Page 899

Tuesday, 8 April 2025

MR SPEAKER (Mr Parton) (10.01): 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 would ask you to stand in silence and pray or reflect on our responsibilities to the people of the Australian Capital Territory.

Legislative Assembly—parliamentary privilege in litigation

Statement by Speaker

MR SPEAKER

: Members will recall that I made a statement to the Assembly on 4 March 2025 advising that the ACT Supreme Court had granted leave for me to appear as amicus curiae in the matter of Cover v ACT Integrity Commission, and a hearing is listed for later this month.

On a separate but somewhat related matter, members will be aware that proceedings have been brought in the Federal Court by the Hon. Walter Sofronoff KC seeking judicial review of an ACT Integrity Commission investigation report on Operation Juno, which was tabled in this place during the last sitting.

Much the same issues of parliamentary privilege are potentially enlivened and, accordingly, I have made an application to appear as amicus, which will be heard by the court next month, in my understanding.

I have noticed some public reporting on the case over the last week which was not entirely on the money. It is important to remind members and others that I take no position in relation to the underlying merits of the substantive matters that the parties to proceedings are seeking to litigate.

If I am granted status as amicus, my only role is to ensure that the Assembly’s powers, privileges and immunities are given due consideration by the courts, and nothing more.

As with the Cover matter, I am to be represented by the ACT Government Solicitor’s Office. I will keep members updated as both matters progress.

Page 900

Petitions

The following petitions were lodged for presentation:

Hawker, Page and Scullin—police presence—petitions 46-24 and 16-25

By Mr Cain, from 368 and 697 residents, respectively:

To the Speaker and Members of the Legislative Assembly for the Australian Capital Territory

This petition of certain residents of the Australian Capital Territory draws to the attention of the Assembly:

a) There is currently a lack of police officers present in the suburbs of Hawker, Page and Scullin.

b) Residents in these suburbs are experiencing an increase in petty and preventable crimes.

c) The primary mechanism to solving this issue is increasing the presence of ACT Policing officers in the suburbs of Hawker, Page and Scullin, by promoting more patrols and increased numbers.

Your petitioners, therefore, request the Assembly call on the Government to increase the number of ACT Policing officers in Hawker, Page and Scullin, and ensure that regular patrols are provided by police officers on foot and in police vehicles to increase safety for citizens.

Pursuant to standing order 99A, these petitions, having at least 500 signatories, were referred to the Standing Committee on Legal Affairs.

Shirley Smith High School—priority enrolment area—petition 47-24

By Mr Rattenbury, from 56 residents:

To the Speaker and Members of the Legislative Assembly for the Australian Capital Territory

The following residents of the ACT draw the attention of the Assembly:

Hackett currently is only in the PEA for Campbell High School. Watson, adjacent to Hackett, is in a shared PEA with Campbell, Lyneham and Shirley Smith high schools.

The distance between Hackett and Campbell is approximately 6 km while the distance to Shirley Smith is approximately 8 km. The bike ride to Campbell is not safe. It is on narrow, busy roads, without any dedicated bike lane, while the footpaths are also too narrow, very uneven and constantly cross residential driveways from which cars reverse with low visibility. The school bus service from Hackett to Campbell is on a timetable which is not flexible for many children’s morning routines.

In comparison, the bike ride to the light rail to Shirley Smith is on a wide road, in the opposite direction to the morning traffic, and the footpath is straighter, less
Page 901 bumpy, and the residential driveways are more visible. In addition, there is an off-road bike path the whole way to Shirley Smith, safely accessible with two traffic light pedestrian crossings (at Antill and opposite EPIC). This would be an excellent active travel option especially for older students. Parents could also easily drop children at the corner of Philip Avenue and Northbourne to meet the light rail which runs at more regular intervals.

According to the 2021 Census, the number of young people living in Hackett between 0 and 4 was 176 and 5 and 9 was 226. Including Hackett in the Shirly Smith PEA would not be a significant increase in the possible number of students.

At the same time, it can be expected the Campbell PEA will experience a population increase with the greater density for some of the central suburbs. Given Hackett’s proximity and easy commute to Lyneham it has long seemed unreasonable that Hackett is not in the PEA for Lyneham High School. But, as Lyneham High School PEA arrangement has been in place forever, and Lyneham is overcapacity, we accept that Lyneham is not an option.

Including Hackett in the Shirley Smith PEA would be fair, reasonable, convenient and promote active travel and provide greater flexibility to families and children.

Transport options to local high schools:

Distance from Mackenzie Street Hackett (eastern most location) to Campbell High is 6km; to Shirley Smith is 8.2km via Flemington Road and Lyneham High is 4.6km

Bike to Campbell High - there is no bike path, on road or via the fire trail on Mt Ainslie; to Shirley Smith is by off road bike path the whole way; and to Lyneham High is the safest, shortest bike path.

Private Car to Campbell High is in the same direction as morning traffic; to Shirley Smith is opposite morning traffic.

Public Transport to Campbell High is on a suburban school bus available on fixed timetable; to Shirley Smith is by regular light rail at corner of Phillip Avenue (easy car drop off, or bike ride to light rail).

Your petitioners, therefore, request the Assembly:

The suburb of Hackett be included in the Priority Enrolment Area (PEA) for Shirley Smith High School.

Burrangiri Aged Care Respite Centre—petition 5-25

By Ms Carrick, from 672 residents:

To the Speaker and Members of the Legislative Assembly for the Australian Capital Territory

The following residents of the Australian Capital Territory draw the attention of the Assembly to the proposed closure of Burrangiri Aged Care Respite Centre in Rivett.

