Page 997

Wednesday, 9 April 2025

MR SPEAKER (Mr Parton) (10.00): Members:

Dhawura nguna, dhawura Ngunnawal.

Yanggu ngalawiri dhunimanyin Ngunnawalwari dhawurawari.

Nginggada Dindi wanggiralidjinyin.

The words I have just spoken are in the language of the traditional custodians and translate to:

This is Ngunnawal country.

Today we are all meeting on Ngunnawal country.

We always pay respect to Elders, female and male.

Members, I ask you to stand in silence and pray or reflect on our responsibilities to the people of the Australian Capital Territory.

ACT Youth Week 2025

Ministerial statement

MR PETTERSSON

(Yerrabi—Minister for Business, Arts and Creative Industries, Minister for Children, Youth and Families, Minister for Multicultural Affairs and Minister for Skills, Training and Industrial Relations) (10.02): As Minister for Children, Youth and Families, I welcome the opportunity to acknowledge ACT Youth Week, a 10-day celebration of young people in our community aged 12 to 25 years.

This year, ACT Youth Week runs from 10 April until 20 April, providing the community with an opportunity to create a platform for young people to express themselves. It is also a time to celebrate, have fun and highlight the positive contributions they make to our community every day.

The ACT government has partnered with various businesses across Canberra to deliver large-scale free events for young people. These events are designed to be accessible to young people who might not otherwise have the opportunity to participate in these types of activities.

This year, with the support of ACT youth services, we have distributed 675 free tickets to events, including: a visit to the National Zoo and Aquarium, including a BBQ; watching a movie at Hoyts in Belconnen and Tuggeranong; 10-pin bowling at Zone Bowling; burning off some energy at Bounce trampoline park; playing minigolf at the Yarralumla Play Station; and ice skating at the Phillip Swimming and Ice-Skating Centre.

Mr Speaker, last year’s ACT Youth Week was a huge success, with over 600 young people attending free events through youth organisations and services. Young people told us how much they enjoyed the activities on offer. Community partners, including Gugan Gulwan and Northside Community Service, praised the smooth organisation of
Page 998 the 2024 events and the strong support provided to young people. That feedback helped shape this year’s program.

One of the key ways the ACT government supports Youth Week is through the ACT Youth Week Grants program. These grants enable individuals, schools, and ACT community groups and community services to develop and deliver their own unique activities. This includes projects that strengthen community ties such as arts-based initiatives, youth forums and sporting activities. The grants also support events promoting diversity, creativity and skill development.

In addition to the ACT Youth Week Grants, the government also provides Youth InterACT grants and scholarships to help young people create innovative projects in their communities and to support kids to attend sport or art events and activities, access courses or purchase tools needed for study.

This is my first Youth Week as Minister for Children, Youth and Families, and it will be a privilege to attend some of the upcoming events and connect with young people. On Saturday, I am excited to experience the results of one ACT Youth Week grant-funded program, the 12 Hour Theatre Project organised by the Canberra Youth Theatre. This is a fantastic opportunity to witness young artists come together to create and perform a new piece of theatre in just one day.

On Monday, I will join young people at the zoo. Later that evening I will head to the multisport and fitness week for youth, organised by United Muslims of Canberra, where young people can try new sports and fitness activities in a supportive and inclusive environment.

I encourage all members, as well as the entire community, to explore the exciting opportunities available to young people in Canberra during ACT Youth Week. It is a chance to connect, learn and have fun while raising awareness around issues affecting young people. Further information, including a full program of events can be found on the Our CBR website.

I would like to acknowledge the role of the ACT Youth Advisory Council, which has provided valuable feedback to help shape the 2025 ACT Youth Week program, and the ongoing work of the government in policy and service development. The council reflects the diversity of young people living in the ACT, with members representing young people who identify across the gender spectrum and within the LGBTQIA+ community; young people with disabilities; Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities; young people from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds; and those with different levels of education and employment status.

Looking beyond Youth Week, this year the council is also preparing to host the ACT Youth Assembly on Tuesday 27 May. The assembly will bring young people together to share ideas and to provide their thoughts on issues important to them. I look forward seeing firsthand how young Canberrans actively contribute to shaping the future of our community.

The ACT Youth Assembly is structured to maximise youth engagement, allowing young people to discuss issues that matter to them most and to suggest solutions and
Page 999 influence decision-making processes. These suggestions will be put forward to me in an Assembly report, which I look forward to receiving.

Once again, I want to acknowledge the immense contribution our young people make in shaping the city they want to live in. I hope everyone takes the opportunity to celebrate the young people in their lives and has a great time during ACT Youth Week this year.

I present the following paper:

ACT Youth Week 2025—Ministerial statement, 9 April 2025.

I move:

That the Assembly take note of the paper.

