Thursday, 5 February 2026

 Mary-Anne THOMAS (Macedon – Leader of the House, Minister for Health, Minister for Ambulance Services, Minister for Women) (16:04): I move:

That the consideration of order of the day, government business, 3, be postponed until later this day.

James Newbury: On a point of order, Speaker, the government moved from the previous item, which automatically moves it to the next item, and we had the call.

The SPEAKER: The minister has moved that the item on the agenda be postponed, not considered. Therefore nobody has the call.

 James NEWBURY (Brighton) (16:05): We will have a 30-minute debate on this, won’t we, a second 30-minute speech, because –

Members interjecting.

James NEWBURY: The Leader of the House, embarrassed – twice procedurally you have failed, Leader of the House. Twice you have failed today, Leader of the House. You have lost on one 30-minute debate –

The SPEAKER: Member for Brighton, you will address your comments through the Chair and cease yelling.

James NEWBURY: I am not yelling.

The SPEAKER: I would ask you not to reflect on the Chair, member for Brighton. Through the Chair, not across the table.

James NEWBURY: Speaker, may I seek your guidance?

The SPEAKER: Do you have a point of order, member for Brighton?

James NEWBURY: I do. On a point of order, Speaker, are there any standing orders that relate to how I speak?

The SPEAKER: Member for Brighton, I would ask you to address your comments through the Chair.

James NEWBURY: Fine, of course. I would say, to update the house, what has happened this afternoon is the government said to us they wanted to come in here and move to a sledge motion, and they did not realise that we could debate that. So we have just had a 30-minute debate on whether or not we go to a sledge motion. How embarrassing for the government. And weren’t they shocked? I tell you what, the quality of their speakers is not very good at the best of times, but on that debate it was really, really bad. What they also did not realise when the Leader of the House just got up again to move to the sledge motion is we can debate that one too. So we are going to have a 30-minute debate about whether or not this house should move to a sledge motion again.

Do you know what? At the start of this week, this Parliament did what it does best. What this Parliament did is deal with two condolence motions where members from across this place spoke from their hearts. They spoke in support of issues that were so incredibly important to Victorians: the horrific events at Bondi and the bushfires that have occurred over summer and are still going. It was the best of what this Parliament does. And how has the government instead bookended this week? They want to go from what this government does best to what Labor does worst – grubby politics. That is what this government has done, and we will spend an hour debating it. We will not even get to the motion. We will briefly get to the motion. And guess who is there first – the Attorney-General. I tell you what, we are worried. We are so worried about being hit by this wet lettuce leaf of an Attorney in her attack to end the week. I tell you what, we are sitting here quaking in our boots.

But I tell you, the Premier and the Leader of the House will be sitting in their offices right now saying, ‘How the hell did we get done over twice?’ Well, it is because you do not know the game. That is what you do not understand. The Leader of the House got rolled not once but twice – how embarrassing. And for the backbench who are sitting there: this is the tactical genius that is taking you to an election, backbench. This is the tactical genius that is taking you to an election. Can you believe it? A Premier who has come back from summer and said, ‘Switch on the nasty. Let’s switch on the nasty.’ Well, they came into this chamber and tried to be clever and tried to be tactical to position themselves for the end of the week, and they got rolled. Getting rolled once is embarrassing, but when you have 50 people in the chamber – how do you get rolled when you have got 50 people in the chamber? I would say to the backbench: go and knock on the door of the Leader of House and say, ‘How did we get rolled twice?’

Pauline Richards interjected.

James NEWBURY: My gosh, that is right: you got 50 votes, Government Whip, and you could not even control the chamber. How could you not control the chamber?

The ACTING SPEAKER (Nathan Lambert): Member for Brighton, direct your comments through the Chair.

James NEWBURY: I guess I am just so surprised at seeing how poorly run this chamber is. I appreciate every opportunity to speak on a procedural debate, but to rub salt in the Leader of the House’s failure today has been quite sweet. I have to admit it is quite sweet to know that the Premier and the Leader of the House are sitting in there going, ‘We got rolled twice. How did it happen?’ Because you are not good enough, that is why. And that is the team that is taking Labor to an election. Well, we are going to beat you.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Nathan Lambert): Before I call the member for Albert Park, I will remind members to address their comments through the Chair.