Page 902 There is already an acute shortage of respite places in the ACT. The Burrangiri Centre offers a day-care program and short-stay respite for up to three weeks without requiring an ACAT assessment.

Day care programs and respite facilities allow carers’ respite so they can support older Canberrans to stay in their homes for as long as possible.

Your petitioners, therefore, request the Assembly call on the ACT Government to ensure that the Burrangiri Aged Care Respite Centre remains open until a satisfactory alternative can be found.

Pursuant to standing order 99A, the petition, having at least 500 signatories, was referred to the Standing Committee on Social Policy.

The Clerk having announced that the terms of the petitions would be recorded in Hansard and referred to the appropriate ministers for response pursuant to standing order 100, the petitions were received.

Motion to take note of petitions

MR SPEAKER: Pursuant to standing order 98A, I propose the question:

That the petitions so lodged be noted.

Hawker, Page and Scullin—police presence—petitions 46-24 and 16-25

MR CAIN

(Ginninderra) (10.05): I want to speak briefly about the petition that I have sponsored on behalf of Dimitri Psihogios, a local fellow who grew up in this part of Belconnen—Hawker, Page and Scullin. He came to me, some 12 months ago, saying he has family members living in the area and he has noticed, and it has been reported to him, growing concerns about preventable crime in that part of south Belconnen.

I want to commend Dimitri, who has been at shopping centres over the last several months—up to six months. I have been supporting him when I can. He has been visiting local shops in that part of south Belconnen, and I want to commend the local shops and businesses who have taken on board this concern for increased police presence in south Belconnen and have had multiple copies of the paper version of this petition signed and handed in.

I was pleased to lodge those yesterday to the secretariat, and as was stated by the clerk just now, my count was that there were 697 signatures on the paper version. Obviously, OLA will do their appropriate scrutiny to check the validity, to make sure there are no duplications and that all the details are in order. The e-petition itself, which is a fixed and closed number, had 368 signatures.

I am very confident that this petition will be referred to the legal affairs committee, and I make it very clear, even though I am the chair of that committee, I am speaking as a member for Ginninderra and not as a committee member.

I will look forward, obviously, to the outcome of the committee’s deliberations. Given that it is almost certain that the number of approved signatures on this petition will be
Page 903 over 500, it means that that standing committee must consider the petition and make a decision as to whether an inquiry into it is warranted or otherwise.

I do want to read, for the record, what the petition actually calls for. These are the words provided to me by Mr Psihogios, which I was happy to sponsor:

This petition of certain residents of the Australian Capital Territory draws to the attention of the Assembly:

a) There is currently a lack of police officers present in the suburbs of Hawker, Page and Scullin.

b) Residents in these suburbs are experiencing an increase in petty and preventable crimes.

c) The primary mechanism to solving this issue is increasing the presence of ACT Policing officers in the suburbs of Hawker, Page and Scullin, by promoting more patrols and increased numbers.

I will just add before I close that I have been door-knocking in Scullin since the election, and I have heard firsthand accounts from residents of one of these suburbs of their concern about growing preventable crime in their neighbourhood, including having their cars checked late at night or early in the morning and having garage doors checked to see if they are open. It is a growing concern.

I will say, as well, that this is one of many petitions that have been brought to this Assembly, particularly last term. I brought one similar regarding Kippax Group Centre, about two years ago. There is a growing concern within our community that the lack of police resourcing is, unfortunately, creating opportunities for preventable crime and creating unease in our suburbs. That is something this government should squarely face, and it should go to the community and find out what the community wants.

I endorse this petition and thank the members of the community who have got behind this to bring attention to a growing problem, not just in south Belconnen but in my electorate and, I believe, across Canberra, that is solvable by proper resourcing by this government of our police.

Shirley Smith High School—priority enrolment area—petition 47-24

Burrangiri Aged Care Respite Centre—petition 5-25

MR RATTENBURY

(Kurrajong) (10.10): I rise to speak briefly on the petition that I sponsored from a resident, Deb Shroot, about the priority enrolment area for students who are living in Hackett. As the petition notes, Hackett currently is only in the priority enrolment area for Campbell High School. Watson, which is adjacent to Hackett, is in a shared priority enrolment area with Campbell, Lyneham and Shirley Smith High Schools. So the petitioner, and those who signed it, have made the point that there are access issues, particularly, in getting to Campbell High from Hackett. They make the
Page 904 point that the bike ride is on narrow, busy roads, without any dedicated bike lane, and the footpaths are also narrow, uneven and constantly crossing the residential driveways.

The petitioners have done a very thorough job of outlining the alternative option of students being allowed to attend Shirley Smith school, and they outlined both the bike‑riding and light rail options to get to that area. They made the point that including Hackett in the Shirley Smith priority enrolment area would be fair, reasonable, convenient, and provide active travel and greater flexibility for families and children. The petitioners have done a terrific job of outlining the various transport options to the local high schools and underlining the relative merits for cycling and private cars, as well as public transport.

I urge the government to consider this and see whether it is possible to amend the priority enrolment area for residents of Hackett to give them greater flexibility and options.

I also would like to speak on the petition on Burrangiri. I do not mean to anticipate Ms Carrick, but someone had to stand up. I want to speak in support of the petition that has been tabled. I want to thank Ms Carrick for her ongoing advocacy on this issue and for tabling the petition today.

