Wednesday, 18 March 2020

Business of the house

Standing and sessional orders

Debate resumed.

Mr WELLS (Rowville) (11:55): As I was saying from the outset, we are opposed to the Leader of the House’s motion on the suspension of standing and sessional orders, the take-note motion that we are debating today. The reason we are opposing this is because this is about the shutting down of the Victorian Parliament and it is about the lack of opportunity for the opposition to be able to scrutinise the government.

As I said in my opening comments, the motion outlines today question time, government business, the adjournment and adjourning at 3 o’clock, but it is not allowing us to do the grievance debate, it is not allowing us members statements and it is not allowing us to actually have an adjournment debate. However, in the conversation across the table we have been assured that the member for Essendon is going to move an amendment to that motion to allow the adjournment items, and I am assuming members statements are to be able to be tabled as part of Hansard.

What I would like to do now is to go back to the actual declaration. Let us talk about the actual declaration that the Premier announced on Monday morning. This is what the Premier said in his press conference:

A State of Emergency has been declared in Victoria to combat COVID-19 and help to provide the Chief Health Officer with the powers he needs to enforce 14-day isolation requirements for all travellers entering Australia and cancel mass gatherings of more than 500 people, as agreed by National Cabinet yesterday.

We have no issues with that. It is based on facts, it is based on science and it is agreed to by the national cabinet. The second paragraph goes on to say:

Premier Daniel Andrews and Minister for Health Jenny Mikakos announced that the State of Emergency would begin on Monday, 16 March at midday and be in force for the next four weeks to assist with measures designed to ‘flatten the curve’ of COVID-19 and give our health system the best chance of managing the virus.

Under a State of Emergency, Authorised Officers, at the direction of the Chief Health Officer, can act to eliminate or reduce a serious risk to public health by detaining people, restricting movement, preventing entry to premises, or providing any other direction an AO considers reasonable to protect public health.

I am still quoting from the Premier’s press release:

The first direction from the Chief Health Officer under these new powers will include banning non-essential mass gatherings of over 500 people such as cultural events, sporting events or conferences.

A number of our state’s largest cultural institutions including the National Gallery of Victoria, the State Library and Museums Victoria have also announced temporary closures, and events such as the Melbourne Comedy Festival and Melbourne Food and Wine Festival have already been postponed.

Gatherings that are deemed essential and may continue include public transport, food markets and workplaces. Schools, TAFEs and universities will remain open for now but have been asked to restrict mass gatherings such as assemblies and lectures of over 500 people.

At this stage spaces or locations where 500 or more people may be in transit, such as Federation Square or Bourke Street Mall, are excluded from the ban on mass gatherings. However, if it is deemed necessary to protect public health, the powers can also be used in future to quarantine entire suburbs, businesses or professions—rather than just individuals.

The powers also allow the Chief Health Officer to do whatever is necessary to contain the spread of the virus and reduce the risk to the health of Victorians.

So if we go to the actual document—this is the document that was attached to the press release—it says:

Direction from Chief Health Officer in accordance with emergency powers arising from declared state of emergency

Under ‘Definitions’:

For the purposes of the directions in paragraphs 1, 2 and 3:

4. Premises has the same meaning as in s 3 of the Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008 (Vic).

5. A mass gathering is any gathering of five hundred (500) or more persons in a single undivided space at the same time, whether in an indoor or outdoor space, but does not include a gathering:

…

h. at Parliament for the purpose of its normal operations …

This is the direction given by the chief health officer. Under (5)(h) it says that the direction does apply to mass gatherings but does not include a gathering ‘at Parliament for the purpose of its normal operations’. Now, its normal operations are Tuesday from 12 o’clock until 7.00 pm, and we adjourn; Wednesday from 9.30 am until 7.00 pm, and we adjourn; and Thursday from 9.30 am until 5.00 pm, and then we adjourn. We are not abiding by the actual direction of the chief health officer in accordance with emergency powers arising from a declared state of emergency, and there has been no update that the opposition have received other than this document that we have in front of us. The press release went out Monday morning, we accept, but it does give us the powers or the exemption to continue as normal under this declaration. I put to the house that the motion that has been put forward by the Leader of the House is contrary to the direction that has been given to us by the chief health officer that we can continue as is.

If, for example, the chief health officer put out another direction from the chief health officer in accordance with emergency powers arising from a declared state of emergency—if there was another document or another update to what we were issued as an opposition and the people of Victoria on Monday morning—then the government would have every right to move a motion to be able to put that in place. But the government is acting contrary to the advice that we have received from the chief health officer. So it is contrary to what the chief health officer has said. If there is a further document—and I am guessing that the member for Essendon is the next one up—or if he has a further document, then he needs to be able to give it to all members of the Parliament. Otherwise we are acting against the clear direction of the chief health officer that the Parliament can act as normal without any adjustments.

The other concern I have is—and there is always that sneaking suspicion—that the government may be trying to escape from scrutiny. I am just wondering if there are some issues that government is trying to hide from by making the opposition not able to raise issues through a grievance debate. I looked last night at a couple of press releases that the Shadow Treasurer had put out in regard to the shambles that the state has got itself in in regard to finances. What they are trying to do is to say, ‘We’ve got all these financial shambolic problems, but they’re all the problems of the bushfires, the bushfire recovery and the coronavirus’. But as so clearly put out by the Shadow Treasurer, the figures are from 1 July 2019 until 31 December 2019. They do not include anything to do with the bushfires, anything to do with the bushfire recovery or the coronavirus. So they got themselves into a shambolic mess prior to the bushfires, the bushfire recovery and the coronavirus. God only knows what the budget is going to look like, but it is clear to me that they have used up every single one of their contingencies and they have no money left. It is for those reasons that we cannot support the motion put forward by the Leader of the House.

Mr R Smith: By leave, I move an extension of time.

Leave refused.

Mr PEARSON (Essendon) (12:05): I rise to support the Leader of the House’s motion, and as foreshadowed I will be moving the following amendment. I move that after paragraph (2)(b) the following words be inserted:

(c) members to submit:

(i) members statements for Thursday;

(ii) adjournment matters for Wednesday and Thursday—

by providing them to the Clerk in writing by the adjournment of the house on Wednesday and Thursday respectively.

(3) This house authorises and requires the members statements from Thursday and the adjournment matters from Wednesday and Thursday to be published in Hansard at the end of each day’s Hansard:

(a) subject to Hansard editorial policy; and

(b) if any matter contains unbecoming expressions, the Speaker may direct that the matter be removed or amended before it is published.

I will speak briefly to the amendment I have just moved.

Mr Wells: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, I just find it very odd that we are able to get this amendment now. Why weren’t we given this amendment at the start of this debate? It seems really strange that the Leader of the House did not move this amendment while she was speaking so we could all look at it—so that when I was giving my contribution we were actually looking at the motion and the amendment to the motion. And I am just wondering why at the top you have got ‘FOR XXXXX’. I am just wondering—when we are talking about the coronavirus, I thought kissing was out. Maybe the member for Essendon has got an update on information.

Ms Allan: On the point of order, Acting Speaker, if the Manager of Opposition Business had been paying more careful attention to my contribution he would have noted that I went into the detail and the substance of the amendment. It was the advice of the Clerks that the amendment needed to be moved by a member other than me. That is the reason why you are receiving it now, and I did provide the information and the substance to the house when I made my contribution. I trust that clarifies the matter for the Manager of Opposition Business. I would also suggest—I appreciate there is a lot of interest in this debate—it is not something to be made light of with frivolous observations. I would hope that we could get through the remainder of this debate in a cordial way, and I just repeat that it was on the advice of the Clerks that this amendment is being tabled in this way.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Ms Blandthorn): I have heard from people on the point of order. There is no point of order.

Mr R Smith: On a further point of order, Acting Speaker, the fact that we have just received this amendment to what is a very important motion, a motion that the Manager of Opposition Business has spoken to at length—and a very good contribution, I must say—for the opposition to be able to consider the ramifications of this particular amendment to the motion, surely the government does not believe that we can just assess this on behalf of our broader party and make a decision on the fly. We do not operate that way. The government might operate on the fly with many, many things, and I have seen contributions from ministers during question time and other times, and indeed backbenchers, and there is no question that the government is used to operating on the fly. But, frankly, for the government to just hand down this amendment to the motion at a moment’s notice and expect us to consider it is just unconscionable. Clearly they knew they were going to be putting this forward. We could have at least been given something. It did not have to be formally moved by the Leader of the House, certainly, but she could have at least passed it over to us so we could look at it over the morning. But, no, certainly we have not had that opportunity—

The ACTING SPEAKER (Ms Blandthorn): The member can take his seat. The point of order was the same. There is no point of order.

