the motion itself calls on the government to explain to the community how it intends to assist clubs through their proposed transition, how it intends to maintain the sporting infrastructure, how it intends to maintain the hundreds of community organisations that clubs support, how it intends to replace the hundreds of millions of dollars in forgone gaming tax revenue—and what about the 1,700 staff employed in our club sector?

   
   

   I call for the members of this Assembly to support Mr Parton’s motion, reject Mr Rattenbury’s very watered down, weak amendment to this motion and give a sign of support to our very important ACT community club sector that does so much for our community. I commend Mr Parton’s motion to the Assembly.

   
   

   MR PARTON (Brindabella) (3.58): With Mr Rattenbury’s amendment, we thought about it, because he can be a reasonable fellow, and we like him. We thought about it,

   
   

   
   

   but we will not be supporting the amendment. We like Dr Paterson, too, to be honest, but we just think they are wrong.

   
   

   I appreciate that Mr Rattenbury is keen to take the heat out of this debate, but I would argue that if there is a time for heat in this debate, that time is now. Those in the clubs sector know that their backs are firmly to the wall. They know they have nothing to lose, and I would say to Mr Rattenbury that they are still a little suspicious that his tune might change after October.

   
   

   I do not understand why Mr Rattenbury wanted to remove the part of this motion which called out Dr Paterson over her link to the Canberra Labor Club. I would say to Mr Rattenbury that she has tried to run straight through you with a savage hip and shoulder. She has attempted to have you taken from the playing arena on a stretcher, unconscious. I have given you the opportunity to land a blow on her and you have just looked the other way.

   
   

   Do you reckon she is going to keep on hunting you? I think she will; I reckon she will. If Dr Paterson is as pure as she portrays in this space—if she is the Mother Teresa of gaming machines—she would be resigning as a member of ACT Labor and completing her term as an independent.

   
   

   Mr Rattenbury has not been able to fulfil much of his agenda in the gaming space, mainly because he discovered, soon after taking up the role, that what we said about the practical impediments was actually true, and the stuff that he wanted to achieve was a little more difficult than he thought. He is trying, but it is hard.

   We are not really any closer to having a central monitoring system. The minister stated in at least one interview that his expectation is that the industry will be fully funding this monstrosity. The price tag on this and the ongoing costs will likely lead to the closure of a large section of the sector. And please understand that when the clubs close, that means the loss of jobs, it means the loss of community facilities and it means that the recipients of community contributions simply will not get those contributions.

   
   

   When clubs close, it has a massive ripple effect in the community. It means that some families will not be able to afford to have their kids play organised sport. It means that so many community groups have nowhere to meet. But people will still go and play the pokies in Queanbeyan. What you are doing here will change the fabric of Canberra forever, so I am not going to sign up to this amendment, which simply calls for us to sit on the fence and trust that the Greens and Labor will do the right thing here.

   
   

   With respect to Dr Paterson’s remarks, she referred to the prevalence study. I know I have spoken publicly about this in the past, but I was called up randomly and I participated in that gambling prevalence study. I sat through a 15- to 20-minute survey from an ANU person. After doing the survey, I had an even longer chat with the researcher, who indicated to me that, based on the survey, I was indeed suffering from gambling harm. I was one of the—what was the percentage number?—33 per cent of people suffering from gambling harm when, in reality, I am just not. I did not just scrape into the harm category; I was a flashing red light: “I’m going under.”

   
   

   
   

   We walked through exactly why I was “suffering from gambling harm”, and much of it was based on the fact that, when the survey calculates gambling losses, it does not include progressive and cumulative winnings in those calculations. If I gamble with

   $200 over a three-hour period—on whatever I may choose, whether it be on the TAB on my phone account, at the races or at the club—if that money fluctuates between $50 and $500 during that time and goes up and down, I win some and I lose some, swings and roundabouts, at the end, I finish with $175.

   
   

   In my view, I would suggest that I have lost $25, but not according to this study. According to this study, I could well have lost $600, $700, $800 or $900, because cumulative losses are not balanced by cumulative wins. As a consequence of that and a number of other aspects of my gambling behaviour, I was very clearly classified as suffering from gambling harm, and I am not. I just wonder how many others there are.

   
   

   I am not suggesting for a single moment that there are not individuals—quite a number of them in this city and every other city—who are suffering from gambling harm. There is no question that that is the case. It is one of the reasons why the clubs in this town take that matter so seriously. I think they do a better job than the clubs in Queanbeyan, and I do not wish to send those people to Las Vegas on Crawford Street. I do not want to send them over there.

   
   

   I want this town to remain a town of clubs, and I want the clubs to continue to do the amazing things that they do in this town. Sure, I want them to continue to modify how they deal with gambling harm, but what has been put on the table by Dr Paterson will, without any shadow of a doubt, end the clubs industry in the ACT, and we on this side of the chamber are not interested in that.

   
   

   Question put:

   
   

   That Mr Rattenbury’s amendment be agreed to.

   
   

   The Assembly voted—

   
   

   Ayes 13		Noes 6
   Yvette Berry	Marisa Paterson	Peter Cain
   Joy Burch	Michael Pettersson	Ed Cocks
   Jo Clay	Shane Rattenbury	Elizabeth Kikkert
   Emma Davidson	Chris Steel	Nicole Lawder
   Mick Gentleman	Rachel Stephen-Smith	James Milligan
   Laura Nuttall	Rebecca Vassarotti	Mark Parton
   Suzanne Orr

   
   

   Question resolved in the affirmative. Amendment agreed to.

   Original question, as amended, resolved in the affirmative.

   
   

   
   

   ‌Papers‌

   Motion to take note of papers

   Motion (by Madam Speaker) agreed to:

   That the papers presented under standing order 211 during the presentation of papers in the routine of business today be noted.

   
   

   ‌Heritage Amendment Bill 2024

   Debate resumed from 11 April, on motion by Ms Vassarotti:

   That this bill be agreed to in principle.

   
   

   MS LAWDER (Brindabella) (4.11): I rise today to speak on the Heritage Amendment Bill 2024. As the shadow minister for heritage, it is my responsibility to look at these types of bills and ensure a balanced perspective so that they serve the best interests of our community, particularly with respect to preserving and promoting our rich heritage.

   The Heritage Amendment Bill 2024 proposes several policy, technical and editorial amendments to the Heritage Act 2004. It is not a significant bill. The amendments aim to improve the operations of the ACT Heritage Council and strengthen its membership, particularly by enhancing the representation of the Aboriginal community in heritage decision-making.

   The Heritage Act 2004 has been instrumental in identifying, assessing, conserving and promoting places and objects of natural and cultural heritage significance in the ACT. However, over the years, concerns have been raised about the efficiency and transparency of the heritage registration process. This bill aims to address these concerns, ensuring that the process is more streamlined and transparent. However, of course, it is not only about legislative changes. Just back in April, we saw a headline in the Canberra Times. The headline was: “Heritage Council chair warns of looming ‘tragedy’”. That article stated:

   “The great problem is that if we don’t get more resources, the problems that afflicted the previous council could come back again and we could be back in a muddle again in terms of how the heritage system operates,” Mr Marshall told the Canberra Times.

   
   

   Further, the article stated:

   “But legacy issues, including a back log of advice requests, still affected the heritage system,” Mr Marshall said.

   “The council still had … 700 outstanding advice requests, and more requests came in at the rate old requests were handled, meaning the total number outstanding did not drop,” he said.