I am glad to see the voices of those who use the service, the carers and patients of Burrangiri respite centre, and the broader community, represented in the signatures presented in the chamber today. I would also like to thank and acknowledge the work of community members who have spoken to many members of the Legislative Assembly about the ongoing value of Burrangiri respite centre. They have been busy emailing and meeting members, and I was certainly pleased to also be able to meet with the advocates recently.

I was also able to visit the Burrangiri respite centre for the first time last week. I must admit, from the news reports that I had heard before visiting the centre, I was expecting something a little less impressive. Instead, I found Burrangiri to be a facility in terrific condition. The staff, in particular, were fantastic. They spoke so passionately about their work and the care they provide for clients of Burrangiri. I would like to thank everyone who made it possible for me to visit.

We know that there is already an acute shortage of respite places in the ACT. We heard in the most recent annual report hearings that there are a significant number of aged-care patients who are waiting in hospitals for days and days, sometimes up to a month, to be able to access an appropriate facility for their care requirements. If we have a facility that is currently operational, safe, has fantastic staff and is loved by the community, why would we seek to end that service?

This is the key point that I previously mentioned during the motion on Burrangiri, and I continue to return to that central point. There has been some discussion about the condition of the facility, and yet the government’s own Asset Management Plan identified that Burrangiri is compliant with all statutory obligations and there are zero assets that do not meet the building code. They also noted there are no assets that were categorised as “very poor”, “potential structural, operational problems” or “not operational”.

Page 905 For these reasons, I, on behalf of the ACT Greens, indicate our support for the continued operation of the respite centre until the government can provide alternative capacity for respite care. I think the key point here is that Burrangiri is providing 4,500 bed-nights a year. At the moment there is no clear alternative plan. In the absence of a clear alternative plan, I think, it is not reasonable for this service to be discontinued. I urge the government to reconsider their position.

Burrangiri Aged Care Respite Centre—petition 5-25

MS CARRICK

(Murrumbidgee) (10.15): I rise to speak on the petition I sponsored, the Burrangiri e-petition. I note that the paper petition will be tabled on Thursday. I would like to thank the Burrangiri action group, who continue to advocate for the facility. Indeed, they were advocating this morning with Senator Pocock at Burrangiri. Our carers need support, and Burrangiri is where many carers take their loved ones for respite.

The petition draws to the attention of this Assembly the proposed closure of the Burrangiri Aged Care Respite Centre in Rivett. The petition states that there is already an acute shortage of respite places in the ACT and that the Burrangiri centre offers a day care program and short stay respite for up to three weeks, without requiring an ACAT assessment.

The day care programs and respite facilities allow carers respite so they can support older Canberrans to stay in their homes for as long as possible. The petitioners, therefore, request that the Assembly call on the government to ensure that the Burrangiri Aged Care Respite Centre remains open until a satisfactory alternative can be found.

Burrangiri’s day program and 15 short-stay beds are available to people without an ACAT assessment. It is a very popular service, and the beds are needed. Without Burrangiri’s 15 beds, it will be very difficult to access respite. Carers ACT informed us that there was a four- to six-month wait for respite.

The vision in the ACT Carers strategy is to have a community that cares for carers and the people they care for. Supporting carers is investing in Canberra’s future. Closing Burrangiri without replacing the beds is not supporting our carers.

The Minister for Health said that Canberra Health Services already runs a very similar program where they buy beds from residential aged-care facilities to provide hospital step-down respite. She said that if we were going to do something to purchase beds, it would make more sense to expand that Canberra Health Services program than to do a separate program.

With the lack of respite beds available across Canberra and with residential aged-care providers preferring permanent residents, it is not clear where respite beds can be purchased in residential aged care and how much it will cost. If people are forced to stay in hospital, how much will that cost?

An understanding of the services available to the community once Burrangiri closes would help the community have confidence in the changes. For example, where will the respite beds be? How many have been secured? How much is each bed? What will the expected wait time be?

Page 906 The reason Burrangiri is closing is that the building needs a refurbishment and will have to close for a period of time. We have been to the building, and it is cozy. It has a north-facing sunroom and home cooked meals. It is very comfortable, and I have not heard any issues with the building at all. There are 12 toilets and seven showers across the building.

The Asset Management Plan states that the building is highly important to the delivery of day-to-day health services. The carpets have been replaced; it was painted last December; the electrical distribution boards have been checked and signed off, and the gardens have been upgraded. We would like to understand what the refurb is. There were no conversations with the Salvation Army about the need to close for a refurb; we are all confused.

The Salvation Army were simply advised that the facility would close in January and that the contract would not be extended, and they have a vacate possession notice to be out of the building by 30 June 2025. Is the ACT Health Directorate investigating other uses for Burrangiri? How long will it sit empty while people are looking for respite services?

The funding is also a mystery. If the state of the budget and the blowout in the health costs is the problem, then there should be conversations with the federal government and the Salvation Army about the possibility of funding alternatives.

On the crossbench, our job is to scrutinise government decisions, to hold the executive to account and to try to improve outcomes for Canberrans. On 5 March, the Assembly approved our motion which called on the government to provide information about the cost of the required refurb of the building and information about the alternative facilities that will meet the demand for respite services. Our motion called on the government to extend the Burrangiri contract until the alternative respite capacity is available. Not only did the minister not extend the contract for Burrangiri, she also did not provide any of the information we asked for about the refurbishment of the building and the alternative services.

The minister also mentioned that the FOI is being prepared. When will the information from the motion and the FOI be available? We will continue to perform our role, to scrutinise the executive decisions and to try and improve outcomes for our communities. (Time expired.)