 Nina TAYLOR (Albert Park) (16:10): I think we can agree on something – that there have been some very considered debates and discussions, condolence motions in the chamber that had heartfelt expressions from many in the chamber. Certainly there have been ample opportunities, particularly if we give the example of the Justice Legislation Further Amendment (Miscellaneous) Bill 2025, for all in the chamber who wished to speak on that bill to speak to it, noting the very important and sensitive subject matter that was transacted through the many debates in the chamber. I would not contend that this particular debate that we are having on this particular procedural motion in any way resiles from the sensitivity, maturity and conviction that has been displayed in the chamber with regard to the various legislative reforms that have been put forward in the chamber with good intentions to the betterment of Victorians in terms of driving important reforms for the benefit of Victorians across all our communities.

Further to that note, it is a deep concern to those on this side of the house that we have been witness to a number of extremist positions, noting that now more than ever it is important to clamp down on extremism. As leaders of our respective communities, we have the privilege of being able to prosecute and transact matters in a way that helps to embed the very best values and the very best position when it comes to matters of, for instance, how we treat members of the LGBTQI+ community and making sure that equality is genuinely non-negotiable.

James Newbury: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, this motion is whether item 3 be delayed till later this day – relevance.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Nathan Lambert): On the point of order of relevance, the member was addressing the remarks by the opposition’s opening speaker, but I do ask her to ensure that she stays relevant to the subject matter at hand.

Nina TAYLOR: Duly noted. Certainly this is a procedural motion, but of course in order to be able to adjourn specific debates, you do have to go some way to validate the purpose that we are seeking here, at least on this side of the house, in order to adjourn debate on the matter at hand, and therefore to not go to any rationale whatsoever would not do justice to members of the chamber and the debate that we have before us. I am fully informed and in fact have witnessed many of the debates this week, many that I think do pay heed to some of the most serious matters that we have had to transact in this chamber on behalf of our communities. I think that it can rightly be said that most members of the chamber have indeed sought to honour those matters and have done so in a heartfelt and considered way. I also note that there has been ample opportunity offered to those opposite to transact these matters, hence the justice legislation bill that I was referring to before. No-one on this side of the chamber has in any way sought to reduce in any way the opportunity or capacity of those opposite to participate freely within the rules of the chamber, and obviously honouring and respecting parliamentary processes.

I am simply clarifying that there should be no rational impediment to proceeding as the government is seeking to do. I would not proffer that the opposition have put up a valid rebuttal other than consternation, huff and puff and quite an elevation of noise in the chamber, but I did not actually hear a resounding and well-transacted rebuttal that would in any way seek to go counter to what the government is seeking to do in this moment. Forgive me for a slightly laborious process in terms of being able to validate the position that I am seeking to put before the chamber, but I hope that the position of the government is well understood.

 Nicole WERNER (Warrandyte) (16:15): We are here today debating this situation that the government have found themselves in – a predicament in fact that they have found themselves in – because they think that it is fit to spend this time in our Parliament, whilst we are representing 7 million Victorians, when we could be debating important bills, use this time when we could we could be representing our communities, use this time when we could be actually doing things that matter to Victorians, to use and abuse the time in Parliament to sledge the opposition. Well, tell me that we are not living rent-free in their heads when we are over here standing up for our communities, standing up for the things that matter, fighting for our communities, whether it is CFA issues, whether it is local issues, whether it is local roads that we are defending and we are advocating for on behalf of our communities. Instead they want to abuse the use of this chamber to sledge the opposition. That is incredible to me because this week were meant to actually speak about and debate the Children, Youth and Families Amendment (Supporting Stable and Strong Families) Bill 2025. That was something that were meant to speak about this week for children in child protection, vulnerable children across our state, foster care families, children that desperately need their government to work on their behalf, who desperately need the government to actually do what they are meant to do in keeping children safe. But no, instead, in the last hour of the first sitting week back in Victorian Parliament, the government has chosen to go down the nasty route and spend the last hour debating something that does not even matter to Victorians: sledging the opposition.

Instead of talking about Victorians, what matters to them, fighting for their communities and those important things that we are here to do as parliamentarians, that we are here to do on behalf of the 7 million Victorians that we represent, they think that it is the right thing to do, the right thing to spend Parliament’s time doing, to sledge the opposition. Well, tell me there is not an election coming up. Tell me that they are not worried. Tell me that they are not concerned. That speaks to me of some desperation from the government.