MISS NUTTALL

(Brindabella) (10.07): Today, the start of Youth Week focused on recognising the voices, influence and potential of the young generation. I recently took on a work experience student, Nakato Katabazi, who has written this speech for me to read.

The week is about recognising that youth from ages 12 to 24 are not just the future; they are also the present, and their voices matter now. I, too, am a young person who has the power to be a voice for the younger generation. Through my involvement in the Greens, I have worked to highlight what we need more of in the political space, such as real representation and a real connection with those who are often overlooked or ignored. I speak with and for the youth, not just about them, because I resonate with them.

Youth Week is not just about throwing events but honouring the ideas, perspectives and efforts of young people. Their voices should never be seen as an afterthought. Too often they are just disregarded, pushed aside or talked over; but that must change because, whether we like it or not, young people are the voice of tomorrow. They are the next generation of leaders, workers, teachers and change-makers; therefore, their ideas, their concerns and their solutions need to be heard now.

This week highlights something deeper, a government initiative that recognises the importance of youth engagement. The ACT government is working to create real opportunities for young people to express their views on community issues and, more importantly, making sure those views are taken seriously. Youth week highlights the increased effort the government has put into the involvement of youth in shaping policies, making sure meaningful results are shown for their participation.

Youth Week started as a small celebration, and it has now grown into a national movement that is celebrated all across Australia. Here in the ACT it is not just a week on a calendar but a platform of empowerment. From Thursday April 10 to Sunday April 20, the 2025 ACT Youth Week will feature a range of events designed to celebrate youth culture, to support and engage, and to build a more inclusive future.

One of the key ideas behind this week is ensuring that the government hears directly from young people about issues that impact them most, whether that is education,
Page 1000 mental health, climate change, housing or equality. It is about creating real chances for youth to shape the future that they will inherit.

Events across the week are awesome, from college to university, and they include: a program that includes assisting young people from Pasifika, migrant and refugee backgrounds in understanding their higher education options; Canberra Youth Theatre, which is hosting the 12 Hour Theatre Project; the Sunset Festival at Eddison Park; the Melanesian Film Fest day; an African youth drum and dance workshop; community sports events at Multicultural Hub ACT and UMC; and, lastly, six days of free activities at the Belconnen Youth Centre and gallery.

All of this information can be found on the ACT government website, which is very helpful. These events are not just fun but are a platform for creativity and expression. They are safe spaces where young people can show who they are and what they believe in. Likewise, taking on a work placement of a 16-year-old girl who has very insightful ideas in topics and discussions—not just affecting youth but feedback in general—highlights the importance of the voice of youth.

Let’s continue to uplift and empower the youth of Canberra and across Australia. Let’s support voices like mine and my community’s and ensure that Youth Week is not just a celebration but a call to action, because the voice of youth is not just important; it is essential. Thank you.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

ACT Policing—strategic asset management plan—order to table documents

MS MORRIS

(Brindabella) (10.12): I move:

That, in accordance with

standing order 213A

, the Assembly orders the Minister for Police, Fire and Emergency Services to provide the Assembly with:

(1) any documents relating to and including the strategic asset management plan of ACT Policing facilities;

(2) any documents relating to and including the 20-year Master Accommodation Plan by JLL Australia;

(3) a list of any inquiries, reviews, reports and other initiatives which have been commissioned by the ACT Government regarding the Canberra City police station;

(4) a list of contracts, including associated cost for maintenance and repairs of the City Police Station; and

(5) a list of contracts, reviews, inquiries, reports and other initiatives on a new city police station.

It will be news to no-one in this place that for a long time our police officers have been forced to work in dangerous conditions. I am not just talking about the physical dangers that cops fighting crime face every day; I am talking about the decaying, squalid and dangerous conditions at police stations and watch houses across Canberra.

Page 1001 For years, Canberra’s police have been subjected to substandard, even squalid, conditions that put the safety and wellbeing of police staff at risk. We have all seen the headlines: gas leaks, water flooding, toxic lead contaminants and diesel particulates, raw sewage leaks, evacuations and relocations. It is the never-ending story that desperately needs to come to an end.

I am still hearing reports that despite the quick plumbing fixes at the city police station, staff are still enduring disgusting, stinking, raw sewage odours in their workplace. No-one should be forced to work in conditions like that, and it is hardly surprising that the Australian Federal Police Association has said that they are willing to explore legal action to protect their workers if that is what it takes. But it should not have to come to that.

We need greater transparency over what action has been taken and will be undertaken to provide ACT police officers with safe and fit-for-purpose worksites. Last year, we saw the ACT Auditor-General’s report stating that nearly half of all the current police infrastructure assets owned or leased by the ACT government required immediate or imminent renewal or replacement. The city police station was built in the 60s and has been described by former Chief Police Officer Neil Gaughan as not fit for purpose. Considering the flooding and the sewage contamination, I would have to agree.

We are often told by the government that work is underway and progressing, but rarely do we see the evidence of that. Safe facilities matter, not just for the health, wellbeing and morale of the staff that occupy them, but, importantly, they also matter for members of the Canberra community who rely on local policing services, because ensuring that police have a safe work environment means police can get on with the job of keeping the community safe. In the complex and rapidly shifting environment they must operate in, we can afford nothing less.

While these documents will not fix the problem, they will shine a light on the actions being taken or not being taken by the government to keep the community safe by delivering a safe and fit-for-purpose workplace for our police. Our police and the Canberra community, who relies on police services, deserve this level of transparency.

I want to thank the Greens and members of the crossbench for their support in obtaining these documents today, because it is so important that we secure more transparency for a safer Canberra. I also want to thank the government for, I understand, their support for my motion, and the opposition is happy to accept the extension of the timeframe to deliver it within 30 days.

DR PATERSON

After paragraph (5), add:

“(6) not withstanding provisions of standing order 213A, material is to be provided within 30 business days.”.

Page 1002 This amendment will provide extra time for police to extract the information requested.

I would like to clarify that the leak identified on 7 April is extremely small in size, restricted to the basement and not impacting business at the city police station. Plumbers attended that same day and are rectifying the issue as we speak.

I will also note that this motion is rather ironic in that it does put a significant impost on ACT police resources. In the last sitting, the Chief Minister discussed the production of documents in this way and the role of the executive extensively, as did Minister Stephen-Smith, so I will not prosecute that debate again, but there are appropriate channels under FOI laws which should be taken to seek this type of information.

I do have a strong commitment to transparency and will update the Assembly and the Canberra public on updates from the broad range of infrastructure projects whenever possible.

As talked about yesterday, police infrastructure is a key priority for the government. Significant investment has already been made to develop the Strategic Asset Management Plan, which outlines a clear pathway to keep ageing infrastructure online while new infrastructure is built. It identifies and quantifies the extent of asset renewal required.

The SAMP outlines a structured approach that will stabilise infrastructure at key ACT police sites to maintain operational effectiveness, mitigate deterioration and reduce reliance on costly reactive maintenance. The SAMP program is a pragmatic and cost-effective solution to ensure continuity of service while infrastructure is constructed. The ACT government is strongly committed to working with ACT police to see a new headquarters and city police station as a priority. Several procurement model options are currently being considered.

The 2023‑24 budget allocated $3.823 million over two years for a comprehensive feasibility study and business case for the new ACT Policing headquarters and city police station, as well as assessing police infrastructure needs for Woden and Molonglo. JACS have been developing the early feasibility work, as we discussed yesterday, for a Molonglo police station, including consideration of operational linkages with the Woden police station and long-term policing infrastructure requirements for the region. Once the feasibility work is completed, the project can progress to the next stage of development. Further detail around timeframes and site selection will be developed as part of the detail stage.

In the recent budget review, an additional $9.658 million was included to support the ACT Policing enterprise agreement. This follows on from the historical $106 million from the 2023-24 budget to recruit and train 126 new police officers, and ACT Labor went to the last election with a commitment to increase this to 150 police officers by 2029.

The ACT government is absolutely committed to ensuring ACT police have appropriate and renewed infrastructure so that they can do their very important work for our community. Thank you.

Page 1003

MR BRADDOCK

(Yerrabi) (10.19): The Greens will be supportive of Ms Morris’s motion today in the interest of transparency about the Civic police station. We will also be supportive of the amendment moved by Dr Paterson, in terms of it being a realistic assessment of the timeframe required in order to provide these documents.

Amendment agreed to.

Original question, as amended, resolved in the affirmative.

Legislative Assembly—non-executive members—reporting requirements

MR BARR

(Kurrajong—Chief Minister, Minister for Economic Development and Minister for Tourism and Trade) (10.20): I move:

That this Assembly resolves that consistent with reporting requirements for Executive Members:

(1) non-executive MLAs will publish, on the Legislative Assembly website, each quarter, information on their externally sponsored and Assembly related and funded travel commencing from the start of the 11^th Assembly;

(2) non-executive MLAs will publish, on the Legislative Assembly website, each quarter, their diaries setting out all reportable meetings, events and functions attended by non-executive MLAs that relate to their responsibilities as Members commencing from the start of the 11^th Assembly. This does not include personal and family matters; electorate or party political matters; media interviews or recordings; any scheduled meeting or event that the Member did not actually attend; or any information which might disclose personal details about an individual, affect a court case, or disclose information about security, public safety, or law enforcement; and

(3) the Speaker will table a breakdown of non-executive staffing expenditure for the current and last four financial years, including staffing expenditure per non-executive office (including his own), staffing expenditure per pledged resourcing arrangement, and any other staffing expenditure within 28 calendar days.

I have moved this motion this morning to close several loopholes in accountability and reporting that exist within this place. I do so with a view that all members should be held accountable to the same standards as the executive are held accountable in this place.

The elements of the motion are threefold. Firstly, it is around increasing the frequency of travel reporting for non-executive members. Currently, on the Legislative Assembly website, every six months a report is published in relation to Assembly-related and funded travel, commencing at the beginning of each six-month period. Members can go onto the Assembly website and see that report.

That captures an element of travel for non-executive members, but it does not capture externally sponsored travel. There is a requirement, under item 12 of the declaration
Page 1004 of members’ interests, to list free or concessional travel that has been undertaken where the cost, or part of the cost, was met other than by the Assembly. That includes another person, organisation, business, interest group or foreign government or its representative.

There is a requirement to update that information according to the rules associated with members’ declarations of interest, but it is not consolidated at a single point for both the public and the media to get access to it, so I think that consolidating that information and reporting quarterly rather than six-monthly or in an ad hoc way would align with executive travel reporting and would put every member on a level playing field in relation to their travel arrangements.

Let me be clear about this. This is not an exercise in shaming members for travelling. We do see that occur occasionally in relation to executive travel. I am not in the business of doing that, but I think it is only fair and reasonable that members are held to the same level of accountability, and that is what we seek to do in paragraph (1) of this motion.

In relation to the publishing of diaries for reportable meetings, events and functions that relate to members’ responsibilities as members, this would be, again, consistent with the quarterly reporting that ministers undertake. It would not include personal and family matters; electorate or party-political matters; media interviews or recordings; scheduled meetings or events that the member did not actually attend; or any information which might disclose personal details about an individual, a constituent or a court case, or disclose information about security, public safety or law enforcement. These are exactly the standards that apply to ministerial diaries, and these are published on a quarterly basis.

I say to members that this is an important transparency measure. But I make a personal observation that I would say three factors have significantly reduced the amount of nefarious lobbying of ministers. The first has been the ban on political donations from the development sector. The second has been the publishing of ministerial diaries, and the third has been the introduction of the Integrity Commission.

Those factors have combined to significantly reduce the sort of lobbying that the community is rightly concerned about. If I can be brutally honest with members, it will make their lives easier to have these accountability measures. Mr Speaker, when you point out to the individual who wants to get in your ear about something, “That’s fine, but you must come in for a meeting that will be published,” it is remarkable what that does. Combined with the presence and existence of the Integrity Commission, it makes our role as members easier to have those accountability mechanisms.

I could not recommend this more strongly to members who are concerned about ethics and integrity in how they undertake their roles. It does not stop interest groups or organisations seeking to appropriately lobby members, but there is nothing quite like the transparency of saying, “This meeting will be published,” to sort out who is legitimately coming to talk to you about an issue of public policy and whose lobbying efforts might not be, perhaps, as pure, if I could put it that way. I strongly recommend to members that this opportunity be taken up and that it be done in a consistent way, exactly as ministers have been reporting for nearly a decade.

Page 1005 Finally, I note that there has been a lot of interest in the breakdown of expenditure, shared arrangements, pledging arrangements and the like. The government not only publishes information in annual reports and in the budget papers around the executive budget, but, as a result of requests from the Assembly, there has been an increased level of reporting in that regard. Again, I see no reason why that information should not be available publicly across all of the arrangements in this place, and paragraph (3) of the motion goes to that point.

There is already some information available publicly in annual reports; there is information around an instrument that I am required to provide to members in relation to salary caps, as part of staffing arrangements for non-executive members. This simply seeks a further level of information, through you, Mr Speaker, as, if you like, the minister for the Office of the Legislative Assembly. It is a straightforward request. We provide an extended timeframe for it to be provided.

I conclude by making these points. There has been an amendment circulated by the Leader of the Opposition. I note that this circulation, a matter of minutes ago, is the first time I have seen it, so I am not sure that is in the good faith that one would expect. We have put this motion on the notice paper and engaged with various members to refine and to be clear about the information that we are looking for.

It may be that I will call for an adjournment of this matter before final consideration, given that I have only just seen this. It was literally handed to me as I stood up to speak. I do not think that reflects the type of good faith that we should be having in these debates. I foreshadow a potential move to adjourn the debate to be able to properly consider the amendment from the Leader of the Opposition.

Going to the substantive point, members should have nothing to fear from each of the elements in this motion, and I think that it should be supported by the Assembly.