Hawker, Page and Scullin—police presence—petitions 46-24 and 16-25

MS BARRY

(Ginninderra) (10.20): I rise to speak in support of the petition tabled by my colleague Mr Peter Cain, and I would also like to acknowledge the work of the petitioner, Mr Dimitri Psihogios. Mr Speaker, a 368-signature and a 697-signature response to a petition shows the overwhelming significance of this issue to the people of Belconnen. I also have been out there doorknocking and mobile officing, and I can tell you that there are serious concerns from the residents about how unsafe they feel when shopping around there, and also general safety concerns.

Mr Speaker, the median age for Hawker, Scullin and Page is around 25 to 64, which indicates that there are families there and there are old people there; the demographic
Page 907 is quite diverse. It is really important that these people feel safe shopping in that area. Providing safety to our community is one of the foundations of a government. It is how we maintain our social contract with the people that we represent. I am looking forward to the inquiry and to the outcomes of the referral of the petition. I hope that the committee considers the seriousness of the matter, inquires into the petition and provides some comfort and safety to the people of Belconnen.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Impact of federal budget 2025-2026

Ministerial statement

MR STEEL

(Murrumbidgee—Treasurer, Minister for Planning and Sustainable Development, Minister for Heritage and Minister for Transport) (10.22): I rise today to speak on the recent federal budget handed down on 25 March by federal Treasurer Jim Chalmers, and outline its impact on Canberra families, the investment it delivers for our city, and the updated economic and financial impact on the territory’s economy.

Since coming to office, the Albanese government has directed almost $2 billion in funding to the ACT—funding that strengthens our infrastructure, bolsters essential services and supports every Canberran with cost-of-living relief. Working with the ACT government, the Albanese government has been continuing to invest in public health care, Canberra schools and delivering more housing for the entire community.

Our government strongly welcomes the significant investment in public health care and the largest investment in Medicare in its history. Through the federal budget, the Albanese government announced a rapid increase in Medicare rebates for general practice, with a $7.9 billion investment to support more bulk-billing across the country. Canberrans deserve to be able to access bulk-billed GPs, and appropriately funding primary health care is critical to address the complexities of demand in our healthcare system. The Albanese government continue to show their commitment to strengthening Medicare by growing available services in primary care and the private healthcare workforce.

We welcome the Albanese government’s continued investment in women’s health, including listing more items on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme for women’s reproductive health and treating endometriosis.

The ACT government remains committed to delivering the targets set out in the National Housing Accord, and we are working to deliver above our per capita share of the national housing target of 1.2 million homes over five years. We know that increasing housing supply will improve housing affordability, access and choice for Canberrans.

The ACT government welcomes the increased income and property price caps under the government’s Help to Buy scheme, which will support more Canberrans to enter the housing market, with lower deposits and smaller mortgages. Purchase of homes of up to $1 million in Canberra will now be supported under the scheme—up from $750,000.

Page 908 The ACT’s apprentices in residential construction will benefit from $10,000 in cost‑of‑living completion payments, which will support the construction industry to build more homes.

The ACT government has also agreed to the new Better and Fairer Schools Agreement, which provides an additional $331 million over 10 years for ACT schools, ensuring that our children receive the best possible education. The new agreement will support key actions across ACT public schools, including phonics and numeracy checks, literacy and numeracy coaches, and curriculum resources to support teachers, community coordinator and mental health professionals for schools, supporting connections to meet the wellbeing and learning needs of students, and principal health and wellbeing programs and workload reduction initiatives for teachers and school leaders so that they can focus on teaching. These actions build on reforms already underway in ACT public schools, such as strengthening the inclusion of students with a disability and making sure that we have efficient and aligned allied healthcare services to support our schools.

We know that Canberrans are doing it tough, and that is why we welcome the continued investment by the Albanese government in supporting the community with cost of living. The further relief being undertaken by the Albanese government will include a further $150 in energy bill relief for 196,000 ACT households; cheaper medicines, with prescription costs capped at $25; and more affordable and accessible health care, particularly for women, with reduced costs for contraceptives, menopause treatments and IVF. A tax cut for ACT taxpayers will provide a benefit for the average Canberra taxpayer of more than $50 per week and almost $2,900 per year, once fully implemented.

The extension of electricity rebates in the 2025-26 commonwealth budget will further ease financial pressures, directly reducing annual inflation by 0.5 percentage points through to December 2025. Without these rebates, electricity bills would have been, on average, around 45 per cent higher. When considered alongside the ACT government’s $800 utilities concession, our lower‑than‑average power pricing and other measures like the Sustainable Household Scheme, the two levels of government are working in tandem to ensure that the hardest hit are supported.

We also welcome the further commitments from the Albanese government to support further pay rises for thousands of Canberrans by making representations to the Fair Work Commission to increase the national minimum wage.

The federal budget continues the Albanese government’s infrastructure investments in Canberra, building on the investments over the term in our national institutions, the national security precinct and transformational light rail funding. Earlier this year, I joined the Chief Minister, Minister Catherine King and our federal representatives to acknowledge the start of construction for light rail stage 2A to Commonwealth Park, which is jointly funded with the Albanese government, who have made a $343.9 million contribution.

Our government is committed to working with our federal colleagues on further contributions in future federal budgets, building on the Albanese government’s initial investment of $50 million for light rail stage 2B planning and design. The federal budget also commits another $53.5 million in 2025-26 to support further investment in
Page 909 Canberra’s roads, including $30 million to complete the Monaro Highway upgrade stage 1, $20 million to progress further planning on the next stage of the Monaro Highway upgrades and $3.5 million to complete the duplication of Gundaroo Drive.