Sitting suspended 4:18 pm until 4:38 pm.

Nicole WERNER: Well, that was not on the bingo card for today – that was definitely not. Resuming on –

Danny O’Brien interjected.

Nicole WERNER: Anything to stop me. That is right, Leader of the Nationals. Getting back to the procedural motion at hand before we had to vacate for a fire drill. I am not sure if it was a drill or an actual evacuation – never mind. But we are here talking about this procedural motion on moving on to the motion that the government want to talk about and that they think is worth speaking about in the first week back in Parliament for 2026. In a crucial year for Victorians when they have a choice between this tired, stale, corrupt government and a fresh start for Victorians, they think that it is befitting to use this time in Parliament to sledge the opposition, to occupy their minds and talk day in, day out about all of the things they want to direct Victorians to believe about the opposition and the Liberals and the Nationals. It just beggars belief that that is the way they think their time is best spent here in this house, where we have been mandated by the people, where we have been voted in by our electorates and where we have been entrusted by our communities to represent them here in Parliament to fight for them, to fight for better cost-of-living relief for them, to fight for a better way of life for them and to fight for the things that matter to them in their communities. That is what we should be spending our time on here in Parliament.

 Paul EDBROOKE (Frankston) (16:40): I first just want to thank the staff of the Parliament, the clerks and everyone that helped evacuate us in such an orderly manner. Certainly we did that in an orderly manner. We all stood together down in the garden there, and that is the first time since the start of the Pesutto court case that I have seen all the Liberals stand together.

James Newbury: On a point of order, Acting Speaker – relevance.

Members interjecting.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Nathan Lambert): Order! I will rule on the point of order. Member for Frankston, I uphold the point of order. Can you return to the subject that is relevant.

Paul EDBROOKE: I take your advice on that of course. I think the member for Warrandyte is wrong. The member for Warrandyte said that we want to speak on something that Victorians are not interested in. I think especially in light of this week, when we have had condolence motions on the Bondi massacre and also the fires that are still going on in Victoria, that people want to know about times when people are radicalised. People want to know what is going on with people who push conspiracy theories, because that is often connected to radicalisation. That is often connected to some pretty deep and dark things in our community. I disagree with the member for Warrandyte in the notion that this is something that our community are not interested in. Speaking as the member for Frankston, I can say our community is very interested in this. They want to know why people in this chamber would be the ones to actually allow people the opportunity to spew vile hate, to influence people with lies.

James Newbury: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, this is a motion to adjourn item 3. I do not know what the member is speaking on, but this is an adjournment motion for item 3.

Paul EDBROOKE: On the point of order, Acting Speaker, I have been entirely consistent with the opposition speakers on this, so if I am being called out of order in any way, they have been out of order the whole time.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Nathan Lambert): I will rule on the point of order. I do not uphold the point of order. Debates about the relative interest or urgency of matters on the notice paper are a common part of these procedural debates.

Paul EDBROOKE: I understand the opposition are very sensitive. They have had an incident in their party room that is a workplace incident. In any other workplace the Leader of the Opposition would be in a tribunal answering for why she could not keep a member of her party safe and that family safe from Liberals.

James Newbury: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, this is an abuse. Firstly, the member is casting aspersions on another member. But on relevance to the motion, clearly there is no question that the member is using this procedural motion as an opportunity to sledge, and it is outrageous.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Nathan Lambert): I will rule on the point of order. I ruled, as you know, member for Brighton, on a point of order about 20 seconds ago. I trust that the member will return to the subject matter at hand shortly.

Paul EDBROOKE: On this motion we have had the member for Warrandyte talk about how we should not move forward to a different motion and how that would be insignificant to Victorians. Unbelievably, I sit here and must confess that the only thing that is insignificant to Victorians is those opposite. To even stand there and think they know what Victorians think, to stand there and tell us what they think Victorians care about and tell us what they think this gallery should hear – what the people of Victoria should hear this Legislative Assembly talk about – is unbelievable and it is unbecoming. This chamber has certainly – I agree with those opposite and MPs on this side that have spoken – seen the best of this Parliament. We have seen in the last couple of years some bills and legislation come through this place where we have had some of the best debates and some of the most heartfelt contributions.