MS CASTLEY

(Yerrabi—Leader of the Opposition) (10.28): I move:

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

“(1) notes that:

(a) information about non-executive entitlements are published both as disallowable instruments and in the Annual Reports of the Office of the Legislative Assembly, which is appropriate; and

(b) information about executive staffing entitlements are not published in the same form or to the same standard, which undermines transparency and accountability;

(2) further notes that:

(a) the Assembly has called for the Integrity Commissioner to undertake an inquiry into lobbying and for the Government to ensure appropriate funding be provided for this work; and

(b) the Government has failed to provide the Assembly with any assurance that the funding has been or will be provided in this year’s Budget;

(3) directs the Chief Minister to:

Page 1006

(a) publish information on executive staff expenditure, in a format consistent with the Assembly’s reporting of non-executive staff expenditure, in all future Annual Reports of the Chief Minister, Treasury and Economic Development Directorate;

(b) make a statement in the Assembly immediately after this motion, and if appropriate funding for the lobbying inquiry will be provided in this year’s Budget;

(c) if no decision has been made, the Chief Minister’s statement must include the day (or days) when the decision will be made and, once such a decision has been made, the Chief Minister must provide the Speaker with a statement outlining the decision and the funding to be provided, which the Speaker must make available to MLAs; and

(4) calls on the Standing Committee on the Integrity Commission and Statutory Office Holders to consider holding an inquiry into any findings or recommendations of the Integrity Commissioner’s inquiry into lobbying once it has reported and, as part of that inquiry, consider issues regarding the accessibility and detail of the diaries of executive and non-executive MLAs; consistent with Latimer House principles.”.

I thank the Chief Minister for moving this motion. I was a little surprised, as I suspect many members were, when I first read the motion. It was so different from what we normally see from Labor, or from the Chief Minister, that I wondered whether possibly the member’s name was wrong or had been wrongly appended. But it seems that this is the work of the Chief Minister, and it is different from the usual motions we see because it actually seeks greater transparency.

This is a word which is generally beloved of Labor around the country, but a word that ACT Labor seem to have forgotten after so many years in government. Of course, Labor have forgotten many things in their time in government—not just the priorities and values of the community, but their own principles and values, too, and none more so than their commitment to transparency. We, of course, welcome Labor’s renewed embrace of this principle. We want more transparency, and we want Labor to want more transparency.

The motion is also different because it calls for the publication of information that is already public. If the Chief Minister wants to know my staffing entitlement, I encourage him to look at the disallowable instrument which he made six months ago. If his own regulations are too legalistic for him to interpret, he could consult the Canberra Times, which publicly reported it. I am sure Jasper would happily make the article available if the paywall is an obstacle.

Alternatively, if the Chief Minister wants to know how much I actually spent, he can consult the Assembly’s annual reports. It is all there, in black and white—the spending of every non-executive member. Of course, the spending of executive members is not recorded there or anywhere else, and it took two motions of this Assembly to flush out that information; and, even then, the government failed to comply in full. Apparently, there are limits to Labor’s embrace of transparency.

This motion is different, too, because of its errors. I am known to make mistakes and the occasional typo. Sometimes, my grammar is a little like the Assembly wi-fi it goes
Page 1007 missing in action. So I do not hold these errors against the Chief Minister. After all, to err is human, and we in the opposition forgive the Chief Minister for these mistakes. But it is certainly uncharacteristic of Mr Barr to move a motion riddled with basic errors and to have to issue a correction just 24 hours later.

Finally, the motion is different because it calls for non-executive members to publish their diaries and disclose the names of those they met. Presumably, this includes the meetings with stakeholders who have concerns with government policy—the names, dates and times we met with surgeons on the brink of resigning from the health system, the police officers struggling to bear the workload of community safety, the teachers and principals afraid of their safety, the public servants who have witnessed unethical decisions, and the whistleblowers who have seen unlawful administration.

Is this really what the Chief Minister expects from the opposition and the crossbench? Can he point to a single example of any democracy anywhere in the world where opposition members must report all of this to the head of the government? Can he explain how this is consistent with parliamentary privilege or the Latimer House principles? My understanding of those principles is that the executive is accountable to the parliament; it is not that the parliament is accountable to the executive.

I would have expected the Chief Minister—indeed, all ministers and members—to have understood this basic point, and it concerns me that they do not. I acknowledge that his revised motion attempts to walk back some of these concerns, but it is astonishing that he attempted to secure this information in the first place. It is completely incompatible with our democracy here in the ACT, a democracy that the Chief Minister should seek to protect and enhance.

In so many ways, this is a very different and very unusual motion from the Chief Minister. It is a motion that feels like it has been rushed, a motion that is the work of a harried and irrational mind, a motion that some might call unsophisticated. That, of course, would be unkind, just as it would be unkind if Labor members were to reflect on this motion, on this ham-fisted attempt to make some kind of vague point about something, while wanting the names of who is meeting with me and with every other member of the parliament, and wonder whether the Chief Minister might be getting a little past his prime.

After more than a decade as Chief Minister, he is resorting to the kind of cheap, empty tactics of a child playing checkers rather than a grandmaster playing chess. It is a bit sad. But the adults in the room—clearly, not those on the opposite side of the chamber—know that we can do better than this. We know we can be better than this, and my amendment seeks to do exactly that.

It points the Chief Minister to where he can access the information he has sought about staffing. It reminds Mr Barr of the lobbying inquiry, which has been agreed to by every member of this Assembly. More than just reminding him of the inquiry, it insists that he makes a statement about the funding of that inquiry, which should be a straightforward matter, given that he and his government supported the call for the inquiry and the call to fund the inquiry. Those of us in the opposition look forward to that statement with bated breath.

Page 1008 Most importantly, my amendment seeks the same consistency that the Chief Minister sought by requiring executive staffing to be disclosed on an annual basis, as already occurs with non-executive staffing. I hope and expect that the government will support the amendment, as it delivers on the standards of consistency and transparency that they have now embraced.

I would like to thank members across the chamber who have helped to work through this amendment. It has taken some time to pull it together, and we really appreciate the work that our officers have gone through. I commend my amendment to the Assembly and, once again, thank the Chief Minister for the motion and the opportunity he has presented to the Assembly today.

MR BRADDOCK

(Yerrabi) (10.35): I am glad Mr Barr updated his motion yesterday, because the original motion was unclear in its policy intent and had errors. It was not to the standard that I would expect from a member who has such extensive experience in this place, or seniority in the government, and I was surprised to see that he was willing to put his signature to that piece of work.

The revised motion contains some much-needed clarity on policy intent, and it applies a common test to the diaries, but it is not without its issues, and I will go through those now. Looking at paragraph (1), relating to work-related travel, I have no issue with transparency of members’ travel. Members travelling should be prepared to demonstrate to Canberrans why that is a suitable use of funds, whether it be to Singapore, the Isle of Man or Malta.

There is a page on the Office of the Legislative Assembly’s website regarding members’ ethics and accountability. As the Chief Minister mentioned, it includes the declaration of members’ interests and reports on non-executive members’ travel. This system dates back to 2009—interestingly, when Mr Rattenbury was the Speaker.

These reports detail all Assembly-funded travel that match the information that Mr Barr is seeking in paragraph (1) of his motion. But I do note—and I agree with him—that it does not include externally funded travel, because this appears in a separate section of the declaration of interests, and on the same page. That is because this type of travel is classified as a gift from those external agencies who provided the said travel.

A quick check reveals examples of previous members who have reported such gifts in their part of the declaration of interests. Therefore, all the information that Mr Barr is seeking in paragraph (1) is already in the public domain. The only question is about the need for consolidation and a timeframe for said reporting.

Mr Barr has called in this motion for three-monthly reporting. The current timeframe for non-executive member travel reporting is six-monthly. The timeframe for reporting externally funded travel as a gift is 28 days. So we have here some confusion as to which timeframe is appropriate—six months, three months or 28 days—and whether we wish to apply that to every element. Whilst Mr Barr is seeking more frequent reporting on one hand, on the other hand the timeframe for reporting externally funded travel will actually be longer.

Page 1009 I have no major issues either way as to what is the appropriate timeframe, but I note that this is the first time we have heard a call for three-monthly reporting of travel by non-executive members. If the government feel that this is an appropriate period of time and wish to see this applied to both Assembly-funded travel and externally funded travel, I am very happy to give that consideration, and I recommend that they raise that with admin and procedure, as the committee that would have to deal with the administrative process in order to make that happen. However, as part of the demonstration of why it is required, it needs to take into account how little non-executive travel actually occurs. It is not like the average non-executive MLA is travelling to Singapore three times a year.

Let us look at paragraph (2), which I suspect goes to the heart of what Minister Barr is actually seeking and does not already have, which is the publication of non-executive diaries. Fortunately, the revised motion now aligns the carve-outs with those that are utilised by ministers as part of their diaries. I will not go into detail in quoting the exact nature of those carve-outs; but, if my understanding is correct, those carve-outs were designed for the capture of ministerial business, to the exclusion of local members’ business.

If I am reading between the lines of this motion, he wants to pick up the activity of a local member scrutinising the government and ensure that it is released into the public domain. It unpacks a range of questions about the proper scope of diary publications. Front of mind for me is ensuring we do not put whistleblowers who approach their elected representatives at risk.

As much as the government may hate whistleblowers, they have an essential role in our democracy. Whistleblowers will need to have their privacy protected, so as to prevent possible vindictive and vengeful retaliation from the government. This applies to more than just individuals, who I note under the current carve-outs may be exempt, but that has to be clarified. This also includes those non-government organisations and community groups who are reliant on government funding and grants, and who are afraid of retaliation if it is disclosed that they are talking to other members of this place.

I have had many conversations with community groups where they are afraid of unilateral and retaliatory action if they express views that annoy the government. I am sure it is a conversation that many other non-executive members in this place have also experienced.

If the Chief Minister wants to know which community groups have the temerity to talk to their elected representatives, it unpacks some potentially unhealthy implications for democracy. What safeguards should be put in place to ensure such individuals and organisations are not impacted? The phrasing of Mr Barr’s motion is such that it may disclose the personal information of whistleblowers who have decided to approach their elected representatives. I hope it is not the intention to silence the whistleblowers or to scare them away from coming forward, but it could be the effect of the words as written in the motion.

There is also an issue of how we should handle matters that are committee-in-confidence, and that is something that would need to be explored and understood in
Page 1010 passing this motion. Again, I support in principle this increased transparency, but we need to be clear on what we are calling for and see that adequate safeguards are in place to ensure the effective operation of our democracy.

I am worried that the motion is missing the point as to why we currently ask for the publication of ministerial diaries. It is to help prevent the negative effect of lobbying on our decision-makers. It is to get people to think twice before meeting with a lobbyist that they would not want to be seen with, and the same applies to the lobbyist themselves. Any lobbying that occurs is theoretically forced into the open. That said, we know there are concerns with how this regime works, to the point where the Integrity Commissioner stated his interest in undertaking an inquiry into lobbying. The Assembly resolved its support for such an inquiry on 4 February this year and called upon the Labor government to fund it. I reiterate the need for the ACT government to fund this inquiry. I hope that, with greater understanding, we can identify any weaknesses in our current systems, including the transparency around both ministerial and non-executive diaries, and how these should be addressed.

I am speaking today as an individual member who also happens to be a member of the Standing Committee on the Integrity Commission and Statutory Office Holders. I would be very happy to examine how we can improve transparency around both ministerial and non-executive diaries once that inquiry is complete.

Paragraph (3) of the motion relates to staffing expenditure. What Mr Barr is asking for on non-executive staffing expenditure is already published in the annual reports of the Office of the Legislative Assembly, and in more detail than Mr Barr recently provided for the executive. He also seems to misunderstand how non-executive staffing budgets work, even though he signs the determination on what they are. Specifically, the concept of a shared resourcing arrangement does not exist, and it had to be edited out of the motion and substituted with our pledging system.

For those who are unfamiliar with the system, every employee has to be attached to an MLA, and pledges given and received between MLAs serve to account for an MLA employing someone who may work across multiple offices. For example, Miss Nuttall’s whip’s clerk works primarily for me, but Miss Nuttall pledges funding to me for the equivalent of one day a week where I direct him to work to her tasking. We do not have a pool of shared resources that help to make any office’s allocation look smaller than it actually is. It is hard to imagine that today’s motion was intended as anything but a tit-for-tat response for the order of production of documents regarding executive staffing.

Going to Ms Castley’s amendment, it highlights the existing transparency schemes for non-executive members, with which the Chief Minister was clearly unfamiliar when he drafted the motion, and I have just described them. It reaffirms the Assembly’s support for a lobbying inquiry by the ACT Integrity Commission and calls the Chief Minister to account on the need to act on that resolution by this Assembly in support of that inquiry. It also asks the Standing Committee on the Integrity Commission and Statutory Office Holders to examine and make recommendations on the transparency of all members’ diaries once we have the Integrity Commission’s expert advice. The Greens will be supporting the amendment.

Page 1011

In wrapping up, I wish to reaffirm that Labor has control of the executive. However, the non-executive members here today do form the majority in this chamber. We are open to transparency, and we will embrace it. However, we need to make sure that what is passed protects our whistleblowers and our democracy, and we are committed to continuing to do that.

MR PARTON

(Brindabella) (10.44): If you do a Google image search—I might try it now: “Hey Google, what does a tit-for-tat dummy spit by the Chief Minister look like—

Mr Pettersson: A point of order

, Madam Assistant Speaker. Mr Parton is using a prop.

MADAM ASSISTANT SPEAKER: Mr Parton, could you refrain.

MR PARTON: If I were holding my phone—and I could say my hand is effectively also a prop, but I cannot remove it—and I said, “Hey Google, what does a tit-for-tat dummy spit by the Chief Minister look like in the form of a motion on the notice paper?”, my phone would probably come up with an image of this motion. If I asked, “What does a two-can-play-that-game dummy spit look like?”, that is what it would come up with.

I was not sure whether to speak to this, but I do not understand. I have listened to Mr Barr, so I have a somewhat deeper understanding of what he is trying to achieve. I note that the motion we see before us today has been amended by the Chief Minister since its original iteration, because it called for non-executive members to publish information on their work-related travel each quarter, full stop. That was extremely ambiguous. The current motion calls for non-executive members to publish information on their externally sponsored and Assembly related travel, and I am still lost as to what the Chief Minister is trying to achieve.

As has been pointed out during this debate, non-executive members do not have any travel allowance. Any Assembly related travel is already reported extensively on public-facing portals that already exist. What are we doing here? When you try to break down the exact definition of “externally sponsored” travel, what does that mean? Does that mean work-related travel paid for by any individual entity other than the Assembly? Is that what it means?

Here is another prop for you. This is a draft of my graffiti management report. It is nearly completed. It has 7,000 words. It will be going to the relevant government minister, it will be going to the relevant shadow minister, it will be going to the Leader of the Opposition and to the Leader of the Greens, if he wants it, and it will be going to the two independents. You want to talk about externally sponsored travel and diary lists? Then let’s do it.

I am a non-executive member. I travelled to Sydney to meet with Blacktown City Council, City of Sydney, Mosman Council and Hornsby Shire Council. I did so on 26 February this year. I left Canberra at 5.15 am in my car and I got back home at
Page 1012 9.30 pm. I can list all the members of those councils that I met with; I can list all the tolls, which were quite extensive given the zigzagging of the city that I undertook; and I can probably submit my petrol, which cost well over $100, and parking at various locations in Sydney, which cost $50.

I travelled to Wollongong on 12 March to meet with Simon Grant from the Wonderwalls project to see what they were achieving. There were no tolls or parking costs, but it cost me around $100 in petrol. I travelled to Melbourne to meet with Yarra City Council, Melbourne City Council, and the president of the upper house of the Victorian parliament. My plane tickets cost $554. I paid for them. I am happy to submit those costs as externally sponsored, Assembly related travel. The costs were on me; I paid for them.

The Grand Prix weekend in Melbourne was not well planned, so my accommodation cost me over $400. I paid for it. SkyBus cost me $40. I did a lot of walking in Melbourne—brisk walking—but I had to get a taxi from Carlton to Richmond and then from Richmond back to the city, so that was another $80. My trip to Melbourne was extremely beneficial in drafting this particular prop, Mr Pettersson, and, additionally, for potential changes to the standing orders in this place. In total, my Melbourne trip cost me well over $1,000. Subsequent to that travel, I personally put together this 7,000-word prop. The trip was essentially the equivalent of a committee inquiry; it is just that there was no committee, no secretariat to pay to conduct the inquiry and prepare the report, and no travel for committee members, because I paid for it all.

Mr Barr comes to this chamber and says, “I want to create a level playing field.” I do not know that it is. I am not sure that it is a level playing field or anything like it, and that it ever really can be, because that is not the way that parliaments work. We would like it being a little more level than it is, in many aspects, but it is not. Making an assumption that those of us opposite operate in the same way that the government operates is wrong, and probably quite dangerous. I pride myself on being a hardworking local member of this place. I pride myself on going above and beyond to provide solutions, advocacy and support for the people who voted for me, because that is what we are supposed to do. And I am personally happy—but I do not know where this is going to end, because we have all sorts of amendments—to provide every single detail of that process for the whole world to see. But I just do not understand what we are seeking to achieve.

Ms Cheyne: Madam Assistant Speaker, I seek your advice, if not your ruling, about an amendment that has been circulated

. I appreciate that you may need to seek some advice, because I certainly do not know what the answer is, and I suspect this is what has been happening around the chamber. My read would be that, in usual circumstances, under standing order 140, Ms Castley’s amendment would be ruled out of order. However, then there is Mr Emerson’s amendment—which, in the way that it has been circulated, does not do this, but I understand the intention—which would bring back Mr Barr’s motion and then add Ms Castley’s motion after Mr Barr’s motion, and that would mean it is not out of order. Mr Emerson’s amendment does not do that, but that seems to be the intention.

MR SPEAKER: Could I get an understanding: are you raising—

Page 1013 Ms Cheyne: I am seeking your guidance, Mr Speaker, now that you are back: is this in order, in the order that it has been presented?

MR SPEAKER: Mr Duncan and I will have a brief chat and we will come back with more shortly.

Ms Cheyne, in reflecting on your concerns about whether Ms Castley’s amendment is in order, I assume that you are referring to standing order 140 and, in particular, that the most important rule relating to amendments is that they must be relevant to the question upon which they are moved. My view is that, because paragraph (4) of Ms Castley’s motion states:

calls on the Standing Committee on the Integrity Commission and Statutory Office Holders to consider holding an inquiry into any findings or recommendations … into lobbying …

and:

consider issues regarding the accessibility and detail of the diaries of executive and non-executive MLAs …

the amendment is related to the original motion, so I am happy for it to proceed.