The federal budget also provides a $30 million boost over five years for the ACT under the Roads to Recovery program, which will go directly to maintaining the ACT’s existing road network. This includes $8.6 million for resurfacing the Kings Highway near Kowen.

The budget also continues investment in Canberra Avenue, with $12.6 million for safety improvements, particularly around the Hume Circle intersection, $112.5 million for the new bridge over the Mongolo River, $53.6 million for the William Hovell Drive duplication, and $46.7 million for the Athllon Drive duplication.

A $3 billion investment in the National Broadband Network will also directly benefit thousands of Canberra households. In fact, we expect to see around 100,000 households in the ACT connected with faster and more reliable internet by upgrading remaining fibre-to-the-node connections.

In partnership with the Albanese government, we are continuing to make significant investment in renewable energy, and we welcome the Albanese government’s sensible approach that is about working in partnership with the states and territories to ensure that we have clean and reliable energy.

The ACT government is gravely concerned about any proposal for a higher cost nuclear energy plan that will leave Canberrans paying more for electricity for longer. We have shown the community that investment in renewable energy is not only better for the planet but also better for the hip pocket of every family.

Mr Speaker, you cannot talk about building the future of Canberra without talking about the largest employer in this city, the Australian Public Service. Our government welcomes the Albanese government’s strong support for our city through investment in the public service, but it is clear that there are alternative plans and that they pose a dangerous threat to Canberra, and they are nothing short of a direct attack on Canberrans. Peter Dutton and the Liberals say all of this will come from Canberra. A plan to gut 41,000 jobs in Canberra would have a staggering and devastating effect on the ACT economy and hurt local businesses.

The federal budget handed down by the Albanese government highlighted the strong fundamentals of the Australian economy. The federal Treasurer outlined that Australia’s economic outlook remains resilient, despite global uncertainties, including ongoing trade tensions, conflict in the Middle East and Europe, and challenges in key markets like China. Nominal GDP is expected to grow by 4¼ per cent in 2024-25 and it is then expected to slow to 3¼ per cent in 2025-26, as a pick-up in economic growth is offset by a moderation in domestic inflation and sharper fall in the terms of trade.

A soft landing for the Australian economy is increasingly likely and, unlike the experience of other advanced economies in previous inflationary episodes, Australia has been able to achieve a substantial moderation in inflation while maintaining a low unemployment rate.

Page 910 Recent outcomes for inflation and unemployment have been better than expected, and the near-term outlook has improved on both fronts. Headline inflation returned to the RBA’s target band in the second half of 2024 and is now expected to be 2½ per cent through the year to the June quarter 2025, a quarter of a percentage point lower than forecast in the Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook. This was reinforced at the most recent meeting of the RBA board, where the primary concern continued to be global trade tensions. The impact of President Trump’s tariff policy will not be welcome.

Public final demand growth, which has been driven by spending on essential services, infrastructure and cost-of-living relief, is expected to moderate from five per cent in 2024‑25 to two per cent in 2026-27 as private sector growth strengthens. This shift underscores the government’s strategy of investing wherever it is needed most while ensuring long-term economic stability.

Australia’s labour market remains a key pillar of economic strength. The unemployment rate has remained low, at around four per cent over the past three quarters, with over one million additional Australians gaining employment since May 2022. Employment growth is forecast at 2.75 per cent in 2024-25, before stabilising at one per cent in 2025-26 and 1.25 per cent in 2026-27.

Wage growth remains a priority, with nominal wages expected to grow by three per cent through the year to June 2025 and 3.25 per cent through to June 2026. Real wages, accounting for inflation, have already begun to recover, growing at 0.8 per cent through the year to December 2024 and forecast to continue increasing over the coming years. The commitment of both of our governments to improving productivity will further support sustained wage growth.

Business investment remains at decade-high levels, supported by resilient business balance sheets and strong capacity utilisation. Whilst growth is expected to moderate, the level of investment will remain elevated. Non‑mining investment is expected to be the primary driver of business growth, increasing by 2.5 per cent in 2024-25 and two per cent in 2025-26.

The construction sector is also seeing renewed strength around the country, with inflation in building materials easing and labour availability improving. This will allow the sector to meet robust housing demand, with dwelling investment forecast to grow by 1.5 per cent in 2024-25, 5.5 per cent in 2025-26 and 7.5 per cent in 2026-27. Rental price growth is also moderating as demand softens and vacancy rates increase.

The ACT government welcomes the continued commitment of the Albanese government to our city and the investments made in the federal budget to support and invest in Canberrans. These are challenging times, and these challenges can and will be made more difficult should an alternative approach to our city be taken—an approach where, instead of investing in Canberra, the Prime Minister lounges on the lawns of Kirribilli, taking in harbourside views far away from the government agencies here in Canberra that deliver essential services for Australians.

Our government welcomes continued commitments to tackle the cost of living by the federal government and the continued investments in the budget in health, schools and housing. A budget stands as a statement of priorities for any government, and we
Page 911 welcome the federal government’s commitment to responsible economic management, paired with genuine support for the people of Canberra and Australia.

At the forthcoming election, I encourage Canberrans to consider the risks of electing a Liberal government that fundamentally hates Canberra, that has no plan to tackle cost of living and, instead, proposes reckless cuts that will hurt us all and cut services for Australians.