   
   

   “We’re at this pivotal moment. Government can decide to either leave us where we are in terms of resourcing, or hopefully they'll make a more positive decision and provide additional resources to council, to the heritage branch …

   
   

   
   

   So, while these amendments are important, they are not the only solution. I also note that the scrutiny committee reviewed the bill and raised some concerns, particularly regarding the rejection or dismissal of nomination applications and the expansion of the Heritage Council membership.

   
   

   I would like to foreshadow that I will propose an amendment to the bill to modify section 28(3)—which I will talk about in the detail stage—to ensure it only applies to nomination applications received after the commencement of the bill. I believe the government also has an amendment to the same clauses of the Heritage Amendment Bill 2024, and I look forward to hearing more about that.

   
   

   In conclusion, while the Heritage Amendment Bill 2024 presents a positive step towards enhancing the efficiency, transparency and inclusivity of our heritage registration process, we must address the concerns raised by the scrutiny committee and adopt the necessary amendments to ensure the bill’s fairness and effectiveness.

   
   

   I would like to thank Minister Vassarotti’s office and directorate staff for the briefing they provided at the end of May. We will be generally supportive of this proposed amendment bill.

   
   

   MS ORR (Yerrabi) (4.14): Just briefly, on behalf of ACT Labor, I would like to make a few comments about the Heritage Amendment Bill 2024. As we have already heard, the bill makes a number of amendments to the Heritage Act 2004 to improve the conservation and protection of the ACT’s heritage system. It strengthens the council’s operations by making sure that members have the necessary experience and skill in this important subject matter, and it is also doubling Aboriginal representation on the council, which is an important measure to provide better and more effective consultation with all first custodians of this land.

   
   

   As we know, heritage considerations require breadth and varying lenses to be applied across a range of disciplines and expertise. Therefore, having the minister able to appoint people who are suitable from wide range of disciplines will strengthen the quality of the advice being made. There are also important changes to the registration of nominations so that we get a more timely and efficient assessment. Our community expects proper consideration of these important matters, but they also expect reasonable turnaround times, which is why I support these measures.

   
   

   Heritage is important to our community. These revisions and amendments will continue to improve the system. I know the minister has been doing a lot of work in this area over this term, and I think we will continue to see positive improvement in how we value, assess and preserve our heritage in this city.

   
   

   MS VASSAROTTI (Kurrajong—Minister for the Environment, Parks and Land Management, Minister for Heritage, Minister for Homelessness and Housing Services and Minister for Sustainable Building and Construction) (4.16), in reply: I am pleased to have presented the Heritage Amendment Bill 2024 for debate in the Assembly, following its presentation earlier in 2024. Today, I will also be presenting a government amendment to clause 9 of the bill.

   
   

   
   

   The bill represents a milestone in the government’s commitment to the reform of heritage arrangements in the ACT. The bill also delivers several areas of reform identified in the government’s recent heritage jurisdictional review. I want to assure members, however, that this is far from the end of the work that needs to be done.

   
   

   This bill makes amendments to the Heritage Act 2004, administered by the Environment, Planning and Sustainable Development Directorate. I would like to outline the key clauses in this bill and explain how they will improve the functioning of the ACT Heritage Council and the heritage branch.

   
   

   The bill makes several amendments to the act to strengthen the council’s operations by ensuring that it has members with the experience and skills needed to support a well-functioning and representative council. The council’s membership comprises three public representatives, one each from: the community; the Aboriginal community; and the property ownership, management and development sector; as well as six experts in heritage-related disciplines.

   
   

   Clause 4 of the bill amends the act to require the minister to appoint additional representatives to the Heritage Council, and clause 5 then specifies that the minister must appoint two Aboriginal representatives to the council. These clauses effectively double Aboriginal representation on the council. This additional representation will support the consideration of Aboriginal culture and history in council decision-making and provide more effective consultation with all elements of the ACT Aboriginal community. The appointment of two Aboriginal representatives will provide the council with access to wider skills, experience and gender diversity, providing increased options to consider places and objects with cultural or gender sensitivities.

   
   

   Strengthening the role of First Nations people in their role as custodians of their cultural heritage is one of the governance priorities in the statement of expectations that I provided to the then newly formed council in August 2023, and a key recommendation of the government’s heritage review.

   
   

   I will now discuss the proposed amendments to the act to expand disciplines of members of the Heritage Council. Under the act, the minister may appoint six experts in heritage-related disciplines, including archaeology, architecture, history, Aboriginal culture and history, town planning, urban design, and nature conservation. Clause 6 of the bill expands the list of disciplines that may be considered by the minister in appointing expert members to include any other discipline, skills or experience that the minister considered beneficial or necessary for the council’s functioning. These disciplines can be in addition to heritage expertise held by a member; however, only one expert can be appointed where the new discipline is the sole discipline which they represent.

   
   

   The council and heritage functions will benefit from having internal expertise that may be valuable or relevant to council operation and deliberation, such as governance, business or legal expertise. The amendment recognises that a broader range of disciplines may be required to meet the council’s needs over time. The amendments to the council’s membership complement the existing disciplines and provide flexibility

   
   

   
   

   to ensure that the council membership has the most appropriate disciplines, skills and experience to undertake work.

   
   

   The bill also has several proposed amendments to the registration of nominations to the Heritage Register that will significantly improve the operation of the act. These improvements can be expected to provide a more timely and efficient registration assessment and to contribute to the enrichment of the register content.

   
   

   The Heritage Register serves to conserve and protect the ACT’s rich natural and cultural heritage by registering our significant heritage places and objects. Before a place or object is put on the register, it must be nominated and, if the Heritage Council endorses the nomination, it is provisionally registered. The community then has the opportunity to provide comments on the provisional registration before the decision on full registration is made.

   
   

   There are 285 register entries for places on the register and 15 entries for objects. Out of these places, 68 entries are for Aboriginal places, and each entry can capture multiple elements, such as stone artefacts, quarrying sites, cultural trees or grinding grooves. There are also around 3,000 Aboriginal heritage places formally recognised and protected in the ACT, thanks to heritage listing.

   
   

   Since the new council was established in March 2023, there have been two registrations for built heritage, three decisions not to provisionally register a place, and there are currently four provisionally registered places under assessment. The recent provisional registration of the early Kingston shops is a good example of the value of registration. These shops were our first shopping precinct, developed in the 1920s to serve the early Canberra community as the new capital took shape.

   
   

   I would like to talk about incomplete nominations. The ACT government is committed to increasing the number and scope of places and objects protected in the register. The government encourages a broad range of nominations from the community, heritage groups, private home owners, Aboriginal groups, businesses and interested persons, and appreciates the time and effort taken in developing applications. In response, nominations deserve timely and fulsome consideration and feedback.

   
   

   Several clauses in the bill amend the act to strengthen and clarify the council’s management and registration of nominations and help to better address around 80 nominations that are awaiting decisions. The benefit of this provision will ultimately be in reducing delays and backlogs.

   
   

   Clause 8 of the bill enables the council to reject a nomination that does not provide the required information set out in the act. The council has discretion in the application of this clause, being cognisant that the required information may not always be available—for example, in relation to Aboriginal sites. The council will put processes in place to advise the nominator of the reason for rejection of their nomination and provide further guidance in resubmitting the nomination. I will deal with this issue a little bit later, as we talk to Ms Lawder’s amendment. But this is not retrospective and it does not deal with nominations that were made prior to the act being made.

