Thursday, 4 June 2026

 John LISTER (Werribee) (10:14): On Saturday I was joined by my colleague Ryan Batchelor in the other place for the Werribee fire brigade annual dinner, an event I refer to as Werribee’s night off, because we are the busiest volunteer brigade in all of Victoria. The dedication to community safety shown by my fellow firefighters was recognised, and I would like to congratulate Cameron Ward, Alannah Inglis, Jason Inglis, Rohan Ford, Rohan Rizzoli, Scott Green, Daniel May, Phil Trifilo, Shaun Britton and life members Malcolm Faldon and Josie Trifilo. From a previous firefighter of the year to our newest, congratulations Cameron Ward, and thank you to Pengelly Award winner John Aidone.

While Saturday night was our celebration, Monday morning was a reminder of the harsh reality of the job. This is our community. This is our grief. To the family of the young boy who passed away near Kookaburra Avenue, we share your pain. Volunteers are disappointed with the response offered by those who seek to politicise this tragedy. We need to show decency towards a grieving community and not politicise a tragedy like the one we saw in Newbury Street. The proper reviews must and will happen. On so many occasions I have been part of that first on scene at a house fire, with Hoppers and station 57 right behind us. The member for Tarneit and I stand by the Hoppers Crossing fire brigade and all the firefighters, volunteer and paid, who attended that fire.

James Newbury: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, yesterday you gave a ruling that a member could not wear an MND beanie in the house. When the issue was raised at the end of members statements, you advised the house that you believed the Speaker gave a ruling the prior day that only on that day could someone wear a MND beanie. I have reviewed Hansard, and there was no ruling given to this chamber from the Speaker. Now, perhaps she engaged with the Labor Party – I cannot speak to that – but outside the chamber. But my very strong view is there was no ruling, and I cannot understand why again today a member who was speaking from the heart about the issue was told to remove the beanie. It is frankly a rank decision, and we will be dissenting from the ruling. You cannot have decisions based, in my view, on rank politics, and it is an outrageous decision. There was no ruling given to this chamber, respectfully. I would ask you to refer the matter to the Speaker. As I asked yesterday and was denied, I would ask you to refer it to the Speaker today.

Will Fowles: On the point of order, Deputy Speaker, just on this matter, clearly there was a coordinated campaign. The first thing I would say is it is a very great shame that this has been politicised in this way. But the fault for this does not lie with the opposition, perhaps unusually. There was clearly a coordinated campaign. When the motion about Neale Daniher was put to the chamber, all Labor members put on their beanies, including the Speaker, so the Speaker was part of that decision.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I encourage the member to be careful about reflections on the Chair, but please continue.

Will Fowles: It is merely a statement of fact that all Labor members, including the Chair, put on their beanies, which –

Members interjecting.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Without assistance, or people will leave the chamber. The member for Ringwood to continue.

Will Fowles: I did not quite hear that. That was fine, except that opportunity was not extended to other members of the chamber. They did not know that –

Belinda Wilson interjected.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Narre Warren North, please leave for half an hour.

Member for Narre Warren North withdrew from chamber.

Will Fowles: Oo-roo.

Belinda Wilson interjected.

Will Fowles: On a separate point of order, Deputy Speaker, I would ask that the member who has been ejected and is continuing to interject whilst leaving ought now have an extension of her –

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Ringwood, if you –

Will Fowles: No, no, a separate point of order –

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I did not quite hear what happened, because I believe you were making a comment at the same time.

Will Fowles: No, I was not.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: ‘Tuvalu’ or something was what I heard.

Will Fowles: I said ‘oo-roo’.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am happy to hear your point of order, member for Ringwood. Can we please continue.

Will Fowles: I will continue my first point of order and then I will make a subsequent point of order.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes, please.

Will Fowles: My first point of order is clearly that opportunity was not extended to non-government members. The first opportunity for a non-government member to similarly show solidarity with the FightMND movement, I believe, was the member for Warrandyte, who was told to remove her beanie when giving her speech. That decision – my submission on this point of order – was a partisan decision. That is a very great shame, and I would ask that you refer the matter to the Speaker and counsel the Speaker most strongly to provide a – sorry, I will rephrase – to refer the matter to the Speaker. My view is that there ought be carte blanche, an exemption for this week, for members giving speeches on or about FightMND or Neale Daniher to, if they so choose, display solidarity whilst wearing a beanie. On my second point of order –

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: We will do your second point of order after we deal with this point of order.

Tim Richardson: On the point of order, Deputy Speaker, I distinctly recall the Speaker articulating at the time when the condolence motion commenced that this would be an exception.

Members interjecting.

Tim RICHARDSON: Yes. The video footage has beanies being on at that time and the Speaker putting a beanie on.

James Newbury:Hansard is Hansard.

Tim Richardson: We can have a look at the footage there, because I recall people putting the beanies on. On the point of order –

James Newbury interjected.

Tim Richardson: I am just trying to speak, member for Brighton, I know you have had your turn.

James Newbury interjected.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, through the Chair. Member for Brighton, calm down.

Tim Richardson: It is okay You do not have to jump the dispatch box. Just take a drink.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Mordialloc, through the Chair.

Tim Richardson: There have been countless occasions – I am thinking in the prevention of family violence space, Respect Victoria’s work – where over a decade we have had exceptions in the moment. There is consistent practice here where exceptions in the moment happen.

Members interjecting.

Tim Richardson: Member for Warrandyte, you can have a turn. I am just trying to speak. It is okay.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Through the Chair, member for Mordialloc. I am going to rule on the point of order.