The federal budget delivers. As the territory’s Treasurer and an MLA in our city, I always argue that more can be done to support Canberra, but a fair and rational assessment of the commitments made by the commonwealth shows that it delivers. It delivers for our schools, our hospitals, our roads and our families, and it delivers for every Australian and every Canberran who relies on a strong public service, quality health care and a thriving local economy.

I present the following paper:

Impact of the 2025-2026 Federal Budget on the ACT—Ministerial statement, 8 April 2025.

I move:

That the Assembly take note of the paper.

MS CLAY

(Ginninderra) (10.35): I would like to make a few comments on the minister’s statement on the federal budget. This federal budget was a missed opportunity for Canberrans. It was an opportunity to make our city fairer and to provide the services that Canberrans need. It was an opportunity to get dental into Medicare and to have that paid for by getting big corporations to pay their fair share of tax.

We are one of the richest jurisdictions in one of the wealthiest countries on Earth. Everyone should be able to afford the basics—a decent home, food they can afford, access to excellent health care, and an education that brings choice and opportunity. Instead, federal Labor’s budget has delivered $56 billion in fossil fuel subsidies. I repeat: $56 billion. It has delivered $176 billion for property investors. Where are the policies to deliver a real shift in the cost of living for the majority?

Labor’s small cut in income tax, which is not due to take effect for another 15 months, is not going to touch the sides for most of us. The cost of rent and mortgage interest rates is sky-high for most people. Those cuts are great for landlords and bankers, but they are not enough to help everybody else. This same government’s previous stage 3 tax cuts delivered $4,500 in tax cuts for billionaires. That is money that should have been invested in creating a better country for all of us. And this budget is cutting support for people who need it most. The federal government has forecast billions more in cuts to the NDIS. That is an unnecessary act, and it will have, inevitably, cruel impacts.

The Treasurer has just lauded two road duplications which will make a fractional difference to people’s journey times. If we really cared about fast, frequent public and active transport and making sure that that was available to all, we would have asked our federal government to prioritise federal funding requests that speed up the delivery of
Page 912 light rail, that complete our active travel network, that deliver the essential bus infrastructure we need and that deliver that infrastructure on time.

Investments like that would make our city more connected, safer to navigate, and feasible for everyone to rely on, with fewer car journeys—fewer of those really expensive journeys that are costing so many people so much in petrol, and they simply do not have the money for it anymore. Instead, we are seeing more and more support for the transport options that we know are not serving us.

There is some indication that pressure by the Greens is working in this budget. We are pleased to see that. Labor has committed to adopting part of the Greens’ plan to see a GP for free by tripling the bulk-billing incentive rate by 2030. But, right now, we have the lowest bulk-billing rates in the country, and ACT Labor need to make the case to their federal colleagues regarding the principle that, actually, we need everyone to be able to see a GP for free—free at the point of use. If we do not have that principle that you should be able to see a GP for free, the risk is that much of this incentive will be wiped out by inflation.

We have another positive move. Labor are taking steps towards the Greens’ plan to completely wipe student debt. Unfortunately, they could have locked in this commitment and cut 20 per cent off student debt in the last days of parliament. Instead, they spent that last day in parliament watering down our nature protection laws. Federal Labor, on the last day of parliament, used the cover of a budget to do a dodgy deal with Dutton to gut our environment and climate laws. While everyone else was focused on the budget, Labor and the Liberals teamed up to ram through this legislation. This legislation makes it easier for big corporations to trash our precious natural environment and to approve more coal and gas. We cannot keep voting for the same two parties and expect a different result.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Canberra Health Services—planned care reforms

Ministerial statement

MS STEPHEN-SMITH

(Kurrajong—Minister for Health, Minister for Mental Health, Minister for Finance and Minister for the Public Service) (10.40): I rise today to provide the Assembly with an update on the reforms being undertaken at Canberra Health Services to improve the provision of planned care through our public health services.

CHS’s planned care reforms are aimed at ensuring our public health system delivers equity of access with care that is as timely as possible, reflecting clinical urgency. This reflects a fundamental principle of delivering a public health service. Labor has always been the party that advocates for those who have less opportunity or agency to advocate for themselves and invests in strengthening public health services to support our communities.

CHS has been undertaking significant reforms to ensure our public health services are accessible, accountable and sustainable. This includes moving to contemporary forms of service delivery and best practice operational environments that focus on their core role—to be a public health service provider that puts patients at the centre.

Page 913 We are learning from other hospitals and health systems, whether it is Townsville or Gold Coast University Hospital, Singapore’s health system or the Parkville precinct in Melbourne. But we are also learning from our own teams, and I am committed to ensuring we continue to work with our clinicians to deliver change that is fit for purpose for the ACT.

CHS’s values, developed in partnership with staff in 2019, are:

Reliable—we always do what we say;

Progressive—we embrace innovation;

Respectful—we value everyone; and

Kind—we make everyone feel welcome and safe.

We know that the way our services have been organised in the past meant reliability was compromised. That is hard for patients. We have all heard from people who had organised their lives for an expected elective surgery, only to have it cancelled, sometimes more than once. But it is also hard for staff when they have to break the bad news to consumers and carers that the care they were expecting to receive has been postponed.

That is why reform has been focused on improving the reliability of access to care in both the emergency and elective or planned streams of care. We are already seeing the positive results of the changes and investments we have been making in our emergency departments, and we are starting to see that flow through to planned care. But we know that there is more to do.