   
   

   
   

   In terms of expanded grounds for dismissal, clause 9 of the bill expands and clarifies the grounds for dismissal of nomination applications. Clarifying the requirements for submission and expanding the grounds for dismissal of applications aims to provide increased guidance in order to give greater clarity for nominators. Clause 9 retains existing grounds for dismissal and adds new grounds that require council to consider the likelihood of registration, correctness, sufficiency and the currency of the information provided in the application and any changes to the circumstances or details provided in the nomination application. The council must dismiss an application if any of these grounds apply.

   The government amendment that I will introduce today relates to clause 9. It qualifies subsection 29(3)(c) by requiring the council to assess the significance and the impact of incorrect, insufficient or outdated information, and only dismiss the nomination where incorrect, insufficient or outdated information impacts on the heritage significance of the nomination and means that the application is unlikely to result in registration of a place or object. For example, if the nomination claimed that a place was built in 1956 but it was actually built in 1958, the council will consider whether this incorrect information is likely to affect the heritage significance. If not, the nomination could be accepted, and the date corrected in the registration.

   The government amendment will provide greater discretion for the council to decide whether to dismiss or accept the nomination considered in supporting the claims of heritage significance. It will ensure that nominations of value are not dismissed unnecessarily, and it has been developed in response to the issue raised by the chair of the council.

   Clause 9 also requires the council, as far as practicable, to advise of a decision to accept or dismiss a nomination application within 15 working days. This provides the nominator with a clear expectation of when a decision will be made. This section applies the same time limit used for other decisions of the act. Nominations can be resubmitted to the Heritage Council.

   Where a nomination is dismissed, the outcome of merit assessment will provide the nominator or interested party with the reasons for dismissal, so that they can determine whether they wish to resubmit and provides guidance on essential information required. The benefit of these amendments is to make it easier for nominators to understand the decision-making process once an application has been received and the reasons for either rejecting or accepting a nomination.

   A key feature of the bill is to address the nominations made to the Heritage Register pre 2003. Clause 10 of the bill enables the reassessment of nominated places or objects on the register that are awaiting provisional registration where circumstances or details of the application have changed. This clause will enable the resolution of approximately

   40 nominations that were made under the repeal of the Land (Planning and Environment) Act 1991 that were transitioned automatically to the register as nominated places in 2004 without any merit assessment.

   Due to their age and insufficient or outdated information, many of the original nominations lack sufficient information, such as location, name of nominator or

   
   

   
   

   changes to nomination details over the years. It is difficult and resource intensive to progress these nominations to provisional registration. Under the current act they remain in limbo. The bill corrects this legislative anomaly, allowing these historical nominations to be appropriately addressed and resolved.

   
   

   I note that the process of dealing with this issue has been a matter of interest in the community, with the community rightly concerned that there is not a blanket decision to dismiss nomination due to the age of these nominations. I can assure community members that this bill is not proposing a blanket or arbitrary dismissal of these pre-2003 nominations; rather, it allows the Heritage Council to review a nomination and apply a merit assessment process afforded to nominations under the current act to these nominations. In many cases, it will enable the nomination to proceed to consideration for registration.

   
   

   Nominations can be resubmitted to the Heritage Council. Where a nomination is dismissed, the outcome of the merit assessment will provide the nominator or interested party with the reasons for dismissal so that they can determine if they wish to resubmit and provides guidance on essential information that is required. This will reduce unnecessary effort for nominators and avoid further delays.

   
   

   This amendment will improve the operations of the council in considering registration nominations to the register. It will assist in addressing the historic backlog of registration nominations and enhance the register—both outcomes proposed by the government’s recent heritage review.

   I thank in particular the council for their advice in assisting us to get the balance right in relation to this process, to enhance rather than impede the council’s ability to make timely decisions around heritage registration of important heritage assets.

   
   

   In summary, these amendments are an important step in the reform of the ACT heritage arrangements, but they are not the end. They will improve the conservation and protection of the ACT’s heritage for all Canberrans. They will facilitate the assessment and decision-making of registration nominations in a way that is timely, administratively efficient, provides clarity for applicants and gives due consideration to the outcomes sought under the act.

   
   

   Other amendments to council membership provide the minister with increased flexibility and adaptability to ensure that the council has the most appropriate mix of disciplines, skills and experience to deliver its important work.

   
   

   Importantly, the amendments to increase the Aboriginal community representation will strengthen consideration of Aboriginal culture and history in council decision-making and provide more effective consultation with all of the elements of the ACT’s Aboriginal community. These changes are an important step and will complement the ongoing work around the establishment of a First Nations-led cultural heritage decision-making body, which requires ongoing co-design work with local traditional custodians.

   
   

   I commend the bill to the Assembly.

   
   

   
   

   Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill agreed to in principle.

   ‌Detail stage

   Clauses 1 to 7, by leave, taken together and agreed to. Clause 8.

   MS LAWDER (Brindabella) (4.32), by leave: I move amendment No 1 circulated in my name [see schedule 3 at page 1676] and table a supplementary explanatory statement to my amendment.

   
   

   I stand before you today to talk about an amendment to the Heritage Amendment Bill 2024. The amendment relates to clause 8, proposed new section 28(4), page 3, line 24, which would insert:

   
   

   (4) To remove any doubt, subsection (3) does not apply in relation to a nomination application given to the council before the commencement of the Heritage Amendment Act 2024, section 3.

   
   

   With any legislative framework, such as this amendment bill, there is always room for improvement and refinement to address emerging challenges and ensure that the legislation remains fit for purpose, meets community expectations and is the best possible bill. That is why I propose the insertion of a new section 28(4), which would allow the Heritage Council to reject nomination applications that do not comply with the formal requirements of existing section 28(2).

   
   

   I understand that the government will not be supporting this amendment today, and that the minister will move a further amendment. In some ways, the government addresses some of the same sorts of concerns, but we were wishing to make sure that nominations could not be dismissed just because they were old, for example, and that they should still be considered carefully.

   
   

   We want to make sure that we protect the integrity of our heritage nomination process and that all potential heritage sites and objects, regardless of when they were nominated, receive the consideration they deserve, and that we understand the need to balance procedural efficiency with the commitment to preserve our diverse heritage.

   
   

   I will not go on at length about the nomination, because I understand that this amendment will not be passed today, but I do wish to speak briefly about the process, which I did find a little disappointing. I must be softening a bit in my old age, and with the length of my time here, because I decided that I would definitely take a collaborative approach. I approached the minister’s office last week with our proposed amendment and said, “Here is what we think we might like to change.”

   
   

   I had a couple of meetings with the minister’s office, and they said they would get back to me on Monday. On Monday morning, I was surprised to find in my inbox the

   
   

   
   

   government’s own amendment, which I felt could have been foreshadowed to me during the meetings I had with them during the previous week. They could have said they were proposing an amendment. It is a bit like trying to do the right thing but finding it certainly is not reciprocated in any way. I did not receive a reply to my query until Monday afternoon. Of course, the amendment was supposed to have been submitted by lunchtime on Monday, so there was not a lot of joy in that response for me.

   
   

   I thought I was being collaborative in my approach regarding this amendment. The minister’s office perhaps was not. I felt I was being open and honest in our approach regarding this amendment, and perhaps the minister’s office was not. I did find that disappointing, after I had made a determined effort to try to be open and welcoming and seek feedback on the amendment, to make sure that we all have the best possible amendment bill passed today.