Tim Richardson: There is precedent and consistent precedent for in the moment.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Resume your seat, please, member for Mordialloc.

Kim Wells: On the point of order, Deputy Speaker, with respect, the role of the Speaker is to ensure that the rules that have been agreed to in the house are interpreted correctly. I have to say I am one that had no problems whatsoever with anyone wearing an MND beanie during the Neale Daniher debate. But for consistency, if someone after that – like the member for Warrandyte or, as we just saw, the member for Caulfield – is speaking specifically about someone who is suffering from MND and wears the hat, to me that is a consistent flow of what has happened this week. I would also ask that that message goes back to the Speaker to say: for this week, for goodness sake, if people are speaking specifically about this dreadful, dreadful disease, then there should be some tolerance to allow the wearing of the hat. If the member for Caulfield had have been speaking about something else and wearing the beanie, then I would say that is wrong, but he was not. He was speaking specifically about MND, and I think that is the message that should go back to the Speaker.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: On the point of order, as I relayed yesterday, the point of order that has been raised is not actually a point of order. The Speaker made a ruling. As I encouraged the member for Brighton and the member for Warrandyte yesterday, I encourage all members who have spoken or who have thoughts on this matter to discuss that ruling with the Speaker in her office outside the chamber, because the ruling has been made.

More than that, there are times when exceptions are made in the house that go outside the prop rule that has been decided upon by the Chair. It is my understanding, as my personal understanding, that that exception and its limitations were relayed in the whips meeting on Monday. I was not at the whips meeting – I could not make it – but it is my understanding that happened. If there are issues with the communications, I would again encourage anyone in this chamber to discuss these matters with the Speaker. It is not a point of order.

James Newbury: A further point of order.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Ringwood is still waiting for a second one if you do not mind, member for Brighton. I will happily –

James Newbury: It is on this matter.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The problem, member for Brighton, is the rule –

James Newbury: Could I try it before you make a judgement on it?

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I have ruled on the point of order that it is not actually a point of order.

James Newbury: I understand that. So I can raise a separate point of order on a similar topic?

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: So you can raise a separate point of order on a similar topic. I am happy to hear it. I will go to the member for Ringwood on his point of order first, and then we will come to you, member for Brighton.

Will Fowles: The earlier point of order I will come back to. This one is on the communication. You just referred, Deputy Chair, to the whip’s meeting. The crossbench and I suspect the Greens are not party to the communications that are made in the whip’s meeting. You have said ‘if there are problems with the communication’; I just want to raise in the chamber there is a massive problem with communications. I was not told that there was going to be an all-in beaniefest. It is clearly incumbent upon whoever determines that it is okay to communicate it to all members of the chamber, and I would ask you to relay that thought to the Speaker.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I reiterate my previous ruling.

James Newbury: Before I raise a separate point of order, can I note there is no formal status of this meeting the Speaker may or may not have had with any member of this place. There is no formal status that I am aware of that this house has agreed upon. I am also not aware of whether or not the Speaker having cups of tea with anyone has any formal status in this place – because it does not.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

James Newbury: But it does not, Deputy Speaker. Every member has the right to have every matter they want dealt with in this house, and it cannot be referred to something that does not exist, so I think that doing that is simply a mechanism to try and downplay the issues that are raised.

On my separate point of order, Deputy Speaker, today I raised a matter that relates to the member for Caulfield, and I raised my concern after the Speaker had left this chamber, in the only time available to me. It is not possible, respectfully, to conclude that what I raised after the Speaker had left today in any way is covered by your views or decisions of yesterday. I raised a new matter today relating to the member for Caulfield after the Speaker had left the chamber, and I am asking for the instance today to be referred to the Speaker.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: As I tried to explain before, the ruling, as it is not a point of order, is the same in its context as of yesterday. It is similar; I am sure it is not word for word the same, but it is a similar issue.

James Newbury: It is a different member.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: It is a different member, but it is the same issue that a ruling of the Speaker is a ruling of the Speaker. I encourage you, if you have questions about that ruling, to take it up with the Speaker in her office.

James Newbury: Further to the point of order, Deputy Speaker, can you refer me to the ruling? Which ruling are you referring to? Hansard of Tuesday has no ruling. You have just said that the Speaker provided a ruling in some kind of meeting that I am not aware of. What ruling?

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The ruling that I am referring to is the ruling that was made yesterday by the Speaker, which is the one that you are questioning. Again, you are questioning the one today. It is common practice if you have questions or want to have conversations about rulings to refer them to the Speaker’s office. I think we move on.

Tim Richardson: Further to the point of order, Deputy Speaker, there was a ruling. The member for Warrandyte was wearing a beanie and was asked to remove the beanie.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Mordialloc, that is exactly what I said. I do not need assistance with the matter. Member for Ringwood, is this a separate point of order?

Will Fowles: It is a separate point of order, Deputy Speaker. Consistent with past practice, when members are ejected from this chamber, if they have engaged in further interjections they have typically had their suspensions lengthened. I said, ‘Oo-roo,’ and the member, as she walked out of the chamber, said, ‘Oo-roo to you too.’ But the important point here is that she was out of her seat. She was defying the Chair and was in the process of leaving the chamber. Consistent with past practice – entirely consistent with past practice – I ask you to extend her suspension because of that unruly conduct.

Paul Edbrooke: On the point of order, Deputy Speaker, I think you have given sufficient avenues to solve these problems. I would also note that the member who was walking out was not reflecting on any other members, and her sentiments were actually quite happy and welcoming.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I do not uphold the point of order, member for Ringwood. The matter was dealt with at the time.