But today we are at the end of the week. I think some people on the opposite side of the chamber are a little bit tired. I think it is time to have a Bonox and a bit of a lie-down. They are very stirred up about this. It is not something to get upset about. The people of Victoria are concerned about conspiracy theorists. They are concerned about the radicalisation of certain groups in our community, and they are concerned because it affects them entirely.

 Danny O’BRIEN (Gippsland South) (16:45): The member for Frankston just talked about it being ‘unbelievable and unbecoming’ from the opposition. How unbecoming of the government of the state of Victoria that we are having this mess this week. A government that cannot control its own legislative program had to withdraw a very good, important piece of legislation about child protection.

Members interjecting.

Danny O’BRIEN: The Leader of the House is now saying, ‘We had to do that to accommodate other things,’ yet they have moved motions at 3:30 on Thursday to move on to a sledge motion about the opposition. And it is not just this one, it has been the case all week. If you look at what the government of Victoria and the Premier of Victoria have been doing this week, it is not about the people of Victoria, it is not about the people of regional Victoria; it is all about what the opposition is up to. We have seen more effort from the so-called leadership of this state this week about looking at the diary of the Leader of the Opposition than we have about looking after Victorians. This motion is a continuation of that: desperation to get to a motion that, I might add, is from August last year and refers to the previous Leader of the Opposition – it is not even about the current Leader of the Opposition – and talks about personally appointed representatives. Who are they? What is that? I almost want to bring on the debate, because I do not think they would even know who they are talking about now. They have forgotten it in the annals of history. They want to go on to this debate at a time when we have a state that is nearly $200 billion in debt, that will be facing $29 billion of interest every day in a couple of years. We have got a crime crisis, with crime through the roof, up 29 per cent since this Premier came to office. We have got a housing crisis. We have got rent spiralling because under this government we have had 60-odd new taxes –

Mary-Anne Thomas: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, we are on a procedural motion. I ask that you call the Leader of the Nationals back to this narrow debate. He is quite frankly exploiting the goodwill of people in this chamber on his feet, and his contributions today have been far from relevant.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Nathan Lambert): I will rule on the point of order. I would ask the member for Gippsland South, who had been speaking on the subject matter at hand, to ensure he continues to do so.

Danny O’BRIEN: In defence of the Leader of the House, she was not here for much of the member for Frankston’s contribution, which did not go anywhere near the procedural debate either. But I might say to decide whether we move on or not I have to talk about the context. We hear that a lot from those on the other side when we ask questions in question time: it is all about providing context. The context is this is a government that wants to move on to a debate about the opposition, not about the people of Victoria, who are facing a crime crisis and a housing crisis. They are seeing rents spiralling through the roof. They have got 60-odd new or increased taxes, 30 of them on property, sending every single Victorian who wants to get into a home into difficulty because they cannot afford it. We have got a CFA that is underfunded. We have got a CFA with 230 31-year-old vehicles. And what does the government want to do? It wants to move the Parliament’s time on to a debate about not even the current opposition leader but the former opposition leader. That sums up what is happening in this state, that they simply do not –

Mary-Anne Thomas: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, the Leader of the Nationals keeps referring to notice of motion 4, and he cannot even get that right. I might remind him that the matter that we do want to get on to is actually about the personally appointed representatives that are appointed by the opposition and their promotion of conspiracy theories. If he is going to reference the motion that we are going to move on to, then I suggest that he takes the time to get it right.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Nathan Lambert): I will rule on the point of order. I do not uphold the point of order.

Danny O’BRIEN: I will not continue on the point of order, but for the benefit of the Leader of the House, she just said I am erroneously speaking about notice of motion 4. That is the one you just read from. It is notice of motion 4 that you want to get to.

Mary-Anne Thomas: That’s right.

Danny O’BRIEN: That is exactly what I just said, Leader of the House. You do not seem to recall what you are actually doing.

Mary-Anne Thomas: Read the motion.

Danny O’BRIEN: It talks about the opposition leader’s personally appointed representatives, and I challenge you to say who they are.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Nathan Lambert): Members will address their remarks through the Chair.

Assembly divided on motion: