projects and programs across the public service, and that matters should be referred for investigation where warranted or where there is evidence to suggest they need to be. The amendment goes on to note, of course, that several matters have been referred, and it goes into some of the details on that.

The Chief Minister particularly spoke, in point 3, about the government’s introduction of legislation to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the Integrity Commission Act—that is a fact—and that it is committed to the review of the Financial Management Act and Public Sector Management Act, as I touched on earlier, and we note the call for the government to further promote the vigilance within the public service and ensure that the government’s arrangements are fit for purpose, updated and effective.

I think this Assembly, making this statement today, sends that signal to our public service, and I think it is for the ministers now to continue to amplify that message into the public service so that lessons are learnt from these experiences, that there is a clear sense that people do not want things swept under the carpet—that we need to deal with these matters and that we need to deal with them in a timely manner. On that basis, the Greens will be supporting the Chief Minister’s amendment today.

MS CASTLEY (Yerrabi) (4.15): I have a few remarks to make in support of Ms Lee’s motion. There are a few things that get the electorate revved up, and one of them is certainly when we talk about money that has been wasted or spent in an area that appears to the public to be wasteful. I have a couple that I would like to raise. We have all talked here a lot this week about the DHR blowout.

I raised the expense in the beginning, when the DHR was being discussed a couple of years ago. Now we find that our fears have been realised, because we are talking about more than $160 million. It was expected to be $378 million, including maintenance, then we heard of the $213 million. Then we heard that there was an extra $80 million. The minister talks about audit after audit telling us about the same things—things that we knew were going on with this digital health record because we were seeing it through those FOIs.

Canberrans heard about the $110 million and that many invoices in one month were being signed off, and then heard the minister say, "I was verbally briefed." Then today she said, "No, I was actually briefed." Canberrans heard that there were no contingency plans in the budget. The government went and forced through with the big-bang approach. We are talking about these invoices and that in this one-month period of June they were for $7.9 million. That is a lot of money.

We also read that in relation to the financial management, the government and the Health Directorate are "taking the findings of the audit and reviews very seriously", and "are committed to improving governance systems and processes, including progressing the work of the DSD Business Improvement Program"!

As I said yesterday, these are disgraceful admissions. Even the Chief Minister just said, "We are doing the best we can; we are fixing processes," or whatever the words were. Do our officials have the help that they need to manage this level of money?—because I can tell you that in my electorate people are cranky. They are cranky about all of the waste, because it could mean that we could have afforded to have the lights at Yerrabi

Pond go all the way around the lake. Maybe we could have afforded more lighting at Kaleen, which one of my very passionate constituents has written to one of the ministers about multiple times.

I am not going to go on about NTT—I think we have covered a lot—and the DHR is disgraceful. I hear from medical people as well as non-medical people their concern that the cost has gone on for that. Another one that is a biggie for people, out of this building, is the rebrand. Do you remember the discussions about the rebrand? This cost

$1.6 million. I have some statistics here, or some information, about what the rebrand was supposed to do. It was supposed to address systemic culture issues within the Canberra Hospital. When you have staff shortages and poor culture, you fix the conditions. You address those staff issues; you do not do a rebrand. If you need to attract staff, you become an employer of choice; you do not do a rebrand. The government’s rationale was just so off the radar on this one. I have here a quote from the previous ANMF President, Matthew Daniel. He said that the concern with regard to this rebrand is that it is not actually going to fix anything. He said:

I just do not understand what they’re trying to achieve. … It’s a lot of money to spend on spin … when we have to fight tooth and nail to get safe staffing levels and they can throw $800,000 around for spin.

According to the communications experts, they needed a new corporate identity, a tone of voice that articulates how CHS expresses itself, a brand book, an employee proposition. Then they talked about needing signs, which is basically a communications package, but yet they rebranded. Imagine my surprise when I turned up to Charnwood shops one day and saw the exact rebrand was for the Charnwood laundromat. It was just tilted on the side. There was no need to spend $1.6 million on this. That $1.6 million could have paid for 60 hip replacements or 400 cataract operations and 600 MRIs.

Ms Lee: Puts it in context, doesn’t it?

MS CASTLEY: It does put it in context; that is correct. We have talked about culture a lot. What this has meant is that we have seen our hardworking frontline staff leave the employment of Canberra Health Services in droves, which means they have had to spend a lot of money on agency staff—costs going up all over the place.

We could then talk about Calvary. We still do not know the cost to the ACT government for forcibly acquiring Calvary Hospital.

Mr Cocks: How long?

MS CASTLEY: That is right; it has been a while, Mr Cocks. I am wondering whether there has there been a survey to see if it is running any better and if the cost to the ACT has actually been worth it.

Ms Stephen-Smith: Yes, staff survey and accreditation. You should be aware of that, but no.

MS CASTLEY: I am aware. Have you done a specific Calvary survey? Let’s talk about the surge centre. This is something else that raises people’s hackles. It gets them cranky. It was a $14 million building that was meant to help with a surge in COVID cases, in

case the healthcare system could not handle it. The ACT government spokesperson said that, in the nearly three years of operation, the Garran Surge Centre provided its worth, conducting more than 240,000 PCR tests, countless free rapid antigen tests, more than 158,000 COVID-19 vaccinations and handling about 2,500 presentations to the COVID walk-in centre. This is very good. But what we also then found out was that the Garran Surge Centre was going to cost $8 million to pull down.

There is a quote in the Canberra Times that said that, by the end, when they were pulling it down, two years later, we found out, through a report, that the surge centre was not fit for purpose as a surge centre. So, although it handled all of these things—PCR tests et cetera and all of that was excellent—we were told that it was built to handle a surge. That is what we all bought. We believed the government when they told us, "We are going to handle it." Then we found out that it was not fit for purpose. If only they had spent just another $60,000 to $75,000, that would have brought it up to scratch to enable that building to be the surge centre that we thought. Of course I am talking about more money here, but we are only talking $60,000 to $75,000 to ensure that that building was able to be used and fit for purpose.

We get told things and they go in another direction, and all we get are lessons learnt, and I think that is a despicable response—lessons learnt, when we are talking about hundreds of millions of dollars. I am glad you have learnt those lessons. It is an expected response, I suppose. But Canberrans are sick of it. They are sick of this government mismanaging their money, and that is really all I have to say about that.

MR BRADDOCK (Yerrabi) (4.23): I have spoken multiple times in this chamber about what changes I think are required within the ACT government and in particular the ACT public service. This motion gives me an opportunity to further expand on this. Please do not get me wrong: I fully support the measures, as mentioned in the Chief Minister’s amendments, that the government has brought forward over this term. These have included reform to the Procurement Act, improving governance arrangements for ICT projects and some immediate changes to the Integrity Commission Act. But, ultimately, more is required.

In terms of the HRIMS and MyDHR, we have repeatedly seen that governance arrangements were found to be not fit for the purpose they were intended for. I have repeatedly called for more accountability of senior ACT public servants, who are responsible for setting, reviewing and monitoring the governance arrangements and systems to ensure that they are fit for purpose. Therefore, I have formed the view that the ACT public service must reform to build a public service which is best able to respond to the needs of our diverse community and to deliver for the multi-party government that we have here, to improve accountability and transparency by supporting a more open culture where it is safe to challenge the way things are done. This will also have a positive spillover in supporting a high-performance culture. I look forward to announcing during the campaign the Greens initiatives to reform the ACTPS to achieve this.

With respect to the CIT, as the Integrity Commissioner found, due to the serious corrupt conduct of a former CIT CEO, that waste is on the head of that former CEO. In terms of paying for the CEO during the Integrity Commission process, I note that the estimates committee recommended, and I quote:

The committee recommends that the ACT Government develop a protocol for public servants who are subject to Integrity Commission inquiries so as to ensure the protection of the public good, not prejudice any proceedings, and fair and due process.

This recommendation was made following evidence from the Integrity Commission that such a protocol was a necessary and beneficial step, helping the ACTPS navigate future instances where public servants are referred to the Integrity Commission. It may also enable employment agencies to take necessary employment action at an appropriate time. I was disappointed to see the government response to this particular recommendation was as noted, stating it was existing government policy. I view this as a missed opportunity, as such a protocol could help prevent a repeat occurrence in the future.

Ms Lee has called on the ACT government to apologise and take responsibility for having no respect for ACT taxpayers’ money. However, it is not a viable solution. It does not provide any substance as to what reforms and changes are required or how they would be implemented—a significant lack of contribution, particularly for an opposition presenting itself as an alternative government. Do not get me wrong: the ACT government must do better. There are real challenges that must be addressed, and the electorate expect parties to provide concrete plans to do that during the election.

MR CAIN (Ginninderra) (4.26): I rise today to speak in support of my colleague and the Canberra Liberals leader Ms Elizabeth Lee’s motion on the notice paper that pertains to government waste. Oh, what a wasteful government this Labor-Greens mob has become. The way these ministers waste money is absolutely unbelievable. As Ms Lee has pointed out, in any other government in this country, many of these ministers would have been sacked and taken out of their cabinet. Labor and Greens lack economic responsibility but, even worse, they lack integrity and transparency.

The figures of waste contained in Ms Lee’s motion have been revealed not because of this government but despite it. And who knows what else lies beneath that we are not yet aware of. Despite their best efforts to conceal and obscure the truth, Canberrans have discovered hundreds of millions of lost public moneys. I can tell you that when—not if, but when—the Canberra Liberals get into government, it will be a truly enlightening experience to discover how deep this rot goes.

The analogy of an iceberg has often been cited in describing the Labor-Greens government wastage of taxpayer money. In two consecutive Auditor-General reports, we have gained insight into how this government records and documents its expenditure for the duration of a program. The Auditor-General’s report into the $80 million-plus wasted on the abandoned HRIMS program found:

Actual expenditure on the HRIMS Program does not include all costs associated with the time and effort of directorates and their input into the HRIMS Program.

This resulted in:

… no reliable mechanism for the High Rents program or the directorates to account for the costs.

So says the Auditor-General, which means that almost certainly significantly more has been wasted than the figure that we believe. We will never know how much HRIMS has cost us until we get behind the scenes and see what really went on with such a program and many other government wasted programs. Now we have HRIMS 2.0 underway. How much will this replacement project end up costing Canberrans? If the same minister is in charge—one can speculate—how much will need to be wasted before he says, "Oh, we have to stop this one as well?" How much more will be wasted before he says, "Oh, I didn’t quite learn enough the last time, so we had better stop now, because I need to go back to school and learn a bit more about how to deal with public money"?

Another recent example includes the Public Trustee and Guardian for the ACT and their use of a customer relationship management system and its ICT renewal activities. The Public Trustee and Guardian ICT renewal activities cost taxpayers $1.46 million between 2017 to 2023 with no discernible outcome. Where is the action against the responsible minister? As the Auditor-General said in his report on this issue:

At no point in time did the PTG make a reasonable estimate of actual costs associated with the CRM, nor has the PTG sought to retrospectively estimate costs.

That is a failure of governance, and the buck stops with the minister. It is not good enough; it is completely and utterly wasteful. The culture of waste within this government is driven by incapable ministers who do not take responsibility. Labor are terrible economic managers and the Greens are almost detached from reality on these things. At the end of the day, it is Canberrans who pay the price.

The Treasurer often stands up in this place and projects his own insecurities of his poor economic management onto the Canberra Liberals. The Treasurer is so insecure about his own awful economic credentials that he has only one defence available to him: to blame the Canberra Liberals and for what they might do if they were in government. He does not take responsibility himself. How often have we heard the Treasurer parrot his question of what will we cut to rebalance the budget. Mr Deputy Speaker, I can tell you what we will not do, and that is waste hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayer money. That is what we will not do. That is a saving just waiting to be made.

Mr Barr cannot wrap his mind around the fact that governments do not need to spend at least $80 million before they realise that a project is not going to succeed. He cannot wrap his mind around the fact that governments do not need to spend $8.5 million on a systems and complexity thinker. He cannot wrap his mind around the fact that governments do not need to spend more than a procurement process says they should because of their links with the CFMEU.

Mr Barr does not get responsible spending, because he is not a responsible treasurer. He does not get good economic management, and we have seen this through a succession of Barr’s bogus budgets handed down by this Treasurer and under this government. Same old Labor and their proven wasteful Treasurer; same old Labor and their impractical Special Minister of State, who should be called the "Minister for Failures", because there is a succession of such failures; same old Labor and their progressively wasteful economic management.

Canberrans deserve a fresh opportunity for a government that is not so explicitly wasteful of their money. The Canberra Liberals will put Canberrans at the centre of our government and we will be careful with their money. We will be careful with their money that they give in trust through the tax system and other means to provide quality services. We will not waste their money. We will make our city safer to ensure that every Canberran feels safe in the community, in their home. We will deliver a strong and ambitious plan for people-focused public transport. We will put Canberrans first and fix the problems in our suburbs.

The Labor-Greens government cannot be trusted with good government spending, and they should not be trusted for another term of government. The Canberra Liberals, under Elizabeth Lee, are the only party that can be trusted to rein in government waste and oversee responsible economic management. A fresh opportunity awaits for the voters of this city, and it is my hope and in fact my belief that they will take up that fresh opportunity for a Canberra Liberal government that will look after their interests and very, very importantly, make sure their money is wisely and well spent.

MS LEE (Kurrajong—Leader of the Opposition) (4.34): I thank my colleagues Ms Castley and Mr Cain for their contributions. They have done the heavy lifting in relation to identifying the various projects and government waste streams in their portfolios, which, of course, we have brought to light time and again. It is because of the growing list of failures, it is because of the growing debt, and it is because of the sheer waste, either through incompetence or otherwise of this Labor-Greens government, that I have brought this motion today.

There is no doubt that we hear and see a lot of anger in the community, especially during this cost-of-living crisis, when many Canberrans are having to pull in their belts even tighter, and they see headlines about $78 million being wasted on an abandoned HR system, $110 million being wasted on a contract in Health because they did not even know what services they were paying for by way of invoices, or $8½ million paid to a systems and complexity thinker, whose only qualification that I could make out was that he once climbed Mount Everest. So there you go!

Mr Barr, in his contribution, talked about how the ministers have all provided clear explanations of the work underway by this government in an attempt to fix some of these catastrophic failures. Again, having listened very carefully to Mr Barr’s contribution, it is without doubt clear as to where this rotten culture, where no-one takes responsibility for anything, has stemmed from and been fostered. You cannot expect your ministers to take responsibility if you do not. From the contribution by Mr Barr to the debate today, it was utterly clear, because not once did he acknowledge or take any responsibility; he tried to explain it away by saying, "Yes, we’ve done some explanations and there’ve been some learnings."

In question time today, when I specifically asked Mr Barr about the ministerial code of conduct, which, of course, says that ministers will take responsibility, in the tradition of the Westminster principles, Mr Barr said, "To that extent, yes." The question then becomes: what does it take for Mr Barr to say, "Actually, it is now time, Minister, for you to take responsibility"? How many more millions of taxpayer dollars does Mr Steel need to lose before Mr Barr will say, "Enough is enough, and no more learnings"?

Do we actually have a standard? Do we have a bar here? The fact is that there does not seem to be one, and many Canberrans are now starting to see that very clearly.

The Greens always love to talk a big game when it comes to integrity, accountability and transparency. In his contribution to this debate, Mr Rattenbury said that the Greens take seriously the waste of taxpayer dollars. He spoke at length about how there needs to be a culture of confidence to act early, and that it is about responsible governance. All of the buzzwords were there, but actions speak louder than words. Let us not forget that every member of the ACT Greens in this chamber voted in lockstep with ACT Labor on every attempt that the Canberra Liberals made to put an end to the farcical and outrageous situation of the former CEO of CIT remaining on full pay for two years.

It is very typical; it is less than two months until the election, and we have seen this before. A few months before an election, the Greens suddenly forget that they have been in government, despite the fact that they have spruiked, all term, #GreensInGovernment. Again, it is basically about saying "No, we’re the Greens here; we’ll take the credit when we want to, but when it comes to the blame game, it’s not us, because we’re the Greens." Somehow they manage, with a straight face, to talk about how it is not their responsibility.

The fact is that you cannot trust Labor and the Greens. You cannot trust Labor and the Greens with taxpayers’ money and you cannot trust Labor and the Greens when it comes to making decisions in the best interests of the community.

Only yesterday, Mr Barr talked a big game on ABC Radio about consequences for public servants who do not comply with the Financial Management Act. Of course, Mr Barr cannot take any action on this, because he has literally zero credibility in this space. We are talking about a Treasurer that has delivered literally zero surpluses in the 13 budgets that he has handed down. Of course, now we are looking down the barrel of total borrowings of $19.4 billion over the forward estimates, which comes with an interest payment bill of $855 million a year—that is more than $2 million a day just on interest. That is despite the fact that the Financial Management Act specifically states that territory budgets must be prepared taking into account the principles of responsible fiscal management, which, of course, include ensuring that total liabilities are at prudent levels.

In question time today, when I asked what the consequences were for public servants who breached the Financial Management Act, he specifically said that their employment would be terminated. Why on earth would or should any ACT public servant believe or accept that as the consequence for them when Mr Barr and his ministers have breached the Financial Management Act time and again, and when Mr Barr has stood by and indeed promoted ministers who have lost millions of taxpayer dollars? This is a government that has completely and utterly lost its way.

I will take you to the final paragraph of the amendment, Mr Deputy Speaker, which contains the "calls on". It states:

… calls on the Government to further promote vigilance within the public service and ensure governance arrangements are fit for purpose, updated and effective.

That must be the concrete action that Mr Braddock is so excited to vote for. It is a pattern that we see; Mr Braddock will rely on any pathetic excuse, anything, other than to vote for a motion brought by the Canberra Liberals, because he knows that out in the electorate this is a massive concern within the community. He knows that there are Canberrans out there who are struggling, and they are reading headlines about millions of their taxpayer dollars being thrown down the toilet by this government, and he is now desperate to distance himself from it.

It is abundantly clear that the only party that will respect and make sure that we are responsible when it comes to Canberrans and their hard-earned taxpayer dollars is the Canberra Liberals. We will not be supporting Mr Barr’s amendment.

Question put:

That the amendment be agreed to.

The Assembly voted—

Ayes 16		Noes 9
Andrew Barr	Suzanne Orr	Peter Cain
Yvette Berry	Marisa Paterson	Leanne Castley
Andrew Braddock	Michael Pettersson	Ed Cocks
Joy Burch	Shane Rattenbury	Jeremy Hanson
Tara Cheyne	Chris Steel	Elizabeth Kikkert
Jo Clay	Rachel Stephen-Smith	Nicole Lawder
Emma Davidson	Rebecca Vassarotti	Elizabeth Lee
Mick Gentleman		James Milligan
Laura Nuttall		Mark Parton

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 Mr Deputy Speaker) agreed to:

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

‌Human Rights (Healthy Environment) Amendment Bill 2023

Debate resumed.

MS CLAY (Ginninderra) (4.48): I am pleased to say that, when this bill passes—and it looks like it will today—every Canberran will have the right to a healthy environment.

This is a good day: clean air, clean water, a safe climate. Our environment is everything. It literally gives us the air we breathe, the water we drink and the food we eat. It is where we live, play, connect and unwind. It is not just about our survival; it is about our home, our beauty and our peace.

Some things are so basic that we do not actually notice them until they are gone. I think we have all had moments in life when this happens. It happens sometimes emotionally, it happens sometimes physically and it happens sometimes when we get sick. In 2019-20, the Black Summer fires were a time when our planet and our city got sick, and we all suddenly noticed that we could not breathe. We could not get around. There were hailstones. We could not walk without fear of hail. We could not put our kids to bed and know that they would be breathing and not have asthma during the night. It was a really frightening time. Most of us have had quite a few moments like that in recent years, and we understand now why a healthy environment matters so much.

The right to a healthy environment on this basis is not simply one more right that we need to recognise. It is actually the foundation for all of our rights. We cannot have healthy lives unless our environment is healthy. None of our rights mean anything at all if we do not have this. Our First Nations peoples understand this. They have been caring for country from time immemorial. They have a huge body of knowledge and a deep understanding of this place, and the rest of us need to catch up.

We are in a climate emergency. This has a huge impact on people, and I know my colleague Minister Davidson is about to set out some of the impacts that this has. Recently, the Mental Health Community Coalition ACT told us in a parliamentary committee hearing that heatwaves are contributing to one in 50 Australian deaths. One in 50 Australian deaths are associated with heatwaves. Heatwaves are associated with heart issues, asthma, psychoses, depression, schizophrenia and obsessive-compulsive disorder. That is just one impact from one aspect of an unhealthy environment.

We are also living through an extinction crisis. Urban development is putting pressure on our wild places. Waste and pollution are outstripping our ability to recycle and recover it. We are using more resources than our planet creates. We are blessed with a very deeply creative planet, but we are going too fast. Every day, we make choices about what we need and what we should protect, and we need to recognise that a healthy environment is not simply one more choice; it is the basis for every good choice.

Quite apart from our own human needs, the environment itself is precious. The plants, the animals and the habitat all exist; they have beauty and worth in their own right. I take huge comfort from the fact that, after I am gone, the earth will still be here. I want to preserve it for me and for my daughter, and for hers after that, but I also want it to continue despite people, regardless of people—just for itself.

The right to a healthy environment is a well-established right. Most United Nations members have already recognised the right to a healthy environment. It is a right that has been discussed and recognised in various forms for around 50 years. In October 2021 the United Nations Human Rights Council passed a resolution recognising the human right to a healthy environment. The United Nations said that protecting our environment underpinned all other human rights for current and future generations.

Here in the ACT we take human rights seriously. We have a Human Rights Act. We were the first in Australia to have one and others have now followed our lead. We are a human rights jurisdiction; but, until today, we have not yet recognised a human right to a healthy environment.

A lot of people have been calling for this right. Formal calls have come from the Australian Lawyers for Human Rights, GreenLaw, the Environmental Defenders Office, the Conservation Council, the Commissioner for Sustainability and the Environment, the Australian Land Conservation Alliance, the Human Rights Law Centre, the ACT Human Rights Commission, ACTCOSS, Doctors for the Environment, and Advocacy for Inclusion. Many more have called for this right, as have many members of our community.

The Greens have been campaigning for this right for over a decade. We campaigned for the right to a healthy environment ahead of the 2020 election. We included it in our deal with Labor and, in February 2022, I called on the ACT Legislative Assembly to pick up on these calls and to entrench the right to a healthy environment in our Human Rights Act. I was really pleased when the Assembly backed those calls.

The government has run consultation and done research, and that has resulted in today’s legislation and amendments. It is important that this right is enforceable and that it applies to everyone equally. I am really pleased that, after a transition, this human right will be enforceable and universal, like the rest of our human rights. I welcome today’s recognition of the right to a healthy environment.

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) (4.54): I speak in support of this bill today as the Minister for Population Health, with responsibility for climate change impacts on health and mental health.

Climate change and global warming permeate every facet of our lives, including our health and wellbeing. Within the last five years, we have lived the health impacts of climate change, affecting everything from the air that we breathe and the level of stress in our lives, to the food that we eat.

For months, at the end of 2019, spilling into 2020, Canberra lived in heavy smoke, under threat from bushfires. This was in the middle of almost a year of drought. The Black Summer of 2019-20 brought a smokepocalypse to Canberra that resulted in 31 deaths, 82 cardiovascular hospitalisations, 147 respiratory hospital admissions and 89 emergency department attendances for asthma. That is quite a lot for a city of 420,000 people. This is from a study that was published in the Medical Journal of Australia in March 2020.

It is not just smoke and fires that have health impacts. The ACT Climate Change Strategy 2019-25 tells us that more people die in Australia from heatwaves than from all other natural disasters combined. As documented by the Victorian Legislative Council Standing Committee on Finance and Public Administration, a report from the Department of Health on the January 2009 heatwave in Victoria stated that, in the week

before the 2009 Black Saturday bushfires in Victoria, a heatwave resulted in a 62 per cent increase in deaths, around 230 people, while another 180 people died as a direct result of the bushfires.

We also know that pre-term births are almost twice as likely in a heatwave. This comes from the 2015 CSIRO publication Climate change adaptation for health and social services. The 2008 Garnaut Climate Change Review projected an increase in days over 35 degrees in Canberra, from an average of five days per year in 2008 to eight days in 2030, 21 days in 2070 and 32 days in 2100. The 2014 report of the New South Wales and ACT Regional Climate Modelling Project titled Australian Capital Territory: climate change snapshot projected that Canberra would experience up to five additional days per year above 35 degrees by 2030 and up to an additional 20 days per year by 2070.

Climate change health impacts are here but they are not evenly distributed. People over 65 years of age and children under five years of age are at greater risk from the health impacts of a heat wave. Social determinants of health and wellbeing are important to consider in our health response to climate change. Where those older people or small children are living in a low-income household in an urban heat island, those impacts will be felt more intensely. We know that areas with the greatest concentration of households experiencing both urban heat island effects and low socioeconomic circumstances are in West Belconnen, Gungahlin, Molonglo Valley and Tuggeranong.

Climate change also impacts our ability to access locally grown food. Canberra is located within the Murray-Darling Basin, which is where 40 per cent of Australia’s agricultural produce comes from. Scientists predict that, with climate change, the basin is likely to experience more instances of drought and more variability in weather. This means not only unpredictability in Australian grown food supply but also unpredictability in the future cost of produce to Canberrans. This will of course be yet another cost-of-living issue that impacts people’s social and emotional wellbeing and will make it harder for people to eat well for their health.

The impact on mental health during weather and climate extremes is of significant concern. As documented in the CSIRO publication Climate change adaptation for health and social services, studies have found that violence against women increases after natural disasters. Domestic violence and sexual assault rates also increase during even a short heat wave.

We have seen an undeniable rise in worries about climate change in ACT young people in recent years. Young people are experiencing a layering up of existential crises, with climate anxiety on top of the cost-of-living crisis. Older people also talk about their experience of climate grief—that the world they are leaving to the next generation is not the same world that they loved when they were young, and that they have a sense of loss and sadness that others will not get to have the same experience that they did.

By establishing the right to a healthy environment, we reinforce the importance of climate action and protecting biodiversity in relation to our physical and mental health. We have been thinking about these issues for the whole of this term of government as part of the Wellbeing Indicators Framework that guides ACT government

decision-making, but it is helpful to have this right to a healthy environment explicitly spelled out in this way, with a roadmap to how we can enforce that right. This is why I, along with the rest of the Greens, support this bill.

MS CHEYNE (Ginninderra—Minister for the Arts, Culture and the Creative Economy, Minister for City Services, Minister for Government Services and Regulatory Reform and Minister for Human Rights) (4.59), in reply: I am pleased to close the debate. There is a growing body of national, regional and international law that recognises the close relationship between human rights and the environment. Climate change, environmental pollution and biodiversity loss are serious challenges that our community will face, and with these challenges come significant impacts on human rights, including the right to life and the right to equality, as well as the sheer wellbeing of our community.

The climate crisis is already impacting the rights of many people, particularly cohorts who face multiple and intersecting forms of discrimination or disadvantage. This bill provides us with an opportunity to address this inequality and this impact. This is a bill which demonstrates the commitment of the ACT government to ensure our environment is protected for present and future Canberrans and that humans in the ACT can enjoy the right to a healthy environment.

The right to a healthy environment contains both substantive and procedural elements. The substantive elements that comprise the right to a healthy environment include clean air, a safe climate, access to safe water and adequate sanitation, healthy and sustainably produced food, non-toxic environments in which to live, work, study and play, and healthy biodiversity and ecosystems. The procedural elements that comprise the right include access to information on environmental risks and harms, participation in environmental decision-making, requiring the prior assessment of possible environmental impacts of proposed projects and policies, including their potential effects on human rights, and access to justice.

The history to this landmark legislation is that the Parliamentary and Governing Agreement of this term included a confirmation and a commitment that this government would consider introducing the right to a healthy environment into the Human Rights Act. That work, including the plan for a discussion paper and consultation began in 2021. At the completion of the consultation and in recognition of the feedback and support it had received, I recommended and our government agreed that we would introduce this right, going further than what was required of us in the PAGA. In introducing this new right, the ACT is joining other governments internationally which have recognised this right in their laws and are contributing to the evolution of this right. The interpretation of the scope and content of the right will be informed by international human rights caselaw and commentary from the UN treaty bodies.

The specific obligation for public authorities to act consistently with human rights and properly consider relevant rights in decision-making, in section 40B of the Human Rights Act, will apply immediately to the new right on commencement. The right will affect government decision-making in the exercise of public authority functions, ensuring that environmental and climate impacts are properly considered in the development of legislation, policy and decision-making. This will lead to institutional

and systemic understanding of the right and environmental considerations across government, strengthening the ACT’s human rights culture and the consideration of human rights at every level of government.

Due to the work that will be required by a wide variety of public authorities and directorates to plan and develop guidance, operational and instructional material, and to deliver training to those who will need to apply the new right when exercising their functions, the commencement will be up to six months after the bill has been notified. While public authorities will have obligations to comply with the new right to a healthy environment, to allow time for the right to be fully implemented and institutionalised in decision-making, policies and legislation, the direct right of action to the ACT Supreme Court for a breach of public authority obligations and the ability to raise public authority breaches as part of other litigation will not initially apply to this right under the bill. Following stakeholder feedback and further discussions in the committee inquiry, today I will move amendments to add a sunset clause so that this initial restriction on litigation will expire on 1 October 2028.

The amendments will also change the time frame for the statutory review, which must commence no later than 1 October 2027 and be tabled as soon as practicable after it is completed. That review will specifically consider the categorisation of the right as an economic, social and cultural right under the Human Rights Act, which was an issue raised in submissions to the inquiry. The review will also examine whether the limitation on the ability of individuals to litigate the right in the ACT Supreme Court remains appropriate. This will allow time for these issues to be considered and for risks to be identified before the restriction on litigation expires with the sunset clause. It is important to note that, unless the Assembly amends the Human Rights Act, the right to a healthy environment will be justiciable after 1 October 2028.

To support the success of the right to a healthy environment in other jurisdictions in Australia, it must have an enviable start to it first. The review period ensures that this reform can have its ambition supported with practicality. It ensures that the new right is implemented smoothly and with the support of the public servants who will be responsible for upholding it.

I thank all who have assisted with our deliberations about this, especially the engagement with Minister Vassarotti and her office as we worked through an agreed way forward.

I was absolutely baffled to hear Mr Cain conflate how we have approached the element of direct Supreme Court action by suggesting that the legislation itself is not going to be implemented properly or for years—

Mr Cain: Why deny the review right?

MS CHEYNE: or suggesting that it is half-hearted.

Mr Cain: Exactly.

MS CHEYNE: He is interjecting right now, Mr Deputy Speaker Mr Parton. I note that his claims earlier today and his claims across the chamber right now are inaccurate,

irresponsible and mendacious. It has become a theme whenever Mr Cain speaks, but I have to set the record straight, and here we are again.

Importantly, all other enforcement mechanisms in the Human Rights Act will apply to this new right immediately upon commencement. This includes the ability for individuals to bring complaints about breaches of the right by public authorities to the Human Rights Commission for conciliation, using the human rights complaints mechanism established through legislation passed recently and already in effect and operational. This will provide an accessible mechanism for concerns about breaches of the right to a healthy environment by public authorities to be raised and resolved.

The right will also be protected and enforced through obligations on public authorities, courts and decision-makers to interpret laws to be consistent with human rights, to give proper consideration to relevant human rights and decision-making, and to act consistently with human rights. There is the requirement for the Attorney-General to certify the compatibility of new government bills, the consideration of the right in scrutiny by the Legislative Assembly’s scrutiny of bills committee, which Mr Cain chairs, and the ability of the Supreme Court to issue a declaration of incompatibility where a law cannot be interpreted to be compatible with the right to a healthy environment.

As with other rights in the Human Rights Act, the right to a healthy environment is not absolute. It may be subject only to the reasonable limits in law that can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. One individual’s rights may also need to be weighed against another individual’s rights, and this is important to keep front of mind. Once the bill passes, the government will work with key stakeholders and experts impacted by the bill, including Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and community organisations and individuals to inform implementation and realisation of the right.

This is an important moment for the protection of environmental rights in Australia. I thank all members of our community and the stakeholders who contributed to the design and development of this reform for the insight that they have provided to inform this bill. In particular, I would like to thank the ACT Human Rights Commission and the inimitable Karen Toohey; the Environmental Defenders Office; GreenLaw and Annika Reynolds; the Human Rights Law Centre; Australian Lawyers for Human Rights; the Conservation Council ACT Region; the Australian Land Conservation Alliance; the Office for the Commissioner for Sustainability and the Environment; ACTCOSS; Doctors for the Environment Australia; and Advocacy for Inclusion.

Since the introduction of the Human Rights Act in 2004, successive territory governments have continued to strengthen human rights protections in the ACT community and systematically integrate human rights protections into the way that government works. The addition of the right to a healthy environment is an essential next step in responding to the global environmental crises we are facing and ensure that we preserve and protect the natural environment and ecosystems that we are so fortunate to enjoy. I commend the bill to the Assembly.

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

‌Detail stage

Clauses 1 to 6, by leave, taken together and agreed to. Clause 7.

MR CAIN (Ginninderra) (5.10): For the reasons I stated earlier in my speech today, I oppose this clause.

MS CHEYNE (Ginninderra—Minister for the Arts, Culture and the Creative Economy, Minister for City Services, Minister for Government Services and Regulatory Reform and Minister for Human Rights) (5.10): We want this right to make immediate and meaningful change. Once this bill passes, public authorities will be required to comply with the right to a healthy environment. But we also need to ensure that agencies are properly prepared to fulfil their obligations. The litigation bar is an important aspect of the bill and has been included in recognition that this new right is broad, complex, multifaceted and evolving.

The ACT is the first Australian jurisdiction to provide statutory protection for the right to a healthy environment, subject to this bill passing today. In developing this bill we listened to the community, we listened to the public service and we ensured that the right was broadly defined so that it can evolve in line with international human rights law. But agencies will require time to fully assess the scope and impact of the right on their policies and practices and to implement the right before being subject to litigation. The amendment that I will move for clause 7A will introduce a sunset clause for this litigation bar. This represents a balanced approach that provides clarity and certainty about timing. It will also enable the statutory review to be conducted to assess the impact of the removal of the litigation bar before it sunsets.

Earlier today, Mr Cain said that I could not answer why we are doing this. I have answered it repeatedly and I have just done so again. I want to draw the chamber’s attention to some pretty reprehensible remarks that Mr Cain made during the estimates hearings. He said—

Mr Cain: Point of order, Madam Speaker. "Reprehensible" is a slight on my character, and I ask the minister to withdraw it.

MADAM SPEAKER: Given the events of today, I am just going to be a tad cautious. You were referring to remarks made by Mr Cain during estimates. Would you choose another word for me, Ms Cheyne?

MS CHEYNE: Yes, Madam Speaker: "unfortunate".

Mr Cain: Point of order, Madam Speaker. Would the minister then withdraw the word?

MADAM SPEAKER: Would you withdraw and then use the substitute word?

MS CHEYNE: Yes, Madam Speaker, I withdraw.

Mr Cain: Thank you.

MS CHEYNE: Mr Cain made some unfortunate remarks, and they speak for themselves. But, of course, it is open to him—given I am quoting from the Hansard, if he needs to review it. I quote:

Noting that the government is not reluctant to pioneer new areas, Minister, is it your view that it is the incompetency of the justice system or of your own department regarding having full appeal rights on this human right?

Mr Cain: I meant "the minister", really.

MADAM SPEAKER: That is not what the Hansard seems to be saying, but let’s not go back to Hansard just at the moment.

MS CHEYNE: Just for the record, Mr Cain just said, "Actually, I meant the minister." For someone to be so glass-jawed about his own reflections on the justice system—

Mr Hanson: Madam Speaker, on a point of order of relevance: as fascinating as unpicking who said what and when during estimates and who meant something else, is this entirely relevant to this debate, Madam Speaker?

MADAM SPEAKER: I think the debate is just as relevant, but I ask people to be cautious in how they are describing one another, so we are not unparliamentary.

MS CHEYNE: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I would say that that sort of commentary—and it is commentary particularly related to this clause, Madam Speaker; so it is relevant. Thanks for paying attention, Mr Hanson. That sort of commentary is among the most—

Ms Lawder: Point of order, Madam Speaker. Is that kind of comment necessary—"Thanks for paying attention"?

MADAM SPEAKER: Members, can we all just—

Ms Lawder: Can we just get on with the debate?

MADAM SPEAKER: My sentiments exactly.

Mr Hanson: Madam Speaker, under standing order 42, the minister’s comments are required to be addressed through you. She did not do that; she addressed them to me. We are either following the rules or we are not.

MADAM SPEAKER: Well, if you want to go on that line, there will be not another utterance from those on my left.

Mr Hanson: Happy with that.

MADAM SPEAKER: Just that. So you are warned.

MS CHEYNE: Thank you, Madam Speaker. That sort of commentary about this clause is some of the most benighted I have heard in my time here. I think it is unbecoming, and it does show how unfit he is to be a shadow Attorney-General, let alone wanting to be the real thing. As I have noted—

Ms Lawder: Point of order, Madam Speaker. They are personal reflections upon the member here. Is this absolutely necessary to a debate?

MADAM SPEAKER: I think she is referring to the comments that are in the Hansard

that he made that were—

Ms Lawder: Saying he is not fit to be a shadow minister—how is this her determination to make? She is making a personal reflection upon the character and the abilities of a member of this side of the chamber.

MADAM SPEAKER: I am not going to rule it out of order. But, again, I will go to people. We have another four days—let alone finishing today—and emotions will be high and people will be anxious about the things to come and will want to get things on record and debates be made, but can we do it with a respectful manner across the chamber?

Mr Cain: Point of order, Madam Speaker. Despite your urgings—and I think we are appreciative of those and sensitive to them—as to the quality and relevance of this debate, the minister continues, despite your warnings and urgings, to continue in the same vein. Surely that should prompt some action.

MADAM SPEAKER: Mr Cain, please—and you continue to interject, sometimes with not flattering commentary.

MS CHEYNE: As I have noted, litigation is not the only way for this right to be enforced. Individuals will be able to make complaints about breaches of the right to the Human Rights Commission; the courts will be able to consider the right in interpreting laws; and the Supreme Court will be able to make a declaration of incompatibility if it considers a law cannot be interpreted compatibly with the right. The right will also inform the Attorney-General’s assessment of compatibility of all new government laws. These are important enforcement mechanisms—and they are an important enforcement mechanisms that seem to have gone over the heads of the opposition—and they will ensure that the impacts of the right are fully understood before the litigation bar sunsets. That is why I urge members in this place to support clause 7.

MR BRADDOCK (Yerrabi) (5.17): I am very glad to say the Greens will be supporting the government’s amendments to this bill and not those proposed by Mr Cain. For simplicity, I will speak to both now. The amendments being proposed by the government as circulated to members represent the culmination of a fruitful negotiation between the parties of government. I would like to thank those in the offices of Ms Cheyne and Ms Vassarotti for making this a reality.

The Greens respect that the ACT public sector deserves our support in implementing a new right to a healthy environment. There are aspects of the government’s operations where it would right now arguably not be acting in a manner consistent with the right to a healthy environment. We accept it would be more productive for the public sector

to have the time and space to focus on making itself so compliant rather than worrying about the threat of litigation, at least for now. Rights mean little without remedies. So it was critical for the Greens, informed as we were by numerous environmental stakeholders through the committee inquiry process, that the non-justiciability terms and clauses be scheduled to sunset within the term of the 11th Assembly. The government amendment achieves just that.

Keen observers will have noticed that I had sent to Scrutiny amendments which would have seen the sunset occur in the three years after the bill’s commencement—meaning a year earlier than the government is proposing. I am not so wedded to that particular timeframe as I am to the underlying principle, and I am happy to see a compromise achieved that has the government’s support in the spirit of stable government. Consistent with my own previously proposed amendments, the government amendments amend the timetable for the review of the legislation, so that it can occur prior to the scheduled sunset. It will be within the power of the government of the day to act on any advice concerning the non-justiciability clauses, including an extension if it is justified, and the 11th Assembly agrees.

It is for this reason, I am happy to support clause 7 and the government amendments to come, and I saw no reason to circulate to members those amendments that I have prepared myself and submitted to Scrutiny. I would like to give a quick word of thanks to Parliamentary Council. Their good work under constrained resources continue to impress, even when it does not always make it to the floor of the Assembly. You are truly an excellent team to work with.

Clause 7 agreed to. Proposed new clause 7A.

MS CHEYNE (Ginninderra—Minister for the Arts, Culture and the Creative Economy, Minister for City Services, Minister for Government Services and Regulatory Reform and Minister for Human Rights) (5.20): I move amendment No 1, circulated in my name, which inserts a new clause 7A [see schedule 3 at page 2190] and table a supplementary explanatory statement to the amendments to the bill.

As Mr Braddock just alluded to, this clause inserts a new section 40C(8) into the bill to provide for a sunset clause for the litigation bar provisions. The new section 40C(8) provides that this subsection, as well as subsections (5A) and (5C), expire on 1 October 2028. This will mean that the litigation bar which prevents individuals from commencing proceedings in the ACT Supreme Court against public authorities alleging a breach of the right to a healthy environment will automatically expire on 1 October 2028.

Proposed new clause 7A agreed to. Clause 8.

MR CAIN (Ginninderra) (5.21): I move amendment No 2 circulated in my name [see schedule 4 at page 2191], and table a supplementary explanatory statement to the amendments to this bill.

As I have touched on earlier in my speech and through some of this debate this afternoon, my reasons for opposing the clause are plain. The government has introduced a new human right and yet says we are not ready to fully implement it and give it the full rights available to other rights under the Human Rights Act, which is really a failure by the minister to appropriately resource and prepare her department for something that she is keen to produce.

Dr Paterson: Point of order: Mr Cain reflected on the minister in a negative light, and I would like him to withdraw it.

MADAM SPEAKER: Members, I think we will just let that one fly. But thank you; it just alerts everybody to my commentary that I think I will be using a number of times over the next couple days: be respectful across the floor.

MS CHEYNE (Ginninderra—Minister for the Arts, Culture and the Creative Economy, Minister for City Services, Minister for Government Services and Regulatory Reform and Minister for Human Rights) (5.22): Those remarks were bizarre, because we are talking about the review. But, anyway, Mr Cain’s amendment would provide for a roughly similar timeframe to commence the review as the government amendment that I will put forward shortly. But it would only allow for three months for the minister to present a report to the Legislative Assembly from the day the review is started. That timeframe is unrealistic. That timeframe would not be sufficient to allow a comprehensive and thoughtful review that takes into consideration all the available data and information on the impact of the right. Community and civil society stakeholders will want to be involved in the review and will need time to develop submissions. A three-month period to conduct the review, write up and present the report will not provide sufficient time for meaningful consultation.

Mr Cain’s amendment also fails to address the recommendations of the committee regarding the terms of reference for the review. The committee recommended the review consider the categorisation of the right to a healthy environment as an economic, social and cultural right. The government’s amendment, which I will move after we deal with this, to clause 8, will ensure this is considered in the review. For these reasons, the government will not be supporting Mr Cain’s amendment.

Question resolved in the negative.

Mr Cain’s amendment No 2 negatived.

MS CHEYNE (Ginninderra—Minister for the Arts, Culture and the Creative Economy, Minister for City Services, Minister for Government Services and Regulatory Reform and Minister for Human Rights) (5.24): I move amendment No 2 circulated in my name [see schedule 3 at page 2190].

As flagged, this amendment substitutes a new clause 8 of the bill to replace the requirements for the statutory review. The clause inserts a new section 43, which will require the review to consider the categorisation of the right to a healthy environment as an economic, social and cultural right to evaluate the restriction on litigation and to consider whether the restriction on litigation remains appropriate despite the sunset

clause in section 40C(8). Subsection 43(3) requires that the review begin no later than 1 October 2027, and it requires a report to be provided to the Legislative Assembly as soon as practicable after the report is completed. This statutory review will provide an opportunity to consider the operation of the new right. The review will assess the impact of the right and any refinement needed based on its implementation in the ACT and further development and crystallisation of the right at the international level.

This amendment ensures that, while the sunset clause will operate to end the litigation bar on 1 October 2028, unless the act is amended by the Assembly, the Assembly will be aware of the likely impacts before the litigation bar sunsets. I commend this amendment to the chamber.

Question resolved in the affirmative. Ms Cheyne’s amendment No 2 agreed. Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 9 agreed to.

Title.

MS CHEYNE (Ginninderra—Minister for the Arts, Culture and the Creative Economy, Minister for City Services, Minister for Government Services and Regulatory Reform and Minister for Human Rights) (5.26): This is a landmark bill. This is a historic moment, not just for the ACT and this Legislative Assembly but for this country. I do not want to let this moment pass without expressing my thanks, particularly as this is, I believe, the last bill for which I will be responsible in this term of parliament.

I want to thank my extraordinary office and say how proud I am of my team, who work incredibly hard and offer the most amazing support. I am lucky every day to be supported by such stars, particularly Jemma Cavanagh, Jonah Morris and Michael Liu. I offer my sincere thanks to Minister Vassarotti and Imogen Ebsworth in her office. Imogen is an outstanding chief of staff, we all agree, and I hold enormous respect for her. She really is a superstar. If she would ever like to work in another office—

Ms Vassarotti: Not a chance!

MS CHEYNE: I thank Imogen for always being such a delight to work with, and in this case it was no different. We are also indebted to Alia Armistead, who acted in the role in Imogen’s absence during a period of deep discussion.

Of course, many of us can claim credit for this legislation today. I acknowledge the many stakeholders who have driven this right, who have engaged so awesomely and who have challenged us to go further. It is, again, a delight to be the human rights minister in this term of parliament—to have held this portfolio throughout this term and to have seen such extraordinary reform progressed under our Human Rights Act and associated legislation.

The fact is that it just would not be possible without the team in the public service which has led this and so many other significant reforms in this term. With the consultation, analysis and recommendations, and the drafting by the Parliamentary Counsel’s Office, it certainly underlines what Mr Braddock said: they are first rate. I appreciate that this has been tough.

I refer to the cross-government consultation, the support, the education that has occurred and the education that is to come. I would particularly like to single out Gabrielle McKinnon, who is in the chamber today. I have already talked about stars a lot, but Gabrielle is one of a kind and has been behind so much of the reform efforts. It has honestly been a pleasure and a privilege to work closely with Gabrielle to progress these reforms. I will reflect on these four years with humility—to have been supported by such intelligent and hardworking people like Gabrielle, as well as her team. Again, they are magnificent people: Erin Gillen, Caroline McGregor, Ashley Tilbrook, Hari Lodwick, Gemma Hallett, Olivia Pursey, Elizabeth Dickson, Alex Ingham, Samantha Lawford, Ana Rengel-Goncalves, Juanita Truong, and Daniel Ng.

Again, I could not ask for a better team to have supported such an enormous body of reform. I remind members that this has included the review of the Discrimination Act and the passage of major reforms to that act, the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Children and Young People Commissioner Bill, which has established that role, the Human Rights (Complaints) Legislation Amendment Bill, the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Amendment Bill and the Parentage (Surrogacy) Amendment Bill. All of these together have advanced human rights in this jurisdiction. It is something that I am immensely proud of, but it simply would not have been possible without not only the amazing justice system that we have but also a very hardworking public service whom we are indebted to.

It takes a village in this place, Madam Speaker, and I offer my sincerest thanks to Gabrielle and her team. It has been a remarkable journey and one that I have been very proud to be on. I commend the right to a healthy environment bill to the chamber.

Title agreed to.

Bill, as a whole, as amended, agreed to.
Bill, as amended, agreed to.

‌Statements by members‌

Justice—community safety

MR CAIN (Ginninderra) (5.31): I rise to talk about the Canberra Liberals "Make Our City Safer" campaign. I was very proud to join the Canberra Liberals leader, Elizabeth Lee, and the shadow police minister, James Milligan, on Thursday, 1 August in announcing this targeted and comprehensive policy package.

Every Canberran deserves to feel safe, whether they are out in the community or in their own home. It is a simple premise, but one that, sadly, has been ignored for too long. That is why the Canberra Liberals will recruit 200 extra police officers by 2028 and

modernise our police stations. We will bring the ACT judicial system in line with community expectations on issues like dangerous driving and bail laws. We will build a stronger justice system to make our city safer for all.

Canberrans will always be safer under an Elizabeth Lee led Canberra Liberals government, and I encourage all Canberrans who want to re-prioritise community safety to vote for the Canberra Liberals on 19 October.

‌Epilepsy

MS ORR (Yerrabi) (5.32): I rise to talk about a book that I have recently had the pleasure of reading. It is a picture book called Marvellous Miles. It follows the adventures of a brave lion named Miles, who is learning to live with epilepsy. The book normalises the experiences of seizures, daily medicine routines, trips to the doctors and living with epilepsy. The author of Marvellous Miles, Sarah Watts, was inspired to write the book after her toddler was diagnosed with epilepsy. The book invites parents, carers and educators to converse with their children about epilepsy and what it means for them in a way that everyone can understand.

I had the pleasure of meeting Sarah in July, and it was great to be able to chat with her about her amazing efforts in developing her book. I have no doubt that Marvellous Miles will have a meaningful impact within our community. Marvellous Miles is available in stores and you can also purchase the book from Epilepsy ACT, with 100 per cent of those funds going to the development of the work of Epilepsy ACT. It is a great cause. It is a wonderful education raiser. Let us continue to normalise the experiences of those with epilepsy through imagination and the brave adventures of Marvellous Miles.

‌Carmelite Sisters

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) (5.34): I would like to take a moment to farewell the Canberra chapter of the Carmelite nuns who, after 50 years, are leaving their convent in Red Hill to return to Melbourne.

The nuns came to Canberra in 1974. As a cloistered community, they do not leave their home and rely on the support of local communities. Reports note that when the sisters arrived in Canberra they were warmly welcomed, with many individuals coming forward in generous support. This started a long tradition of close connections with many in the local community. I am sure many of you have had contact with this special group of women. Carmelites stay within the bounds of the monastery, with days dedicated to prayer and penance. In Canberra, however, without a sister who is an extern, there have been more intimate connections with local people than individual sisters would usually have in Melbourne.

Over the past 50 years, this special group of spiritual women have created a special place for many people in the community. I would like to extend my special thanks to Sister Bernadette and other sisters for the special role you have played in our family,

particularly following the death of my mother. You have prayed for us, tended to our grief and provided great solace and peace. Know that you will be missed and so fondly remembered. Safe travels, and I promise to knock on your door.

‌Recycling—Lids4Kids

MS LAWDER (Brindabella) (5.35): Today I am pleased to be hosting Lids4Kids, one of Canberra’s home-grown community-led success stories. Lids4Kids was founded as a 100 per cent volunteer project in 2019 by Tim Miller. When Tim asked where he could drop off his large collection of plastic bottle lids, the ACT government advised that pieces of plastic smaller than a credit card cannot be recycled and go to landfill. After discovering this, Tim found that plastic lids could be turned into mobility aids for children, so he created Lids4Kids to help collect more lids.

Due to the overwhelming success of Lids4Kids, many other recycled plastic products, such as park benches, kitchen splashbacks and cubby house roof tiles, are now being produced. Lids4Kids have a national community reach of over 42,000 people. They process a million lids per month. They have 300 monthly volunteers and they process 38 categories of recyclable items.

I would like to thank Tim, Emma and the entire Lids4Kids team, who have brought their equipment along today. I urge everyone to go out into the reception room and have a look at the great work they do and get involved with Lids4Kids. You can find out more at www.Lids4Kids.org.au.

MADAM SPEAKER: Thank you, Ms Lawder. I thank Lids4Kids for the work that you do.

‌Census—LGBTIQ+ inclusion

MISS NUTTALL (Brindabella) (5.37): I rise to speak briefly to the Australian Bureau of Statistics’ decision not to include questions on sexual orientation, gender identity and variations in sex characteristics in the 2026 census. Decisions not to include those questions are, quite frankly, a betrayal of trust for queer folk. It came after a statement of regret and an explicit commitment by the ABS to establish an LGBTIQ expert advisory committee for the 2026 census; so you can see why we are, to put it respectfully, a bit miffed.

The census is by far the best way of knowing how many LGBTIQ+ people actually exist in Australia. It is used to capture data that shows governments how to provide services to the community. From Equality Australia, we know, for example, that queer folk on average experience significant health and wellbeing disparities compared to the rest of the community, with particularly poor mental health outcomes. We also know, shockingly, that young people from the LGBTIQ+ community are approximately five times more likely to have attempted suicide than the general population, and almost one in every two children who are trans have attempted suicide.

To know the scale of the work required to support LGBTIQ+ folk, we need the government to know where we are and how many of us are out there. It is also, honestly,

demeaning to have core parts of your identity rendered invisible. I hope all of us in the chamber would agree that queer folk deserve better. Please add your voices to ours, to those of thousands of queer folk across the country. Join the call to count us in, in the 2026 census.

Discussion concluded.

‌Adjournment

Motion (by Mr Gentleman) proposed:

That the Assembly do now adjourn.

Ms Lawder: Can I raise an issue before we adjourn, Madam Speaker?

MADAM SPEAKER: Yes, Ms Lawder.

Ms Lawder: Earlier today, Ms Cheyne made a comment which has been captured by Hansard—whether you agree with Hansard or not, it is in the Hansard!—where she said, "Say that outside the chamber, Principal."

MADAM SPEAKER: Before you continue, is this not part of—

Ms Lawder: I am seeking your ruling, Madam Speaker. I have some other points to make with regard to our standing orders. For example, standing order 42 asks the member to address the Speaker rather than talk to someone across the chamber. If Ms Cheyne dissents from the Speaker’s ruling, she can move a substantive motion, as we did earlier today.

You have ruled on this before, Madam Speaker—asking the member not to refer to Mr Cain as "Principal". She is wilfully and persistently disregarding the authority of the chair, as per standing order 202(e). Furthermore, in the Companion to the Standing Orders, paragraph 11.80 says that you should address members respectfully, using their name and title. There are a number of ways in which Ms Cheyne has failed to follow the standing orders. I would ask you to urge her very strongly to be more respectful and to follow your rulings.

MADAM SPEAKER: Thank you. I will ask Ms Cheyne to reflect on her behaviour. We agreed earlier today that the dissent from my ruling would be adjourned.

Ms Lawder: It was a completely separate matter.

MADAM SPEAKER: Yes, I understand that. We will come back to that tomorrow. On the matter of referring to Mr Cain as "Principal", it has been raised before. I ask you, Ms Cheyne, to withdraw and to please cease those types of interjections.

Ms Cheyne: I withdraw.

MADAM SPEAKER: Thank you.

‌Valedictory

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) (5.41): It is a great pleasure to make some brief-ish remarks at the end of this term of government. In preparing for this, my staff did an incredible job pulling together a list of achievements in my ministerial portfolios during this term. Unfortunately, even in short dot points, there was enough to fill about 13 minutes. Mr Parton has previously given me some sage advice about less being more, so perhaps I will table the full list next week, but for now I will take the opportunity to focus on the important recognitions and acknowledgements we traditionally make at the end of each year and term.

Let me start with the members who will definitely not be rejoining the Assembly next term: the Speaker, Joy Burch; and Ms Nicole Lawder. Although I have been here for eight years, having gone straight into the ministry and never having had Ms Lawder as a shadow, I have not worked closely with her on committees or in my portfolios. However, I have received regular correspondence from Ms Lawder on behalf of her constituents. Indeed, I would guess that I have received more representations from Ms Lawder than any other Canberra Liberals’ member, especially in the health and disability portfolios.

It cannot always have been easy for Ms Lawder to be a moderate or even progressive voice in the Canberra Liberals’ party room, but she has always been true to her own values and advocated for her community, and I commend her for that. I hope that whoever joins this place for the Canberra Liberals in the Brindabella electorate—for I am not optimistic enough to think they will not have at least two members—will also be a moderating voice for the most conservative Liberal Party in the country. Either way, I wish Ms Lawder all the very best with whatever comes next.

Madam Speaker, you have been in that chair for the entirety of my time in this place, and, with no future benefit to me beyond the next four sitting days, I want to recognise the excellent job you have done. Like Ms Lawder, you have been a strong and consistent advocate for your constituents in Brindabella. I have heard from those constituents how much they have valued your availability to them, including through your regular mobile offices. They have always known where they can find you when they need you and that you will represent their interests. In your time in this place, you have also served in the executive, in multiple portfolios, and you have much to reflect on and be proud of. It has always been a pleasure to hear the messages from your grandchildren at the end of each year, and I have no doubt that you are looking forward to spending more time with them. All the very best, Madam Speaker.

I thank the other members in this place, particularly my Labor colleagues and their staff. Andrew, Yvette, Mick, Chris, Tara, Suzanne, Michael and Marisa, I reckon we are a great team, and we will be even better when more Labor members are elected on 19 October. For now, thank you for your support and the incredible power of work you have all done to deliver Labor’s progressive policies throughout this term. And I also thank our Greens colleagues. We do not always agree, but, in the end, we get a lot done working together.

I thank all our staff across the offices. We all know we could not do our jobs without them and we are incredibly lucky to have them. Political staff are often the subject of derisive commentary, but the reality is that most of our staff could be getting paid more, and with less stress, in another job. They are here because they are committed to making our city a better place. I thank the staff currently in my office. In alphabetic order, I thank Ben, Caitlin, Jonny, Kahlia, Meg, Martin, Mick and Sally. To my former staff during this term, Amy, Ash, Billie, Cath, James, Lily and Tim, I thank you also. My staff have contributed five babies to the Canberra community over this term of government, so we think they are contributing in more ways than just their work here! I thank those in our Labor Party office: Ash, Sandra, Toby, Lara, Sam and the rest of the ACT Labor Party team, I thank you very much for your support and your ongoing work and advocacy. I also thank Sue Ducker, the party president, and the rest of the elected party leadership.

I thank the many union colleagues and leaders we have worked with over this term across all my portfolios. I particularly thank the unions and industrial representatives who represent our health system workforce and have supported their members through a number of significant changes over this term: the CPSU, the ANMF, ASMOF, the AMA, the HSU, the UWU, the CFMEU, Professionals Australia and the VMOA.

Going to the directorates, who I will talk more about in the budget debate, I particularly thank the directorate liaison officers: from CSD, Andrew, Fiona, Ella, Kara, Tammi and Teone; from CHS, Angeline, Kerryn, Ryan and Christy; from the Health Directorate, Jenna, Cath and Tara; and, from MPC, Lauren and Andrea. Finally, I thank the Clerk and OLA staff, who support the functioning of this place with such professionalism. We will have more to say during the rest of the next week and a half, but thank you very much, everyone.

‌Valedictory

MS CASTLEY (Yerrabi) (5.46): I would like to rise to make a few remarks, reflecting on the four years that I have been here. I took a quick look at my first speech. It is funny to see where you started and where you are at the end. There was a bit of fluff in that speech, but one thing that stuck out to me was why I wanted to be here and why I fought to get elected, and nothing has really changed.

To kick off, I want to thank my family, obviously. There was one point in the term—and I believe it was on almost the same day—when I got a text from my daughter, Beth, and a text from my partner, Shannon. Beth said, "Mum, am I ever going to see you again?" Shannon texted me the same. It was one of those times when there were events. They have really stuck by me when it has been busy. They have knuckled down to help me whenever I have needed help. I also thank Mum and my family up in Queensland, Barton, Aunty Lou, and Kirsten. They are always keeping a weather eye.

I also want to thank my friends. I have a couple of friends here in Canberra who have no interest in ACT politics whatsoever, but they do keep a weather eye as well and send a message, saying, "Hey, I heard this. Well done," or "What were you thinking about that moment?" It is great to have good friends who keep their ear to the ground.

I thank all in the Yerrabi electorate who voted for me. A lot of people may have thought I was the dark horse, and here I am. It has been one of the greatest honours of my life to represent them—having the opportunity to be in this place and doing that.

I want to thank our division—they have been great throughout the term as well—and all of the volunteers who helped to get me here and have continued to work with me for the entire time I have been elected.

As I said in my first speech, while I am here I want to get involved and make a change. Over the term, I have moved multiple motions—too many to count—presented one bill, and attended hundreds of meetings with community groups, businesses and the health sector. The community groups have been amazing. It has blown my mind how much they reach out the moment you are elected and want to chat with you about things, and I have really appreciated that. There have been hundreds of constituent meetings and chats with people who have real concerns. I have spoken with school kids and at citizenship ceremonies—all of those wonderful things. It has been a pleasure. I have been on the environment committee and I have been on the EGEE committee. I have had the pleasure of a few portfolio changes, and, of course, the honour of being elected Deputy Leader of the Canberra Liberals.

I thank all Assembly staff. I am not even going to try to separate everybody, because I have done that once and missed people, so I want to thank everybody who is involved. My time here has been amazing and nothing has ever been too much. It has been a wonderful time.

Moving on to my staff, in no order at all: we have two Wills: Will Roche and Will Coats. I thank James Donnelly, who is off work today. Chris Fryar is no longer with my office but was a fabulous member of my team. Liam Samby is now with Elizabeth Lee’s office and is always helping me. He remembers everything, and I am so grateful to him. I would like to thank all of the staff in Elizabeth Lee’s office as well, all of my parliamentary colleagues, and all of the Assembly’s staff. I know you are all listening, or not paying attention, but you have been amazing and we all work so well. Everyone is willing to dip in. It is just wonderful.

To things I have learnt: I have learned that, unfortunately, you cannot help everybody and, unfortunately, I have learnt that you cannot trust everybody. And, unfortunately, in opposition you rarely have a win, and that is difficult. I do find that tough. On that note, I hope to be here for the 11th Assembly and in government. I hope that I can make the changes that are so close to my heart and the hearts of constituents in my electorate. If I have forgotten anyone, I apologise. Come and see me later. Thank you.

‌Valedictory

MR PETTERSSON (Yerrabi) (5.50): I begin by placing on the record my heartfelt thanks to the good people of Yerrabi for bestowing upon me the great honour to represent them in this place this term. It is an honour that I do not take lightly. It is bestowed upon very few, so I have always endeavoured to work as hard as I possibly can for each of my constituents. I would particularly like to thank the constituents who have shared with me their vision for a better Canberra. It has given me the opportunity

to represent those ideas in this place. There have been some absolute crackers this term, so I will go to some of the greatest hits of this term—ideas that I have been proud to champion on behalf of my constituents.

They wanted changes to embedded utility networks to ensure consumers get the best price on their utility bills; greater regulation of retirement villages to ensure that vulnerable residents do not require adversarial processes to stand up for their rights; better youth mental health services to make sure young people get the care they need where they want it; sick pay for casual workers to keep us all healthy and to make sure that insecure workers do not fall behind on their bills; action on the Gungahlin cinema so that local residents can see the latest blockbuster right in their community and not have a dirt patch in their town centre; a neurodiversity strategy for the ACT to ensure that government and society as a whole is inclusive for everyone; a licensing scheme for property developers to ensure that they are held to account and to improve standards in industry; a portable long service leave scheme for hospitality workers to ensure that every worker gets their entitlements; changes to our drug laws to better treat drug use as a health issue; and upgrades to Yerrabi Pond—it is the beating heart of our community and it should be beautiful.

They wanted an expanded e-scooter share scheme so that Gungahlin residents can use them to get around the district; for the AIS to stay right here in Canberra amidst efforts from interstate to have it moved; for the Assembly to stand up for trans and gender-diverse students in the face of very cruel attacks; better security of payment laws to ensure that subcontractors are paid properly and on time; references for landlords—that was a fun one—to make sure that tenants know the track record of people who are making decisions about their home; and a re-established public marriage registry to provide couples more choice in how they tie the knot. Just recently, there has been the licensing of debt collectors. Debt collectors deal with some of the most vulnerable members of our society in very stressful situations, and they should be held to a very high ethical standard.

I thank the people who work alongside me in my office. They have helped me in pursuing all these ideas for my constituents. I have always been very fortunate to have young, intelligent and hardworking people who want to be a part of the team. I would like to thank Jasmine, Harry, Georgia and Liam for being on this journey with me. I appreciate everything you do. They all have very bright futures ahead of them. I am hopeful that we will have more time together in the next Assembly, but I know that, regardless of election results, they will all have many exciting adventures ahead of them. I have had more staff throughout this term. Those who have been part of the team this term included Zoe, Abby, Flynn, Sam, Azraa, Aggi, and Connor. They have all moved on to bigger and better things, but I still enjoy following each of their journeys. I have so much faith that my current team are going to do big and exciting things, because everyone before them has done so.

I would like to thank the wonderful OLA staff. You truly represent our democracy. We, the members, come and go; the Assembly remains. To the wonderful attendants, the team in Hansard, the cleaners, the Education Office, Chamber Support, the committee secretariat and the Business Support Branch, without every one of you, our very special little democracy here in the Australian Capital Territory would not function, so thank you.

To all of my colleagues here in ACT Labor, thank you for your friendship, your solidarity, and all of your hard work. I am very proud to be a member of this team and to stand alongside each one of you.

To the members of the Canberra Liberals and the Greens, who have been wonderful sparring partners this term, I wish you all good luck in the upcoming election—of course, not too much luck but just the right amount.

Finally, to you, Madam Speaker, thank you for your dedication to this Assembly. Through constitutional crisis or not, you have been a constant in this place for me. It will not be the same without you, Madam Speaker. Best of luck with whatever comes next.

‌Suburban Land Agency—rural leaseholds

MR CAIN (Ginninderra) (5.55): Today I stand before you to shed light on a pressing matter involving the Suburban Land Agency and the historic Elm Grove Homestead in Gungahlin. For the past 22 months, rural leaseholder Lee Carmody and his family have been locked in an unfortunate battle with Minister Berry and the SLA over several critical and unresolved issues. This situation has been ongoing for a considerable amount of time, and it is time for the government to properly address these concerns with the seriousness and urgency they deserve.

Firstly, the SLA did not consult Elm Grove prior to finalising its DA for Jacka stage 1. Because of this, the SLA failed to identify essential infrastructure for Elm Grove—namely, a compliant driveway apron, a formed driveway, a sewer tie and replacement of the southern boundary fence. Mr Carmody raised this essential infrastructure with the SLA in December 2022; however, it remains largely incomplete. Today we can tell you that a $20,000 fence that is approved for replacement is stopping the opening of a brand-new road, and it is impacting the Canberra community.

Mr Carmody has appealed to all levels of the SLA and the government to resolve this matter, even offering to share the cost of the fence with the SLA, yet the SLA has refused. For nearly two years, Ms Berry has blatantly denied all responsibility for the fence, even though the fence does not meet ACT government standards. The fence is not safe for a public open space, and the existing fence fails to provide any protection to the historic Elm Grove. Now we find that the SLA had always intended to remove the southern boundary fence at Elm Grove, as evidenced by its own DA-approved fencing plans. However, for nearly two years, the SLA has presented one excuse after another to Mr Carmody as to why the SLA was not responsible in deciding to replace the fence. This issue is no longer just about delay; it is about not engaging appropriately with the leaseholders.

The SLA’s failure to deliver on this promise is not only frustrating but a clear indication of mismanagement—something Ms Berry should look into more closely. There are significant security implications for Mr Carmody and his family, as well for the broader community. If the fence is not replaced by the SLA, Mr Carmody will need to pay the cost to replace the fence for no other reason than the SLA withdrew his farmland and rezoned it for public open space. The fence already meets Mr Carmody’s obligations as a farmer; however, it does not meet the ACT government’s obligations as a neighbour

to the historic Elm Grove. Why has this replacement not been completed yet? That is a question for Ms Berry.

Secondly, the power pole that was supposed to be relocated remains in place. This obstruction is not just a minor inconvenience; it is preventing community access to a newly developed road and represents a complete waste of time, money and resources. Investment in the new road development of Roden Cutler Drive is nullified as the road cannot be opened due to this unresolved issue. It is evident that the Elm Grove Homestead is not receiving the same level of support and infrastructure that other heritage-listed farms adjoining greenfield SLA estates have enjoyed. This disparity in treatment is both unfair and unacceptable. The situation is not only an embarrassment for the government, showcasing its incompetence, but also a waste of public resources.

The ongoing delays and inaction are detrimental to the community because of the SLA’s refusal to accept responsibility for a fence that the SLA itself has always intended to remove. It has received approval to remove it in its own DA. The local residents of Gungahlin are now living with the inconvenience of the brand-new extension of Roden Cutler Drive remaining closed.

I call upon Minister Berry and the SLA to act swiftly to resolve this dispute and ensure that the Elm Grove Homestead receives the support and infrastructure it rightly deserves. It is crucial that Minister Berry addresses these issues urgently and appropriately. The community deserves better, as do the leaseholders of the Elm Grove Homestead. The government must demonstrate greater competence and greater commitment in resolving these ongoing matters without further delay.

‌Valedictory

MISS NUTTALL (Brindabella) (6.00): I am not used to any of this. The prayer or reflection is still exciting, fronting up in front of the chamber or cameras is still terrifying and, during the MLA Q&As, I cannot believe how lucky I am to share what I have been learning with students who are learning how the government can work for them. Mum used to joke how they should get a normal person into the Olympics just to show how amazing athletes are at their craft. I did really feel like the normal person in this chamber’s Olympics a little bit, Madam Speaker.

I fully underestimated the sheer brain power, social battery, nerve, empathy, personal organisation and understanding of parliamentary systems required to survive, let alone do well at this job. I guarantee that most members are here doing late nights, early mornings and weekends, and still I have been struck at how generous members have been with their time. I have had members from all parties look out for me across the chamber, checking with me during quiet moments, offering really helpful advice and even just a smile across the chamber. To all members: I hope more of the community sees the work that you are doing. You are doing so much, and you are doing it because you care.

I want to give a particular shoutout to my Greens colleagues for being absolute rocks throughout this process. It takes a village to raise a child, and my village has been my colleagues and the whole Assembly Greens team. I did not have a lot of confidence coming in, though I did try to bring a can-do attitude, and they have all consistently

helped me build that confidence. I thank Andrew, Emma, Jo, Rebecca and Shane for their kindness, their wisdom, their wit, their humour and for always having my back, no questions asked.

When the countback happened, I was—to be a bit vulgar—shit scared. There is a lot that goes through your head when you are asked to become an elected representative, especially at 24. What pushed me over the edge and gave me the courage to put my hand up was absolutely my trust in the ACT Greens Assembly team and, quite frankly, my strong desire to see my homies again. Since then, the Assembly Greens team have so unbelievably and unwaveringly supportive. They are such a clever and compassionate bunch of people, and their strong sense of justice is unrivalled. I hope each and every one of them knows that their work makes a meaningful difference. I could not have been more grateful to learn from them for the last four years.

I want to say a particular thank you to my team, the "Nutt office". Jo, thank you for approaching our policy work with a fierce moral compass that reflects exactly the way I want our office to contribute. You are like a capybara of a human being. Cindy, thank you for your calm, warm and reassuring presence, formidable organising skills and absolutely banging socials. Sylvi, thank you for your boundless energy, fantastic organising and your ability to pick up everything ridiculously quickly.

To my former staff, who are smashing it out there in the community, thank you to Rajat for getting us established across so many new portfolios with your keen mind and gentle sense of humour. And thank you to the indominable Danny, who has been an absolute rock for me and the office since day one—a brilliant allrounder who has driven so much of this office’s contributions to Tuggeranong and to the broader Canberra community. Thank you to the Brindabella Greens for trusting me and for being right or die, no questions asked. You were the change-bringers down south and I could not think of better people to hang out with while we make the south a little bit greener.

At times, the hardest part of the job has been getting up in front of the media and saying full complex sentences off the cuff. Others, it has been knowing that I cannot please everybody—and hopefully please some people—and knowing that I have the great responsibility to do the right thing by my people, my constituents. Sometimes it is a combination of anxiety and ADHD. Often the hardest part of this job—and this is going to be rough—is not having enough time with the people I love. I have missed my mum, even though we see each other a bunch at gym and she makes me laugh, think and brings me homemade meals all the time, even though I am independent. I miss my dad, finally back in Canberra and always down to get into the weeds of politics. I have missed my family and their birthdays.

I have missed my friends, their birthdays and gaming with them in the evenings, TV time with my housemates, my family away from family who were selfless enough to move back down with me to Tuggeranong for this job, despite one of them not being a Southsider—shame! I have missed spending time with my wonderful partner Kai, who has been ever patient and loving and always there when I needed him. We will finish painting that Warhammer set together eventually. That is a promise now on Hansard. But I feel like one of the most fortunate people on the planet. The worst thing

that happens post-October is more time with the people that I love, and that is a pretty nice place to be.

Most importantly, to my constituents, the people of Brindabella: thank you for trusting me with your issues. Thank you for trusting me to represent you. It is an immense and profound privilege, and you are all awesome. I said at the start of this that politicians are tools. I stand by that. I want us to be useful. I hope that no matter what else happened, no matter the epic highs and lows of this high school football, I was a useful tool for Tuggeranong.

‌Valedictory

DR PATERSON (Murrumbidgee) (6.05): I cannot believe we have got to this point at the end of the term. I absolutely love this job, and the last four years have been a truly amazing experience. Working with my Labor colleagues has been a true pleasure—and thank you to you all. And, Madam Speaker, you will be very, very much missed, and I wish you well on your journey post the Assembly. Thank you to all the staff in the Labor offices who are always such a pleasure to work with. To all my Assembly colleagues here: it might be tense and tried at times, but we get through it, hopefully with a smile. I do love the lively debates and theatrics of the chamber.

To the Office of the Legislative Assembly staff: thank you so much for your commitment to supporting us. The critical work you do is the backbone of our democracy. To my staff: thank you so much for your tireless commitment to supporting me and the work we do. Thank you to Anna, Benton, Reese, Cathy and Adele, who have all left my office, and to Kashish, Kye and, most recently, Marina, who are currently in my office. It is a tough job you do, and I appreciate every moment of it and all the laughs along the way.

One of my proudest achievements this term was introducing and passing the affirmative sexual consent laws in the ACT. The continued advocacy work with a range of amazing ACT stakeholders committed to improving our justice response to sexual violence, paid off earlier this year when the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court announced a specialist sexual offences list. I am committed to advocating of victims of family domestic and sexual violence in the ACT and for systemic reforms to address the perpetration of violence, to reforming our justice system to ensure it does not cause significant trauma to victims and to see a significant reduction in recidivist offending.

The work on addressing gambling harm this term has dominated. I am very proud of the bill that ensures that there will never be poker machines in the Molonglo Valley or any other new development sites in the ACT.

Working with community groups to see our wombats and snakes protected and to see myna bird populations controlled has been an amazing experience. I am sorry I have not been able to achieve the outcomes that you all wanted, but we will keep going. Thank you to Urambi for the chats and the regular cuddles with baby wombats, and thank you to Gavin and the team for bringing snakes to the Assembly—one of the more interesting processes getting through OH&S protocols to do that.

I thank the families that I have worked with this term who are victims of dangerous driving for sharing their stories with me and for trusting me to advocate for you. I hear you loud and clear that there is more work to do to improve the criminal justice system and to address the serious issues associated with the Motor Accident Insurance Scheme.

I would like to thank the donor-conceived community of the ACT for sharing your stories with me about the serious impacts of a system that does not regulate assisted reproductive technology. I am very proud that we started this term with no legislation and have finished it with significant legislation passed regulating ART and the implementation of a donor register in the ACT. Being able to vote, representing the people of Murrumbidgee, to support the passing of our ACT voluntary assisted dying laws was a highlight of this term. I look forward to progressing the challenging conversations that I think the community wants us to have to progress the discussion around access to VAD and loss of capacity.

To the people of Murrumbidgee: it has been my greatest pleasure and privilege to represent you. I hope more than anything to be able to continue to do that in this Assembly, but only time will tell. Thank you for your ongoing support. To my kids and partner: thank you for supporting me to pursue my passion for this job, for riding the high highs and the low lows with me and, yes, for your patience. Thank you.

‌Valedictory

MR BRADDOCK (Yerrabi) (6.09): It has been a great honour to serve the people of Yerrabi and the people of Canberra. To the people of Canberra and, in particular the residents of Yerrabi, I want to say thank you for your trust in me. Thank you for inviting me into your lives, your events and your problems. It is a great privilege to be able to come here and try to get things done for the community and to achieve outcomes. But with great privilege comes great challenges in the form of so many expectations from the community that come from just being here. I have focused my work on the inglorious and understated work that makes this Assembly a success and to achieve outcomes for my community no matter whether it achieved a profile or not.

I have lived the last four years of my life based on the assumption that I will not be re-elected, because I think it would be wrong to assume otherwise. I have had a crazy fantastic time in the role and am grateful that I had the opportunity that unfortunately not enough people in our community get to experience. That is why I put my hand up to go again. I do not take another term for granted and, if it is not to be, c’est la vie. If the voters of Yerrabi put their trust in me again for another term, then there is so much more I want to achieve, together with my Greens colleagues, the most committed progressive people I have been humbled to spend the last four years with. But, whatever happens, the last four years have been an absolute honour, and I am grateful for every single day. To my fellow MLAs: it has been a privilege to serve with you. But I do believe that, to a person, we all think this is a great city; we just have slightly different views about what is great about it and what its future should be.

I wish to take a moment to express my gratitude. To my staff here in the Assembly, Opia, Tim, Aileen and Harry: thank you for bearing with me, working with me,

explaining things to me when I just do not get it and doing it all in good humour, passion, and commitment. I thank you for your support, as I also thank the entire Greens Assembly staff team throughout the entire 10th term here in the Assembly.

To my truest volunteer, my mother: I thank you for your encouragement, support and, in particular, for keeping the home fires burning as I knock on just one more door. To the staff of OLA: thank you for your tireless work to assist us wet-behind-the-ears politicians get on with the business of legislating, representing and debating. The staff of OLA are the ones who maintain this place and make it work. We politicians just rent the place for a short period of time, hopefully to return it in better condition than when we received it.

Finally, most importantly and most personally, I would like to say a few words to Emily and Sophie. I apologise for the impact this role has had on you—too many evenings and weekends where I was absent attending events or working; too many times even when I was present, mentally I was elsewhere as I grappled with questions and issues. Politicians are volunteers and families are the conscripts, and I apologise from the bottom of my heart. I am sorry and I love you. I sat down and examined my first speech as I wrote this one and the tears welled up, as they do. I want to finish by saying that I hope you can forgive me and say that I did enough.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

‌The Assembly adjourned at 6.13 pm.

‌Schedules of amendments

‌Schedule 1

‌Sexual, Family and Personal Violence Legislation Amendment Bill 2023

Amendments moved by the Attorney-General

1

Clause 4

Proposed new schedule 1, part 1.1

Page 3, line 4—

omit proposed new part 1.1, substitute

Part 1.1 Offences against Crimes Act 1900

column 1 item	column 2 provision	column 3 description of offence
1	15	manslaughter
2	19	intentionally inflicting grievous bodily harm
3	29	culpable driving of motor vehicle
4	29A	driving motor vehicle at police
5	51	sexual assault in the first degree
6	52	sexual assault in the second degree
7	53	sexual assault in the third degree
8	54	sexual intercourse without consent
9	55 (1)	sexual intercourse with young person under 10 years old
10	55 (3)	sexual intercourse with young person under 16 years old
11	55A (1)	sexual intercourse with young person under special care
12	56 (1)	persistent sexual abuse of child or young person under special care
13	62	incest and similar offences
14	64	using child for production of child exploitation material etc
15	66	grooming and depraving young people

2

Clause 15

Proposed new section 82B (2) Page 13, line 18—

omit

hear and decide the provisional amendment at any time,

3

Clause 16

substitute

make the provisional amendment at any time before the application for the amendment is decided,

Proposed new section 91B heading Page 16, line 1—

omit the heading, substitute

91B Magistrate review of registrar decisions

4

Clause 16

Proposed new section 91B (1) Page 16, lines 5, 9 and 12—

omit all mentions of

or a deputy registrar

5

Clause 16

Proposed new section 91B (2) Page 16, line 13—

omit

or deputy registrar

6

Clause 16

Proposed new section 91B (3A) Page 16, line 18—

insert

(3A) The request may be made orally or in writing.

7

Clause 16

Proposed new section 91B (4) and (5) Page 16, lines 20 and 25—

omit all mentions of

or deputy registrar

8

Clause 16

Proposed new section 91B (7) Page 17, line 1—

omit proposed new section 91B (7), substitute

1. For this section, a decision of the registrar is a relevant decision if it is a decision to—

   1. refuse to make an interim order; or

   2. if section 54 (Respondent not present at return of application) applies—adjourn the proceeding; or

   3. if the applicant for the protection order asks for a condition to be included in an interim order—refuse to include the condition in the interim order.

      
      

2. Despite subsection (7) (c), a decision of the registrar is not a relevant decision if the registrar includes a condition of a similar kind in the interim order.

Example—condition of a similar kind

The applicant for a protection order asks for the interim order to include a condition that the respondent is prohibited from being within 20m of the applicant. The registrar refuses to include the requested condition, but includes a condition that the respondent is prohibited from being within 50m of the applicant. The condition included in the interim order is a condition of a similar kind to the condition sought by the applicant.

9

Clause 27

Proposed new section 83B heading Page 26, line 10—

omit the heading, substitute

83B Magistrate review of registrar decisions

10

Clause 27

Proposed new section 83B (1) Page 26, lines 14, 18 and 21—

omit all mentions of

or a deputy registrar

11

Clause 27

Proposed new section 83B (2) Page 26, line 22—

omit

or deputy registrar

12

Clause 27

Proposed new section 83B (3A) Page 26, line 27—

insert

(3A) The request may be made orally or in writing.

13

Clause 27

Proposed new section 83B (4) and (5) Page 27, lines 2 and 7—

omit all mentions of

or deputy registrar

14

Clause 27

Proposed new section 83B (7) Page 27, line 10—

omit proposed new section 83B (7), substitute

1. For this section, a decision of the registrar is a relevant decision if it is a decision to—

   1. refuse to make an interim order; or

   2. if section 49 (Respondent not present at return of application) applies—adjourn the proceeding; or

      
      

   3. if the applicant for the protection order asks for a condition to be included in an interim order—refuse to include the condition in the interim order.

2. Despite subsection (7) (c), a decision of the registrar is not a relevant decision if the registrar includes a condition of a similar kind in the interim order.

Example—condition of a similar kind

The applicant for a protection order asks for the interim order to include a condition that the respondent is prohibited from being within 20m of the applicant. The registrar refuses to include the requested condition, but includes a condition that the respondent is prohibited from being within 50m of the applicant. The condition included in the interim order is a condition of a similar kind to the condition sought by the applicant.

‌Schedule 2

‌Health Legislation Amendment Bill 2024

Amendment moved by the Minister for Health

1

Proposed new clause 4A Page 3, line 9—

insert

4A		Section 131
		substitute
131		Completion of family—gametes donated before end of transitional period
	(1)	This section applies to a donated gamete if, before the end of the transitional period—
		(a) the gamete is donated; and
		(b) a person becomes pregnant as a result of ART treatment using another donated gamete of the donor.
	(2)	An ART provider may use the gamete—
		(a) in the provision of ART treatment to the person who became pregnant, or their domestic partner; or
		(b) to create an embryo for use in the provision of ART treatment to the person who became pregnant, or their domestic partner.
	(3)	For a gamete used in accordance with this section—
		(a) the donor is taken to have consented to the use and may modify or withdraw consent in accordance with section 30; and
		(b) if the person mentioned in subsection (1) (b) became pregnant before the transitional period—the following provisions do not apply to the ART provider in relation to the gamete, or an embryo created from the gamete:
		(i) section 39 (Donated gametes or embryos—time limits on use);
		(ii) section 40 (Donated gametes or embryos—limits on number of families);
		(iii) section 46 (Requirement to collect information about gamete provider);

1. section 47 (Requirement to collect information about person undergoing ART treatment);

2. section 48 (Requirement to keep records);

3. section 53 (Mandatory information); and

1. if the person mentioned in subsection (1) (b) became pregnant during the transitional period—the following provisions do not apply to the ART provider in relation to the gamete, or an embryo created from the gamete:

   1. section 39 (Donated gametes or embryos—time limits on use);

   2. section 40 (1) (Donated gametes or embryos—limits on number of families);

   3. section 53 (Mandatory information).

‌Schedule 3

‌Human Rights (Healthy Environment) Amendment Bill 2023

Amendments moved by the Minister for Human Rights

1

Proposed new clause 7A Page 4, line 9—

insert

7A New section 40C (8)

insert

(8) Subsections (5A), (5B) and this subsection expire on 1 October 2028.

2

Clause 8

Page 4, line 10—

omit clause 8, substitute

8 New section 43

insert

43 Review of amendments made by Human Rights (Healthy Environment) Amendment Act 2023

1. The Minister must review the operation of the amendments to this Act made by the Human Rights (Healthy Environment) Amendment Act 2023.

2. In undertaking the review, the Minister must—

   1. consider the categorisation of the human right set out in section 27C as an economic, social and cultural right; and

   2. evaluate the prohibition under section 40C (5A) on a person starting a proceeding or relying on their rights in relation to a claim that a public authority has acted in contravention of section 40B if the contravention claimed is—

      1. that the public authority acted in a way that is incompatible with the human right set out in section 27C; or

      2. in making a decision, the public authority failed to give proper consideration to the human right set out in section 27C; and

         
         

         
         

   3. despite section 40C (8)—consider whether the prohibition under section 40C (5A) remains appropriate.

3. The Minister must—

   1. begin the review not later than 1 October 2027; and

   2. present a report of the review to the Legislative Assembly as soon as practicable after the report is completed.

4. This section expires on 1 October 2028.

5. In this section:

public authority—see section 40C (7).

‌Schedule 4

‌Human Rights (Healthy Environment) Amendment Bill 2023

Amendments moved by Mr Cain

1

Clause 7

Page 3, line 14—

[oppose the clause]

2

Clause 8

Page 4, line 10—

omit clause 8, substitutes

8		New section 43
43		insert Review of right to healthy environment
	(1)	The Minister must review the operation of section 27C (Right	to a	healthy

environment) as soon as practicable after the end of its 3rd year of operation.

1. The Minister must present a report of the review to the Legislative Assembly within 3 months after the day the review is started.

2. This section expires 4 years after the day it commences.