Mr PEARSON: I think that both the motion moved by the Leader of the House and the amendment that I have moved in my name get that balance right by ensuring that members have the capacity to raise issues of concern to their communities both today and tomorrow, and that further to that, this is about making sure that we all have a minimal level of exposure and that we adhere to the advice of the chief health officer. That is what is driving the motion moved by the Leader of the House, and we are trying to get the balance right. On that note, I commend both the Leader of the House’s motion and my amendment.

Ms McLEISH (Eildon) (12:10): I rise to speak on the original motion that was put by the Leader of the House with regard to changes that are being made to our current Parliament sitting week. I note that on the advice of the clerks the member for Essendon, being somebody other than the Leader of the House, has tabled an amendment. I am extremely disappointed that we were not privy to that amendment earlier. I was very disappointed in fact to find out the details of this amendment through the Greens rather than through the regular processes, which we would have expected. What we see with the motion that has been put before the house is a curtailing of Parliament and the roles that we all have as members of Parliament. This motion has been moved at a time when we are all in the chamber. We have all come to Spring Street, and all 88 members are in the Assembly here, with several clerks also in attendance. We are a crowd that is well below 500, and even if they alter that number we are certainly below 100, and there are a lot of areas here where we can practise social isolation.

The Leader of the House raised the fact that federal Parliament is looking at changing sitting hours. Federal Parliament is not sitting this week. We are sitting this week; we are already here. The cynic in me would say that, in pulling back a few hours at the end of every day, what is behind this motion is the government wanting to have less scrutiny of what it is doing.

We are here in Parliament for several reasons. Firstly, we are all here as local members, and we are the voice of our electorates. People in our electorates expect us to use the opportunities we have in this place to raise matters of importance, to bring about change and to bring attention to a lot of the issues that they think are important. We as opposition members also have the responsibility to hold the executive government of the day to account. That is what the opposition does. We are here to scrutinise the government. The opportunities that we are given to do this are diminishing very quickly with this motion.

If I look at how we are the voice of our electorates, we come into the chamber and we do that in number of ways—we make members statements, we ask constituency questions, we raise adjournment matters to ask ministers for action, and we also have the opportunity to speak in grievance debates, which gives us the chance to put on the record many things that are of high priority to us and our electorates. People expect that of us. They expect us to stand up in Parliament. They do not expect us to write everything down and say ‘I’ve raised it’ just by shoving a piece of paper across the table. They expect us to be standing up and raising issues on their behalf. That is what our community expects. But certainly that is being denied to us in the original motion, other than through constituency questions. It is denying us members statements, adjournment debate opportunities and a grievance debate. But what is the government proposing? They are certainly proposing to keep the Dixers. If they were really serious about doing this, they would have pulled ministers statements and allowed us instead to have our regular grievance debate and adjournment matters.

We also work in this place to hold the government to account. There is lots for us to do here. There is a power of work to do here. We know that the health system is struggling already. We know that the waitlists have ballooned in very recent times by 11 000. We saw as a response to that the government reannouncing $30 million for the already delayed Casey Hospital. We have seen the government trying to tackle a little bit the waiting list that they have let balloon, but that is not going to make much of an impression because the list continues to grow. A waiting list does not just stay stagnant—it continues to grow. We have got a lot of concerns in terms of health.

There are a lot of issues with regard to major projects on which we need to hold the government to account. Airport rail is so important. If the government does not have dedicated links between Southern Cross station and Sunshine, it will absolutely jeopardise the chance for fast regional rail in country Victoria. People in country Victoria can kiss that goodbye if the government continue down this cheap path and do not make the most of the opportunity that is provided.

We need these opportunities to raise these issues through our grievance debates. We need these opportunities to make sure that the public are aware of the issues. We have seen today with the tabling of the Auditor-General’s report on the Murray Basin rail project that that has huge issues. The Auditor-General found that 90 per cent of the funding has been used already and they have only done a fraction of the work that is required, so we need to hold the government to account on this project as well.

But we have also seen with the release of the midyear financial report that there is a staggering $1.1 billion deficit. Those of us on this side of the table know that Labor cannot manage money. We know that they look at it as though it is somebody else’s money. But now we can see that they have got huge holes, and it is only going to get worse because these figures were prior to the bushfires and prior to the coronavirus. When we next return and the budget is announced we are expecting that it is going to be a real shock for everybody, but we know that the government are really poor at managing major projects and poor at managing money, so it is probably not a surprise.

What did the government have on the agenda for today? On the agenda today they had the North East Link Bill 2020. Whilst this is an important piece of road infrastructure, the bill is setting up a shell of a company and is really going to start kicking in in six years time. That is not a pressing area of government business, like the Dixers. This is one bill that is on today. We could bring back some of the speaking times for the bills to make sure that we have our opportunity to stand up and to have our grievance debate. We have a lot of people here chomping at the bit to speak because there is a lot in our electorates that we want to be raising, and we want to be standing up in Parliament, having that footage of us raising matters for the attention of ministers for action in areas where we think it is needed.

We can see here that the government have made it, and we should not be surprised, all about them and the lack of scrutiny. It is about their government business program closing down our opportunities to raise matters in our electorates as well as to raise issues of significance. I guess you could say that it looks like the government has bowed to the Greens somewhat again—we know that they are their coalition partners—by allowing things in writing. As I mentioned earlier, it is really quite disappointing that we did not find out about this. In fact I found out about this through the Greens rather than through the processes because the Leader of the House did not pay us the courtesy of offering this up to us at an earlier point. She knew the deal she had struck with the Greens but she did not want to show us that same courtesy.

We have had the declaration of the state of emergency put in place and this is looking at banning non-essential mass gatherings of 500 people. We are certainly an essential place. The Parliament is an essential process for Victorian democracy. It is so important that we keep the processes going while we can. There is no advice for us to be closing down the Parliament. The chief health officer is not saying that they advise the closure of the Victorian Parliament. They are not saying, ‘Put all of your eggs in the government’s business program and let them do what they want’, which would deny the opposition the opportunity to exercise of one of its main functions, which is holding the government of the day to account. I think that is really typical of a government that is very self-centred because they see it is their right to rule and their right to run roughshod through this place. ‘This is what we want to do, we don’t really care about the opposition and what the opposition is there for’, which is to hold them to account, to hold them to scrutiny and also to have an opportunity to raise matters from our own electorates. These are why we are MPs. We need to be making that difference, and it is being denied.

Dr READ (Brunswick) (12:20): Regarding this motion, which is essentially to shorten the sitting hours for this week, I would like to make a couple of points. First, that I do not think shortening the hours per se will have any measurable impact upon viral transmission. I think that the key point to reduce transmission in this place, particularly through the winter, when we meet again, which I hope we do, will be to reduce the density of people in the room, and so I would like to make a couple of points on this. First of all I think it is important that MPs perhaps no longer be required to sit in their designated place to enable MPs to spread out through the room. We could even, if it is thought necessary, use the now empty gallery. I could think of a few MPs who would be better placed up there.

Members interjecting.

The SPEAKER: Order!

Dr READ: I will strive to be relevant to the motion.

The SPEAKER: The member was looking at me when he said that.

Dr READ: I also think that for times when there is a lot of us normally together—at the start of business at 9.30 in the morning and during question time—maybe we will need to nominate for a third of MPs from each party to be absent. During divisions, if MPs are in the building, perhaps their votes can be counted by other members of their party. I think these are suggestions going forward. We do not need to go through them in more detail. The main risk—

A member: I am interested. Tell us.

Dr READ: I am detecting uncharacteristic support from my erstwhile friends. But let me plough on. The main risks for transmission are close face-to-face contact. They are when ill MPs or MPs who are coughing come into the building. So these things should be avoided.

Ms Vallence: No kissing.

Dr READ: The member for Evelyn has suggested no kissing, and I agree. But also touching common surfaces, and I think this is something we could improve on. It is great to see hand sanitiser throughout the building—I think we actually need more hand sanitiser at doorways and other places. Also avoid touching lift buttons where possible, using your knuckle. We should all have some alcohol wipes in our pockets and be wiping these things down—shared cutlery baskets in Sessions Cafe, these other things where we are all touching things together. So I think these are important, but I do not think reducing non-government time in the sitting week actually does anything to reduce the transmission of viruses. I think that if for some reason it seems necessary to reduce the time we spend in the building—and this could be an issue in terms of the simple number of staff moving backwards and forwards and so on—we could probably make some contributions. I think it is a sensible amendment that members statements and adjournment matters are tabled, although hopefully that will not need to necessarily be continued, because let us face it: the chamber is mostly empty during members statements and particularly adjournment matters and most of the week the chamber is more than half empty. In fact—

Mr R Smith: Half full!

Dr READ: I shall endeavour to avoid all of these distractions. Now I have completely lost my train of thought, so bear with me while I look at my notes.

But the most important thing I think we could do to reduce time in the chamber is to simply reduce the number of speakers on bills. I just counted there were 17 government speakers on a bill about HIV testing, all of whom were saying they had met Sharon Lewin and had been to the Doherty Institute. It was not really necessary for the scrutiny of the legislation to go through all of this. We would be happy to limit our number of speakers to one per bill, and while other parties need not necessarily be quite so drastic, I think that is something that we could all agree to do. We would also be willing to tolerate some limitation of non-government business, but not where it is entirely take and no give. But because there are so many workplaces making drastic adjustments around the state, and because of the amendment moved today, we will agree to support this motion.

Mr M O’BRIEN (Malvern—Leader of the Opposition) (12:25): On the first day that this Parliament sat after the 2018 election I congratulated the Premier on his win, but I reminded him and I reminded the chamber that while Labor was elected to govern they were not elected to rule. This motion makes it clear that the Premier and this Labor government have failed to learn that lesson. They really think they have been elected to rule, not to govern. Well, the role of the Parliament, the role of the legislature, is to hold the executive to account. Now, that is important at any time—that is the fundamental basis of our democratic system of government—but it is more important at a time like this. The Andrews Labor government has just assumed sweeping, broad and intrusive powers over the lives of Victorians. It has done so by issuing a declaration of a state of emergency. I do not argue with that decision to issue a declaration of a state of emergency, but when a government assumes such sweeping powers over the lives of its citizens, it is more important than ever that the Parliament comes together to hold the government accountable for exercising those powers over its citizens.

What we see now is a government—at a time when it has assumed great powers over the lives of the people of this state—that now wants to close down scrutiny by this Parliament. At a time it is giving itself great power, it is seeking to disempower the elected representatives of the people of this state. This is why we oppose this motion, and we do so strenuously.

I am not used to quoting the member for Brunswick, but I will. The member for Brunswick is a doctor, and he has confirmed it is not a matter of health and safety for members of Parliament or staff to restrict the sitting hours of this Parliament. If it is safe for us to come to work, it is safe for us to do a full day’s work. That is what it comes down to: if it is safe for us to come here and gather in this place and do the jobs that the people of our electorates sent us here to do, it is good enough for us to put in a full day’s work. Do not be taken in by the spin of the Leader of the House. This is not about public safety; this is about political protection—nothing more and nothing less.

Sadly, we are already a part-time Parliament under this Labor government. The number of sitting days we have this year is absolutely pitiful—just 46 sitting days. Last year was even worse; it was 44. Now, the average number of sitting days in a non-election year for the Parliament of Victoria this century is 50, but we only get 46 this year and we got 44 last year. So Labor is already hiding from accountability. Labor is already hiding from scrutiny. Labor is already hiding from questioning, and it wants to do it again. They want to cut the sitting days down, so not only are we sitting fewer days, we are also doing less in those days.

How do we know that this is all about the government trying to stop scrutiny rather than protect the health of MPs? Well, when you look at what the government is trying to kill off, that is what bells the cat. That tells you the real intention behind this appalling move by an arrogant Labor government. You know what they are not killing off? They are not killing off ministerial statements, are they? They are not killing off the Dorothy Dixers, where ministers get up at the despatch box and blather on for 2 minutes at a time, telling us all how good they are—the same thing that the press gallery turns their back on because they are completely appalled by it. What a waste of parliamentary time.

No, the government will not kick off any opportunity for self-promotion—no, no, no. The government loves self-promotion. We know they spend so much taxpayers money doing that. We know how much they love it. But they love it in the chamber as well. If the government was serious about wanting to curtail parliamentary days without reducing scrutiny, why didn’t the Leader of the House volunteer to get rid of those abysmal ministers statements? That shows you that this is not a good-faith government. This is not a good-faith motion. This is a bad-faith motion by a bad-faith government that wants to avoid accountability and scrutiny at the same time that it has taken on unprecedented power over the lives of Victorians. That is exactly the wrong time to be reducing scrutiny.