Health systems, of course, must balance the competing needs of different individuals, specialties and groups. There is an inherent tension between components of the system which are in direct competition for the same resources to deliver care to patients. Nowhere is this more apparent than in the balance between emergency and elective—or planned—surgery. This has been the subject of discussion in this place and media attention in recent weeks, particularly focused on the role of the operations centre and the planned care reforms. I will start by talking about what each of those is and does.

The Integrated Operations Centre was established early in 2024 and has brought together the different functions that oversight and support the coordination of patient movements and access to care across the Canberra Hospital every day. Operations centre models are being implemented in health services and health systems across the world.

In Canberra Hospital, the Integrated Operations Centre is focused on three streams of work—acute care, planned care and sub-acute care. Acute care is focused on the care patients receive when they present in an emergency or unplanned way. This includes care from the emergency department, and through our wards and hospitals until discharge. Planned care oversees the care CHS provides that can be planned, including processes for receiving referrals, outpatient appointments, waiting lists and elective surgery. The sub-acute stream is focused on patients in the public hospital system who have finished their acute stay and do not need hospital care anymore but do not yet have an appropriate discharge destination. These include patients who need to go to a
Page 914 residential aged-care facility or have complex needs and are awaiting suitable accommodation under an NDIS arrangement.

The experienced staff that work in the operations centre have helped to ensure that the 300 to 350 people who now present to the Canberra Hospital ED every day get the care that they need. They focus on the person and moving them through the ED and the hospital in a timely way. It is important to note that this work is not just about the ED; it is about the whole hospital working together to reduce the risk of poor patient outcomes from waiting in EDs for long periods. The operations centre supports the ED by making sure patients who need to be admitted have a bed in the right place, staffed by our dedicated clinicians.

The impact of these changes to emergency access is evident in the improvement in performance. The data is clear. CHS is now outperforming other comparable health services across the country in ensuring that patients are seen, treated and leave its EDs in the appropriate timeframe as measured against national targets.

The operations centre also has a role in oversighting patient access to emergency surgery. Every day, there are operating theatres that are allocated specifically to emergency surgery to ensure patients who come into the ED can have surgery urgently if they need to. This includes patients who have had an accident or a fall, and patients who have medical conditions that need emergency surgery, such as appendicitis.

The operations centre focuses on early identification of issues or constraints in the system that might slow down a patient’s journey and works with clinicians in those areas on resolving the issues. This can include arranging for additional emergency theatres to be staffed and run when there are more patients needing surgery or supporting teams to create capacity in the right specialty area for the patient to receive specialist nursing and medical care, such as in the intensive care unit.

The government has progressively increased the amount of emergency surgery capacity over successive budgets, including $52 million in the 2024-25 budget to support additional theatre capacity. Despite the significant growth in presentations for emergency surgery over the past year, CHS has continued to improve access and reduce wait times.

At times there are issues that require a decision to be made between doing an emergency case or a planned case where a patient has been admitted to have their expected surgery. When this happens, the operations centre works with the theatre teams and surgeons to explore all options to be able to do both surgeries rather than rescheduling the planned patient, who may have waited a long time for their surgery or arranged time off work for themselves and perhaps a carer for themselves or their children.

These options often include offering extra theatre time to the specialty or considering availability of another surgeon to assist. When no alternative can be found, there is a discussion between senior staff in the operations centre and the surgeon about the health needs of the patients so that all patients receive the best possible care.

I acknowledge that some surgeons have expressed the view that the decision about whether the planned case should be cancelled should be theirs alone. However, they may not have all the information about the broader situation for either the patient to be
Page 915 cancelled or hospital resource allocation. The operations centre are working to ensure that cancellation is a last resort because they are looking at all options that are available to ensure everyone can equitably access their necessary surgery.

The government and CHS leadership recognise the critically important role surgeons play in ensuring the best outcomes for patients, and CHS has now introduced an escalation pathway to address the concerns raised by some surgeons. The escalation pathway supports the Clinical Director for Surgery to be the final decision-maker where there is a resourcing conflict. This also ensures there is an independent, senior, clinical arbiter when there is a disagreement between specialties, as can sometimes happen when there is high demand for theatres.

CHS is also continuing to work with the senior doctors to address concerns about the broader functioning of the operations centre to ensure that it is achieving the best outcomes for patients in their specialty area. As I have said before, the intention is to improve transparency across the system, so that the operations centre and surgical teams can work together to make the most efficient use of the theatre complexes across both acute public hospitals.

Turning to the broader work of planned care, this stream of work manages the tens of thousands of referrals, people on waiting lists, elective surgeries and outpatient appointments across our public health service. CHS is taking a new approach to improve reliability around planned care and working to streamline the system to focus on giving patients greater certainty, fewer cancellations, less rescheduling and more assurance of being seen within clinically recommended timeframes. We all know that “elective” does not mean “optional”. This is still essential care that patients need, but it is care that can and should be planned.

Reform work in this area has focused on ensuring patients are treated in turn within their clinical urgency category. Planned care works with each surgical specialty to ensure patients are booked in turn, using highest category and longest wait as the underpinning principle. The team has also moved towards booking patients further in advance of their surgery date to provide greater certainty and reduced surgery cancellations.

These changes reflect our commitment to ensuring equity of access to public planned care. It is about the people who are waiting on public lists for essential care being treated in order, being given more certainty and doing everything we can to ensure their procedure is not cancelled.

This planned care work has been the subject of engagement with teams and individuals to work through these reforms. Changes to scheduling of elective surgery to provide more certainty to patients commenced with a pilot in October 2024, with the orthopaedics and plastics specialty areas. This change in particular meant patients were able to be advised of their elective surgery date eight weeks in advance. This is a change from the previous two weeks notice and aims to enable patients and their significant others to plan more effectively for their procedure.

This financial year, CHS is on track to deliver a record number of elective surgeries. In the first nine months of the year, CHS has completed more than 12,300 surgeries. This
Page 916 represents an outstanding effort by all teams, supported by the opening of the new state-of-the art critical services building last August, with more operating theatres to support the delivery of emergency and elective procedures.

There is more work being done in planned care to consult on the introduction of pooled waiting lists for some specialties, and for some conditions within those specialties. This is one way to ensure demand is balanced between specialists so that patients do not wait longer to be operated on by one surgeon than they would wait with another surgeon. This approach is not suitable in all cases, especially where there is a specific subspecialty expertise required or complex care needs. However, for some specialty areas and procedures, the use of pooled waiting lists is already in place and working effectively.

The consultation with the specialties and consumers will identify when it is a suitable approach to more broadly implement pooled waiting lists, which will support more patients getting treated in turn. Where appropriate, it will help to ensure patients do not experience a lengthy wait for one surgeon while others on the public waitlist move ahead of them because another surgeon is moving through their waitlist faster or has recently joined the organisation and can take on more new patients.

CHS is already working with all specialties where fee-for-service visiting medical officer contracts are employed in relation to changes to their contracts. CHS began discussions in January 2025 with the VMO workforce about the need to phase out fee‑for‑service contracts, which are outdated and can represent a high cost for a fraction of a full-time position.

The majority of conversations with specialty areas that contract surgeons in this way have been productive. I take this opportunity again to thank the hardworking surgeons who have taken the time to sit down and have detailed conversations with CHS leadership about changes that can be made to deliver a more efficient system for patients and taxpayers.

We have recognised from the start that VMOs, most of whom already work on sessional contracts, will continue to be an important part of the workforce. But we also want to recruit more staff specialists—employed doctors who are paid to devote a portion of their time to non-clinical work, such as training junior doctors, undertaking research or contributing to the broader management and leadership of the health system. I am pleased to say that, in the 12 months from 1 April 2024 to 31 March 2025, 69 new staff specialists have started work across CHS—a clear demonstration that CHS can and does attract high-quality medical staff across a range of specialties.

I have met with a number of surgeons and other health workers over recent weeks, and I am grateful for the time they have taken to share their perspectives with me and to work through their concerns with the CHS leadership team. I am confident that CHS will continue to work with all surgical and specialist teams as the planned care reform process continues, to ensure patients are getting the best public health care that we can provide.

I look forward to continuing to update the Assembly on the improvements that CHS is making to deliver a more reliable public health service.

Page 917 I present the following paper:

Update on Planned Care Reforms at Canberra Health Services—Ministerial statement, 8 April 2025.

I move:

That the Assembly take note of the paper.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Legislative Assembly—standing order 59—Speaker’s ruling

Mr Rattenbury: Mr Speaker, a point of order on

Minister Orr’s ministerial statement: I seek your ruling on it being a breach of standing order 59, relating to anticipating discussion. Standing order 59 states:

A Member may not anticipate the discussion of any subject which appears on the Notice Paper …

Minister Orr’s statement is almost exclusively about Ainslie Volcanics. As you would be aware, there is a bill on Ainslie Volcanics on the notice paper for this afternoon. I believe Minister Orr’s statement is a clear breach of the standing orders and should be ruled out of order.

Ms Orr: Mr Speaker, on the point of order

: while I take Mr Rattenbury’s point, that Ainslie Volcanics is in the title of both, my statement is on ecological considerations that have been in the public domain and heavily discussed, whereas the matter that Mr Rattenbury refers to for this afternoon is a proposal to amend the Planning Act.

Mr Rattenbury: Regarding Minister Orr’s comments, I believe she makes reference to the location of the telecommunications tower. I do not have the exact reference in front of me. I am pretty sure she references it, and, if not, I think she is splitting hairs and being a little too cute on the content of the statement.

MR SPEAKER

: Members, I note that we had some time to look at the statement and line it up against standing order 59. The point of order raised concerns whether standing order 59 has been breached by the minister making a ministerial statement on ecological information regarding Ainslie Volcanics. Members will be aware that order of the day No 1 for private members’ business listed for discussion later today is the Planning (Ainslie Volcanics) Amendment Bill 2025. The standing order in question, standing order 59, states:

A Member may not anticipate the discussion of any subject which appears on the Notice Paper: provided that, in determining whether a discussion is out of order on the ground of anticipation, regard shall be had by the Speaker to the probability of the matter anticipated being brought before the Assembly within a reasonable time.

At page 326, the Companion to the Standing Orders, which is a wonderful read, explains:

Page 918 The rule is designed to ensure that matters which are scheduled for consideration and decision by the Assembly at a future date are not pre-empted by unscheduled debate.

This is the problem that I face. I think it is in breach of standing order 59. I warn members that the standing orders are very black and white, and I sense a bit of tit for tat coming later in the week. I rule that it is out of order, but I anticipate that this will not be the last point of order that is raised on a matter that may be discussed later. So, having considered the matter after going through the statement, listening to the points of order and noting the similarity of the subject matter of the statement and the bill, I rule that the ministerial statement infringes standing order 59 and, therefore, it is out of order.

Government—order to table documents

MS CASTLEY

(Yerrabi—Leader of the Opposition) (10.57): Pursuant to standing order 128, I fix the time for moving this notice to Thursday, 10 April 2025.

Legal Affairs—Standing Committee