   
   

   Notwithstanding that, we will be pleased to support the government amendment today, which I think will make the bill better. But I would like to say that a more collaborative approach might have been appreciated in this process. We understand that the amendment that the minister will be moving will allow the council to have greater discretion to assess whether to accept or dismiss nominations.

   
   

   I will not speak again, in the interests of time, on the minister’s amendment. I did find the process disappointing, but we will be supporting the amendment because it does make the amendment bill better in the long run.

   MS VASSAROTTI (Kurrajong—Minister for the Environment, Parks and Land Management, Minister for Heritage, Minister for Homelessness and Housing Services and Minister for Sustainable Building and Construction) (4.37): I want to speak briefly to Ms Lawder’s proposed amendment and go through a little bit of information in terms of providing an explanation. While we absolutely support the intent of Ms Lawder in ensuring that there is not dismissal uniformly with respect to applications, unfortunately, the amendment as it has been put forward does not actually reach that intent.

   
   

   I want to address the potential issues with process that Ms Lawder raised. Certainly, in our office we work to promote a very collaborative approach in terms of the work that we do across the Assembly. In terms of the government amendment, it actually deals with another issue, and there was a parallel process that was going on, particularly in terms of responding to some concerns raised by the chair of the council.

   
   

   When I understood that Ms Lawder felt that there had not been a collaborative approach, I tried to provide some additional information on that, and I am happy to continue to have that conversation with her. We do aim to work really collaboratively. If the proposed amendment was something that achieved the intended outcome, we would have been really happy to support it. I note that the other amendment actually deals with another section of the act.

   
   

   As noted, section 28(3) does give the council discretion to reject applications that do not comply with requirements to make nomination applications for provisional registration in section 28(2). I understand that the purpose of the opposition amendment is to ensure that older nominations, especially those made under previous legislation,

   
   

   
   

   are not dismissed without being given a fair assessment of their potential heritage value, and we absolutely support that intention.

   
   

   However, the purpose, as stated in the explanatory statement, seems to confuse the rejection of an initial application under section 28 and administrative consideration with the dismissal of a nomination under section 29, following a merit assessment. It assumes that section 28(3) applies to older applications or those made under previous legislation. However, the new section 28(3) cannot be applied retrospectively to older or pre-existing applications made under the act, or previous legislation—for example, the repealed Land (Planning and Environment) Act 1991. For an act to apply retrospectively, a clear indication needs to be stated.

   
   

   On that basis, while we support the intention, we believe that the bill already delivers on that intention, so we will not be supporting the amendment.

   
   

   Amendment negatived. Clause 8 agreed to.

   Clause 9.

   MS VASSAROTTI (Kurrajong—Minister for the Environment, Parks and Land Management, Minister for Heritage, Minister for Homelessness and Housing Services and Minister for Sustainable Building and Construction) (4.41), by leave: I move amendment No 1 circulated in my name [see schedule 4 at page 1676] and table a supplementary explanatory statement to the amendment.

   I will provide a little bit of detail. The government amendment relates to section 29(3)(c). This subsection states that the ACT Heritage Council must dismiss a nomination application for registration on the ACT Heritage Register if the council reasonably believes the application contains incorrect, insufficient or outdated information.

   
   

   The government amendment specifies that the council must only dismiss a nomination in cases where the incorrect, insufficient or outdated information means that the application is unlikely to result in registration of a place or object.

   
   

   This amendment will provide greater discretion for the council to decide whether or not to dismiss or accept a nomination considered for supporting claims of heritage significance. It will ensure that nominations of value are not dismissed because they contain incorrect, insufficient and outdated information that does not impact the likelihood of registration.

   
   

   As noted, this has come out through consultation with the chair of the council. I commend the amendment to the Assembly.

   
   

   Amendment agreed to.

   
   

   Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.

   
   

   
   

   Remainder of bill, by leave, taken as a whole and agreed to. Title agreed to.

   Bill, as amended, agreed to.

   
   

   At 4.45 pm, the sitting was suspended until the ringing of the bells.

   
   

   The bells having been rung, Mr Deputy Speaker resumed the chair at 5 pm.

   
   

   ‌Appropriation Bill 2024-2025

   Mr Barr, pursuant to notice, presented the bill and the following supplementary papers:

   Explanatory statement to the Bill, incorporating a compatibility statement, pursuant to section 37 of the Human Rights Act 2004.

   Budget 2024-2025—Financial Management Act, pursuant to section 10—Budget Outlook.

   Budget Statements—

   A—ACT Electoral Commission | ACT Executive | ACT Integrity Commission | Auditor General | Office of the Legislative Assembly.

   B—Chief Minister, Treasury and Economic Development Directorate, together with associated agencies.

   C—ACT Health Directorate | Canberra Health Services | ACT Local Hospital Network.

   D—Justice and Community Safety Directorate | Legal Aid Commission (ACT)

   | Public Trustee and Guardian for the ACT.

   E—Environment, Planning and Sustainable Development Directorate | City Renewal Authority | Suburban Land Agency.

   F—Education Directorate.

   G—Community Services Directorate | Housing ACT.

   H—Transport Canberra and City Services Directorate | Transport Canberra Operations | Cemeteries and Crematoria Authority.

   I—Major Projects Canberra.

   Indicative Land Release Program—2024-25 to 2028-29.

   Financial Management Act, pursuant to subsection 62(1)—Statements of Intent—2024-2025—

   ACT Long Service Leave Authority.

   Building and Construction Industry Training Fund Authority.

   
   

   Title read by Clerk.

   
   

   MR BARR (Kurrajong—Chief Minister, Treasurer, Minister for Climate Action, Minister for Tourism and Minister for Trade, Investment and Economic Development) (5.00): I move:

   That this bill be agreed to in principle.

   
   

   
   

   Mr Deputy Speaker, the 2024-25 Territory Budget focuses on the community priorities of health, housing and cost of living.

   
   

   The budget is a practical plan to deliver:

   • more public health services;

   • improved housing choice, access and affordability;

   • targeted cost of living relief; and

   • build the infrastructure our city needs.

   
   

   The ACT has experienced significant economic and social challenges caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, climate change and geopolitical tensions.

   
   

   These external factors have dictated the economic environment, and we have responded as a government to protect public health, to protect local businesses and jobs and to support the most vulnerable in our community.

   
   

   Our economic strategy is working. The ACT economy has performed well. Business growth has been the strongest in the nation. The government has continued to support jobs, provide employment security, implement taxation reforms to reduce inefficient taxes and provide high-quality and targeted services.

   
   

   Economic overview and strategy

   I am pleased to report that our economy is on track for a thirty-fourth year of consecutive growth, the rate of growth will be slower this year and we know parts of our community are experiencing cost of living pressures. Some local businesses are reporting reduced turnover.

   
   

   This is why in this budget we are delivering $143 million of concessions to provide targeted cost of living support to those who need it most.

   
   

   It is also why we will be encouraging Canberrans who can, to spend some of their July 1 federal tax cuts locally, in Canberra businesses.

   
   

   Economic Growth and Employment

   Over the decade to 2022-23, the ACT has led the country in economic growth, with real gross state product growing at 3.5 per cent per annum, compared to 2.4 per cent nationally.

   
   

   The most recent data shows the ACT experienced very strong gross state product growth of 4.3 per cent in 2022-23—the highest among all states and territories.

   
   

   In fact, since the June quarter of 2015, the ACT is the only jurisdiction in the country where annual state final demand has shown continuous growth on a per capita basis.

   
   

   Since 2013 the number of businesses operating in our territory has grown from 25,000 to 35,000—an increase of 40 per cent.

   
   

   In summary, the ACT is where you want to be when the nation’s economy is booming and also when it is struggling.

   
   

   
   

   Nonetheless, like every jurisdiction, we face economic challenges, particularly in the short-term, with a softening of the national economic outlook as business and consumer confidence is impacted by persistent inflation and the Reserve Bank of Australia’s monetary policy settings.

   
   

   However, our strong labour market, strong public demand, wages growth and population growth will continue to underpin our territory’s economic activity, albeit at a slower pace for the next few years.

   
   

   While household consumption growth is lower, households remain supported by employment growth that exceeds population growth as well as an increase in real incomes.

   
   

   We are optimistic that future household consumption increases will be spent locally in Canberra businesses.

   
   

   Wage Price and Consumer Price Index

   Inflation in Canberra grew by 3.3 per cent through the year to the March quarter 2024, well below its peak of 7.1 per cent in December 2022.

   
   

   Nonetheless, the rising costs of living continue to impact many households, families and individuals in our community which is why in this budget we have delivered a carefully calibrated package of cost-of-living support.

   I am pleased to advise the Assembly that real wage growth is expected to continue over the coming years as inflation moderates. This will further support household consumption.

   
   

   This is the benefit of investing to support our labour market, driving up real wages, and supporting improved living standards.

   
   

   Fiscal Strategy

   Despite rising costs of service delivery and infrastructure, as well as downgrades to some revenue estimates, the territory’s financial position remains strong.

   
   

   Our plan allows us to chart a sensible and sustainable pathway for a balanced budget, one that will not expose Canberrans to the hardships of cuts to public investment and consumption for purely ideological reasons.

   
   

   The budget’s headline net operating balance position is forecast to improve each year and will return to balance over the forward estimates, while the operating cash balance also continues to improve.

   
   

   The government’s fiscal strategy is calm and it is measured.

   
   

   We will continue to seek balance in public finances as the community and the economy recovers from the impacts of COVID-19 and persistent inflation.

   
   

   We will seek to stabilise, then reduce debt, over the medium term through a combination of operating cash surpluses, land sales, and fully funding our superannuation liability.

   
   

   
   

   We will do this while investing in the services and infrastructure that improves our city’s wellbeing and supports economic growth and jobs.

   As we continue to deliver our nation-leading tax reform program, the ACT will also remain a relatively low-taxing jurisdiction with our own-source tax revenue as a share of gross state product—the equal third lowest of all Australian states and territories—at 5.1 per cent.

   Investing in the wellbeing of Canberrans

   Our wellbeing framework, now in its fifth year, assists the government in making investment decisions that contribute most strongly to the quality of life for people across Canberra.

   More Health Services

   The government knows that effective health services have a significant impact on wellbeing outcomes across the territory.

   That is why we are continuing to invest in our public health system to ensure Canberrans can access the right care, at the right place and at the right time.

   The budget builds on the substantial investment in our health system, with $920 million of new healthcare initiatives funded over the next four years.

   This includes the next phase of minimum nurse and midwife-to-patient ratios, the expansion of paediatric care, ongoing support for digital health services, permanently funding the second PACER team, doubling the size of the Acute Medical Unit and increasing emergency and elective surgeries.

   The government is increasing resources across our health system so that our doctors, nurses, midwives and allied health care workers can deliver the high quality free public health care Canberrans need.

   Soon we will open the Critical Services Building at Canberra Hospital which will support the delivery of our growing health services.

   The government is also delivering community-based health centres across the territory, to alleviate the pressures on hospital emergency departments and to provide local communities more direct access to health services.

   The first of these new health centres opened in Molonglo in 2022. Construction is expected to commence in the second half of this year on a new health centre in Tuggeranong, and in this budget we are investing in the construction of two new health centres, one in North Gungahlin and one in the Inner South and commencing the design work for the West Belconnen centre.

   These health centres, along with our nurse led walk-in centres and hospitals, ensure all Canberrans can access free public healthcare close to home.

   Increasing Housing Access, Choice and Affordability

   Housing affordability is a national issue requiring a collaborative policy response. This government will continue to work with the commonwealth to deliver our commitments under the National Housing Accord.

   
   

   
   

   Considerable investment has already been made to increase housing supply, access to housing and housing choice in Canberra. However, there is more to be done and increased housing construction and improved affordability continue to be a priority.

   
   

   The budget includes more than $285 million in funding for housing initiatives, including;

   • $118 million to boost social housing assistance and homelessness services;

   • $80 million to strengthen housing choice and quality;

   • $67 million to support private renters and help more people buy their own home by reducing stamp duty; and

   • an extra $20 million investment in the Affordable Housing Project Fund that is already supporting 280 new and well-located affordable rental homes across six projects.

   
   

   These investments, combined with our program of land release and the right regulatory settings through our planning system, will help ensure we have the right mix of housing options to suit a range of household incomes and meet the housing needs of our growing city.

   
   

   The government is continuing to support new housing by making more land available including for community and affordable housing.

   This budget also continues to support the Growing and Renewing Public Housing program, with an ambitious but achievable total capital works program for Housing ACT, of over half a billion dollars over the next four years.

   We have maintained housing supply growth at a higher rate than population growth over the past decade and at a significantly faster rate than the national average.

   
   

   This increase in supply, combined with initiatives included in this budget supporting stamp duty relief for owner occupiers—particularly first home buyers—will continue to target both housing affordability and rental affordability.

   
   

   Targeted cost of living relief

   Canberra has lower levels of income inequality than other Australian cities. However, there are Canberrans who do not share equally in our high living standards.

   
   

   Low income and low-wealth households are particularly vulnerable to higher prices for non-discretionary items such as food, fuel and energy.

   
   

   The budget includes a range of measures to assist with cost of living challenges.

   
   

   To help with energy costs, we have complemented the $300 per household provided by the commonwealth government in two key ways. Firstly by returning $61.3 million of surplus revenue from the Large-scale Feed-in Tariff scheme to households.

   
   

   This has reduced overall growth in regulated electricity prices by around five percentage points—meaning Canberrans will see another real reduction in their energy bills this financial year.

   
   

   
   

   Secondly, by providing an electricity, gas and water rebate of $800 to almost 44,000 eligible households in 2024-25; a little over one in five Canberran households in 2024-25.

   
   

   Households can save even more on their energy bills by engaging with their retailer on different plans and they can choose between competing retailers to get a lower price for their energy. I acknowledge the work that has been undertaken in this term, in regulatory reform, to make it an easier process for consumers to find cheaper energy.

   
   

   Additionally, in this budget the government is providing a one-off payment of $250 to apprentices and trainees, who tend to earn just above the threshold to qualify for various commonwealth financial assistance but clearly are still lower income earners relative to others in Canberra, and often these apprentices and trainees have a lower level of assets or savings to draw upon.

   
   

   In this budget we are also providing funding support for emergency material, financial aid programs and food relief services and we are increasing assistance through the Taxi Subsidy Scheme.

   The government has also increased the Future of Education Equity Fund in 2024 for families with financial hardship to ensure all young children in Canberra can equally access and engage in their education.

   Stronger Foundations—lifelong learning

   The budget also includes increased investment in the education portfolio, laying a strong foundation for lifelong opportunities and ensuring all children are supported to thrive in their early years by breaking down barriers to accessing early childhood education and care.

   The government knows that investing in education provides life-long benefits, and that is why the budget includes new initiatives worth over $100 million to support education and skills.

   The government is delivering on the key commitment under the Set up for Success strategy—the provision of free, quality early childhood education and care.

   The second phase of this commitment is being delivered in 2024 through the provision of 300 hours per year of free, quality early childhood education for all three-year-olds.

   In this budget we are also providing funding to deliver consistent teaching practices, common assessments, resources and support for parents and professional learning for teachers, school leaders and learning assistants across all ACT public schools.

   We are also reducing workflow pressures for teachers and addressing recommendations from the Teacher Shortage Taskforce.

   Community Safety and Inclusion

   Throughout the ACT and Australia, incidents of domestic violence continue to increase. National Cabinet met in May of this year to discuss the national crisis of gender-based violence.

   
   

   
   

   It is the government’s view that critical frontline services must be well-equipped to respond, and the budget includes new initiatives worth $12 million to address domestic, family and sexual violence including coercive control.

   This new funding, in addition to existing commitments, brings the total government investment in addressing domestic, family, and sexual violence to $95 million over the next four years.

   In the coming financial year the government will spend more than $650 million on community support and social inclusion, including funding to implement the First Action Plan of the ACT Disability Strategy to drive positive change and capacity building across the ACT.

   The government remains committed to growing the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Community Controlled sector to deliver services and programs, guided by the community’s knowledge, history, lived experience and connection to country.

   Climate Action

   Through this budget the government is investing in an all-electric, zero emissions future for Canberra with the release of a new Integrated Energy Plan. A plan that contains a range of government commitments to support Canberrans through the transition to cheaper and cleaner energy.

   Swapping from gas to electric appliances over time and investing in energy efficiency will deliver significant savings to Canberrans.

   I am delighted that nearly 20,000 households have already taken up loans under our Sustainable Household Scheme and to date they have saved an estimated $43 million on their energy bills.

   The government is committed to ensuring all Canberrans benefit from the transition to a low emissions future. That is why in this budget we have committed to electrify all feasible community and public housing by the end of 2030.

   Infrastructure

   The government has an ambitious infrastructure program: delivering $8 billion of infrastructure investment over the five years to 2028-29.

   Our capital investment priorities continue to be health, education, public transport, public housing, climate action and urban renewal.

   In this term of government we have progressively updated the territory’s long-term Infrastructure Plan—adopting a staged approach to planning and delivering our city’s infrastructure needs to achieve optimal timing and funding of investment. This is particularly important in the context of national industry and market capacity constraints and price volatility.

   We are planning for a significant uplift in health care infrastructure including a new northside hospital to replace aged facilities at the North Canberra Hospital site in Bruce and the further rollout of health centres across our city.

   
   

   
   

   More than $2 billion of our infrastructure investment program will be invested in public transport, roads and active travel.

   
   

   Integrated transport and land use planning ensures easy access to services and facilities for our community as well as economic opportunities.

   
   

   By prioritising investment in public transport and active travel, and expanding the use of zero-emissions vehicles, transport policy will contribute materially to meeting the government’s objective of achieving net zero greenhouse emissions by 2045.

   
   

   Investing in entertainment, the arts and sports continues to be an important element of the government’s wellbeing strategy.

   
   

   Targeted new investments in this budget will continue to improve Canberra’s liveability and status as a destination of choice for work, study and recreation.

   
   

   This includes partnering with the commonwealth government and other stakeholders to progress development of landmark city-shaping projects such as Light Rail Stage 2A, a new Canberra Convention and Entertainment Centre Precinct, the redevelopment of EPIC and the Bruce Sports, Health and Education Precinct.

   
   

   Conclusion

   The government remains optimistic about the economic outlook ahead and the fiscal policy settings that we have put in place in this budget Settings that:

   • deliver high quality public health and education outcomes;

   • provide cost-of-living support;

   • deliver more housing; and

   • continue to deliver infrastructure for our city’s future.

   
   

   This budget reflects our priorities and aspirations for our growing community—that Canberra is the best place in the country to live, to work, to invest, to study and to call home.

   
   

   Mr Deputy Speaker, before I conclude, as this is the last of five budgets in this term of the Assembly, I would like to take the opportunity to thank the hardworking staff in ACT Treasury. They are consummate professionals, wonderful to work with, and on behalf of the government, I thank them for their advice, their support, and their diligence in the preparation of this budget, and indeed, in all that they do. I commend the budget and the appropriation bills to the Assembly.

   
   

   Debate (on motion by Ms Lee) adjourned to the next sitting.

   
   

   ‌Appropriation (Office of the Legislative Assembly) Bill 2024-2025

   Mr Barr, pursuant to notice, presented the bill, its explanatory statement, and a Human Rights Act compatibility statement.

   
   

   Title read by Clerk.

   
   

   
   

   MR BARR (Kurrajong—Chief Minister, Treasurer, Minister for Climate Action, Minister for Tourism and Minister for Trade, Investment and Economic Development) (5.24): I move:

   That this bill be agreed to in principle.

   
   

   Mr Deputy Speaker, I am pleased to be able to table the Appropriation (Office of the Legislative Assembly) Bill 2024-2025. I am sure members are aware this bill is the mechanism for the appropriation of moneys for the officers of the Legislative Assembly. It is important we do not skip over that. The bill provides for total appropriations of $4.220 million for the Auditor-General, $13.494 million for the Electoral Commissioner, $8.051 million for the Integrity Commissioner and for the benefit of non-executive members in this place, $23.213 million for the Office of the Legislative Assembly. I commend these appropriations to the Assembly. I present:

   
   

   Budget 2024-2025—Financial Management Act, pursuant to sections 20AA and 20AC—Appropriation (Office of the Legislative Assembly) Bill 2024-2025—Departures from Recommended Appropriations—Statement of Reasons, undated.

   
   

   Debate (on motion by Ms Lee) adjourned to the next sitting.

   
   

   ‌Statements by members

   ‌Community groups—Fofo’anga Fai Kava

   MRS KIKKERT (Ginninderra) (5.26): I want to give a big shout-out to the incredible Fofo’anga Fai Kava men’s group that meets regularly. This Tongan group is more than just a gathering; it is a community pillar. They come together to sing beautiful Tongan songs, preserving and celebrating their rich cultural heritage. But the impact goes far beyond music and drinking kava. These men are dedicated to supporting and guiding our youth, providing mentorship and offering a safe space for young people to grow and thrive. Their commitment to nurturing the next generation is fantastic.

   
   

   To the Fofo’anga Fai Kava men’s group, thank you for your dedication, your vibrant songs and your invaluable support to our community. You embody the spirit of unity and tradition, as I saw last weekend, and I am very grateful for the positive difference you are currently making in our youth and also our community. Mālō ‘aupito ofo atu and keep up your amazing work.

   
   

   ‌Architecture—Australian Institute of Architects ACT Chapter Awards

   MR STEEL (Murrumbidgee—Minister for Planning, Minister for Skills and Training, Minister for Transport and Special Minister of State) (5.27): On Saturday night, I had the privilege of attending the Institute of Architects Act Chapter Awards with Minister Vassarotti. It was a real honour to hand out the Sir Roy Grounds Award for Enduring Architecture this year. The winner of that was the Torrens Neighbourhood Centre, which was designed by Dirk Bolt. As we seek to re-enliven our shopping hubs, this shopping centre stands out as one that has been really successful over recent years, and in the past as well. As it is in the Canberra suburb I grew up in, it is particularly close to my heart.

   
   

   
   

   The mid-century modernist design is both unique in Canberra for its curves and high-pitched roof and, originally, perfectly fitted the brief for an aspirational vision of the local centre in Canberra, in what we might now call a 15-minute city model which provides access to a whole range of services for the community within walking distance of home. It is home to rock climbers and stair climbers, and it has been the canvas for famous political graffiti over the years. Most recently, the shops have featured a new Italian cafe and deli, with Canberra’s best fresh pasta. This shopping centre has seen countless restaurants, retailers, architecture firms and other businesses over the years. It has been home to an adaptive re-use project, incorporating an early childhood service, Torrens Early Learning, with respect to the original architecture.

   
   

   ‌Radford College—cricket centre

   MR CAIN (Ginninderra) (5.29): I rise to speak about the recent opening of the new state-of-the-art cricket facility in my electorate of Ginninderra. The Boorer Family Cricket Centre opened last Friday at Radford College in Bruce to much fanfare, and I was honoured to attend, along with Radford College interim principal Andy Gordon; Radford College chair, Vicki Williams; Cricket ACT chair, Greg Boorer; and Australian cricket and football superstar, Ellyse Perry. This world-class facility was the result of an incredibly generous $4 million donation by Mr Boorer and his family and a decade of planning and hard work by the Radford College and Cricket ACT communities. Mr Boorer is also founder and CEO of a wonderful local ACT business, Canberra Data Centres, and I acknowledge his continuing contribution to the ACT as a whole.

   The new centre puts Canberra on the map and up there with Lord’s itself in terms of quality indoor cricket facilities! As reported in the Canberra Times on the day, the Boorer Family Cricket Centre is of such a high standard that the Indian cricket team could use it as a base when they visit Canberra later this year for the Prime Minister’s XI match. It is a win for local cricketers, a win for students and a win for Ginninderra. Congratulations to all involved.

   Discussion concluded.

   
   

   ‌Absence of Speaker

   The Clerk, pursuant to standing order 6, informed the Assembly that the Speaker would be absent in the morning of Wednesday 26 June 2024 and that in that period the Deputy Speaker, Mr Parton as Acting Speaker, would perform the duties of the Speaker.

   
   

   ‌Adjournment

   Motion (by Mr Gentleman) proposed:

   That the Assembly do now adjourn.

   
   

   ‌Hawker—Hawker Community Repair Cafe

   MRS KIKKERT (Ginninderra) (5.31): It is a pleasure to speak about a truly remarkable community initiative that has been making a significant impact in my

   
   

   
   

   electorate of Ginninderra: the Hawker Community Repair Cafe. This is not just about fixing broken items. It is about bringing people together and fostering a spirit of unity and sustainability, as I saw the other day. All of this is possible thanks to the tireless efforts of Jon, President of the Hawker Men’s Shed, his team of repair cafe volunteer repairers and all the visitors.

   
   

   I have heard from visitors how much the Hawker Community Repair Cafe is a beacon of hope and resourcefulness in our community. Many of them would easily have just thrown out an old broken item, but instead they bring it to the repair cafe, have it fixed, and then they can buy some goodies from the market stalls or the sausage sizzle.

   
   

   The repair experts volunteer their time and skills to bring new life to broken items with willingness and much cheerfulness. This not only saves people money but also reduces waste, making a positive impact on our environment. It allows us to go somewhere and have a good time, as a live band and market stalls operate, with fun, unique goodies, when they have their fete.

   
   

   Through attending a couple of these repair cafe festivities, I know that it is more than just repairs. It is a gathering place where neighbours become friends, and skills are shared between people and across generations as knowledge is passed on. I have also heard stories being exchanged. Each session is filled with laughter, learning and the satisfaction of a job well done. It reminded me of the power of community and the incredible things we can achieve when we are working together.

   
   

   I would like to acknowledge the hard work and dedication of Jon and all the volunteers who make this event possible. Thank you. Let us continue to support and participate in this wonderful initiative, for a stronger and more connected community.

   
   

   ‌Woden—sports and recreation facilities

   MS DAVIDSON (Murrumbidgee—Minister for Community Services, Seniors and Veterans, Minister for Corrections and Justice Health, Minister for Mental Health and Minister for Population Health) (5.33): I am once again asking for a moment of your time to talk about the need for community sports facilities in Woden. Our public swimming pool in Phillip is older than I am. It has been well loved, but we know that at some point it will need to be replaced with modern construction, designed to meet the needs of our community for decades into the future.

   
   

   Woden also used to have access to indoor multi-use sports courts at the Southern Cross Club courts and the CIT gym, but both of those facilities have since reached end of life and been demolished. That means that clubs for badminton, gymnastics, fencing, roller-skating, basketball and many other sports and recreation activities have had to find other places to go.

   There have been many reports done over the years into community sports facility needs in Woden. One of those reports said:

   Woden is seen as lacking activation and gathering space with a need for a multi-use facility incorporating indoor sport.

   
   

   
   

   The Greens would still like to see future facilities planned, with detailed prioritisation of needs. We would like to see government engage with an appropriately supported community sports peak that can help us understand community needs well into the future, not just a repeat of what was planned for Woden in the 1970s and 1980s. A smart man once said, “In my experience, there is no such thing as luck.” If we want great community sports facilities in Woden, we cannot rely on luck. We have to plan for it.

   
   

   ‌Multicultural communities—World Refugee Week

   MR CAIN (Ginninderra) (5.35): As members would be aware, we had World Refugee Day on 20 June. There were a series of events leading up to and on the day, and just afterwards, that I was privileged to attend. I would like to speak about four of those.

   
   

   In the week before World Refugee Week I attended a screening of a very sobering film called Facing the dragon, which highlighted the journey of Dr Nilofar Ibrahimi, an Afghan parliamentarian in the pre-Taliban parliament, to reform and improve the rights of women and children in that nation. Also included in this documentary biopic was the story of Shakila. I do not have her last name. She was a journalist promoting truth-telling and the rights of women in Afghanistan.

   
   

   It was sobering to see snippets of their lives, with a young family in each case, under a pre-Taliban government in Afghanistan. They were threatened with serious harm to them and their children to such a degree that they felt they needed to leave their home, for the sake of their family. As many would know, Dr Nilofar Ibrahimi has settled in Canberra with her husband and children. The journalist Shakila has settled in Germany with her children.

   I was also delighted to attend the Migrant and Refugee Settlement Services event at Albert Hall on 19 June. It was a fantastic celebration and demonstration of a Canberra that embraces diversity and provides the support needed to our recently arrived refugee and displaced persons community. A number of performances took place that evening, including a fashion parade, Colombian music, Chinese and Vietnamese vocal performances, an Iranian instrumental performance and a Peruvian dance group. I was honoured to give a short speech. I acknowledge the attendance of Mr Braddock, as well, from this Assembly. I thank Mrs Sonia Di Mezza, the MARSS interim CEO, for the event and for her ongoing advocacy and profound community benefit to the ACT through the work of MARSS.

   
   

   On World Refugee Day itself I attended the World Refugee Day and Creative Encounter launch at the University of Canberra. This was organised by the Faculty of Arts and Design, Student Equity and Participation, and Companion House. An afternoon tea marked World Refugee Day by asking the question, “What does home mean to you?”

   
   

   The Creative Encounter mural project, launched with students and constructed by Khadim Ali, was particularly impressive. It was delightful to hear the stories of students in our school system from Ukraine, Afghanistan and other places. They had to leave, with their families, because of risks to their own safety. They have found a home in Canberra and have very important stories to tell. I give particular thanks to Mijica Lus for her hospitality and encouragement in helping to organise this important event.

   
   

   
   

   I attended the Eid al-Adha celebration held by the Afghan Peace Foundation and MARSS at Albert Hall last Friday. That was a wonderful gathering of displaced persons and refugees from our Afghan community, to encourage them to participate in cultural presentations. Unfortunately, I could not stay for the whole evening of that one, but it was a delight to again join the Afghan Peace Foundation and support their very mobile work.

   
   

   Finally, and not insignificantly, I should mention the SiTara Story Gala on Saturday,

   22 June at the Abbey in Nicholls. It was a wonderful evening of fundraising, philanthropy and celebration to support the empowerment of our culturally and linguistically diverse families in Canberra, and underprivileged children and families in Bangladesh.

   
   

   I want to thank all of those involved in supporting our refugee community in Canberra during and prior to World Refugee Week. I thank them all for organising such important events and for including me in those important events.

   
   

   ‌Child care—Australian National University early education facilities

   MS STEPHEN-SMITH (Kurrajong—Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs, Minister for Children, Youth and Family Services, Minister for Disability and Minister for Health) (5.39): I want to speak briefly in relation to the conversation that has been happening in my community about the early childhood education and care centres at the ANU campus. As members would be aware, there are four early childhood education and care centres at the ANU campus that have been a bit blindsided by an announcement from the ANU recently. The centres are: the University Preschool and Child Care Centre, which was founded by ANU staff in 1969; the Heritage Early Childhood Centre, which was established as a parent-run childcare service before becoming staffed by professional educators in 1989; the Acton Early Childhood Centre, which has been operating for more than 35 years; and Cubby House on Campus, which opened in 2016 after transitioning from a family daycare arrangement to centre based care.

   
   

   The licences for all four centres are currently due to expire on 31 January 2025. On 12 June, the ANU advised the directors of these centres that the university would not be renewing their licences, citing a difficulty in maintaining the heritage buildings that the centres are based in. The ANU told the centres and current families that the decision was “due to the age of these buildings and the ongoing work required to remediate hail damage and ensure the buildings meet our high standards”.

   
   

   I think we can all agree that we want to see high standards in the infrastructure to support early childhood education and care, but we also want to ensure that we continue to see high standards in the provision of care. We know that parent-run centres often provide outstanding care at a more affordable price while paying their staff above-award wages, and that seems to be exactly the case with these four centres.

   
   

   It quickly became clear that these community-run early childhood education and care centres could close as a result of this decision, with staff potentially losing their jobs if the providers were unable to find another premises for 2024. The ANU said that two purpose-built centres would be built on the campus and will open from early 2025 and

   
   

   
   

   that they would have enough places to meet current demand. The university initially said that there would be an open and fair procurement process starting in July 2024 and that the four providers would be invited to be part of that process. After lobbying from parents, including an online petition which quickly grew to more than 2,000 signatures, the ANU has now said it will work with the four existing providers exclusively first to seek proposals on how they would operate the two new centres, and I am pleased that that conversation is underway.

   
   

   I was pleased to see the university’s chief operating officer had written to the centre directors to arrange a meeting for today, 25 June, to begin discussions, with a view to completing those discussions by 19 July. I understand that he also wrote to centre families to advise of this change in approach. As Mr Price has apparently said, “The value many ANU families place on the four community centres has become crystal clear.”

   
   

   I note that my fellow Kurrajong candidate, Martin Greenwood, was one of the parents who spoke about the benefit that his own child had received from the wonderful care and learning at Heritage ECC.

   
   

   The university says it will go ahead with an open procurement process if it is not able to come to an agreement with the existing centre operators. It has sought to assure families with children at one of the centres that they will be prioritised for places in the new centres and that these will meet existing demand. However, the future of the staff at the four centres remains in question if they cannot come to agreement. The United Workers Union has written to the chief operating officer calling for the community providers to not be replaced with a commercial operator and for the ANU to ensure that any future service provider offers employment to the existing employees on their current wages and conditions. Of course, the four centres, as I mentioned, currently pay staff above the award rate and they also work together with regard to professional development. It is very unfortunate that, as Lyndal Ryan from the United Workers Union has said, “The educators feel disrespected by the way in which this decision has been communicated to them by the ANU.”

   
   

   As someone who started their early childhood education at the Neighbourhood Children’s Centre at the ANU, later to become the O’Connor Cooperative School, I feel an affinity with these parents, students and staff at the ANU. I will continue to monitor this situation very closely and will communicate directly with the ANU if need be.

   
   

   Question resolved in the affirmative.

   
   

   ‌The Assembly adjourned at 5.45 pm.

   
   

   
   

   ‌Schedules of amendments

   ‌Schedule 1

   
   

   ‌Housing and Consumer Affairs Legislation Amendment Bill 2024

   Amendments moved by the Attorney-General

   1

   Clause 2 (1)

   Page 2, line 6—

   omit

   section 5 and part 8

   substitute

   section 5 and parts 2, 8 and 8A

   2

   Clause 2 (3), except notes

   Page 2, line 11—

   omit clause 2 (3), except notes, substitute

2. Part 2 commences, or is taken to have commenced, on 1 July 2024.

3. Parts 8 and 8A commence on a day fixed by the Minister by written notice.

   3

   Proposed new clause 71A Page 44, line 21—

   insert

   71A New section 64AE

in part 5, before section 64A, insert

64AE Meaning of rental rate increase—pt 5

In this part:

rental rate increase, for premises, means either of the following:

1. an increase in the rental rate for the premises under a residential tenancy agreement (including an existing consecutive tenancy agreement);

2. an increase in the rental rate for the premises that will take effect under a proposed consecutive tenancy agreement.

4

Clause 72

Page 44, line 22—

omit clause 72, substitute

substitute

64A Pre-amendment fixed term agreements—increase in rent

1. This section applies only in relation to a fixed term agreement entered into before the commencement of the Housing and Consumer Affairs Legislation Amendment Act 2024, section 75.

   
   

   
   

2. The rental rate under the agreement must not be increased during the fixed term unless the amount of the increase, or a method for working it out, is set out in the agreement.

5

Clause 73, proposed new section 64AAA (1) Page 45, line 4—

omit

may increase the rental rate under a residential tenancy agreement only if

substitute

must not increase the rental rate under a residential tenancy agreement unless

6

Clause 73, proposed new section 64AAA (2) Page 45, line 10—

omit

may increase the rental rate only if

substitute

must not increase the rental rate unless

7

Clause 75

Page 46, line 4—

omit clause 75, substitute

omit everything before paragraph (b), substitute

1. A rental rate increase for premises must not be more than the amount prescribed by regulation unless—

   1. for a fixed term agreement to which section 64A applies—the agreement allows the lessor to increase the rental rate by the higher amount; or

      8

      Proposed new clauses 75A and 75B Page 46, line 7—

      

      75A

      Guideline for orders Section 68 (2)

      insert

      substitute

2. The ACAT must allow a rental rate increase if—

   1. for a fixed term agreement to which section 64A applies—the increase is allowed under the agreement and is not excessive; or

   2. in any other case—the increase is not excessive.

omit

increase in the rental rate

substitute

rental rate increase