What does the government want to remove? They want to remove the grievance debates, a longstanding tradition in this place, where members have the opportunity and they get a decent amount of time to put forward before the house matters that are of deep concern to them and their constituents. In these current circumstances, where we have businesses going to the wall, where we have small businesses closing their doors, where we have workers being thrown out of work and losing their jobs, placing their families in positions of financial distress, that is when our members on this side of the house, and I suspect the minor parties and crossbenchers, want the opportunity to be able to put forward those concerns and ask the government, ‘What are you going to do about it?’.

But instead the government says, ‘We don’t want to hear your grievances’. This is the Marie Antoinette school, isn’t it? ‘I don’t want to hear what your complaints are. Let them eat cake’—it is very appropriate that the Leader of the House would be taking a Marie Antoinette approach to these sorts of matters. The government then says, ‘Well, look, we will still let you have members statements, but you can’t actually stand up here, you can’t walk into the Parliament, you can’t actually say anything with any passion or anything like that. Oh, no. You can do a little anodyne email’—which will go into the ether and will never be responded to by any government minister. ‘Oh, you can do an adjournment matter’, which once again will go into the ether and never be responded to by any government minister, or at least not with any decent sense of a response. This is no substitute for this Parliament sitting and doing a full day’s work. It is no substitute for this Parliament having the opportunity to scrutinise a government that has taken on extraordinary powers at an extraordinary time and wants not to be held accountable for its exercise of those powers.

Now, we offered the government generous pairing arrangements, and I take on board the suggestions of the member for Brunswick that there are arguments in public health for spacing out members in the chamber. We offered the government and we agreed to generous pairing arrangements. If members feel unable to attend this house for health reasons or other concerns, we have said in this particular circumstance we would be willing to work with the government to ensure that pairing arrangements are put in place. We are not seeking to take any political advantage out of the coronavirus health issue to try and disturb the balance of power in this house. That would be undemocratic. We have made clear to the Leader of the House that we would agree to generous pairing arrangements, so the argument for spacing out members or even reducing the number of members who attend is no argument because we have agreed to that. We have agreed to measures which would allow that to occur, so we see that it is not actually about reducing the number of MPs in the chamber. It is not about protecting the health of MPs or staff. It is all about avoiding scrutiny. That is what this government is all about.

This is a government that has curtailed the rights of opposition members and minor party members in so many ways, even in terms of rules about how we can use our own electorate allowance to describe ourselves. Or dare we actually want to criticise a member of the government or a government policy, all of a sudden it is, ‘Oh, we can’t do that. You can only say nice things about us. You’re not allowed to use your electorate office budgets to criticise us at all. That is a terrible use of communications money’. So it is not enough that we cannot communicate out in our electorates to hold this government accountable; they also want to stop us doing it in here. Well, we say that is disgraceful. We say this is an anti-democratic move from an arrogant government that believes it was elected to rule, not to govern. Well, we will not cop it. We will not cop the outrageous claims of the Leader of the House, who is more interested in avoiding scrutiny than she is in facilitating the business of the house.

This is the people’s chamber. We have been elected by our constituents to represent them. We cannot do that sitting at home. We cannot do that online. We need to be here. That is how we do our job. Our job collectively as a Parliament—I include members of the Labor backbench—is to hold the executive accountable; that is the fundamental basis of our democratic system. What this motion does is prevent us doing that at the most important time, and that is a time when the government has taken it upon itself to take the most extraordinary sweeping and intrusive powers that Victorians have ever had used.

We oppose this motion. We oppose it because this is absolutely the wrong time for an arrogant Labor government to be avoiding the accountability and the scrutiny it needs.

Mr BATTIN (Gembrook) (12:35): I rise to support the Manager of Opposition Business in our position of opposing the Leader of the Government’s motion, put forward before the house, to change the hours and to reduce the hours in this Parliament. As the Leader of the Opposition said just then, it is because it is around the most important time when we need to be here as a voice for our communities, raising the issues that they are raising within that community.

Mr Richardson interjected.

Mr BATTIN: I will take up the interjection from the member for Mordialloc, who said I should be out in my community. My community at the moment—where you have got places like Robert Gordon pottery, who are stressed about 40 staff keeping their jobs—want me to come back and ask the government: where is the state’s stimulus package? What is the state doing to ensure they are protected? They treat their staff like family; they want to make sure they are protected for the future.

We have seen events cancelled, we have seen things change and we have seen how dynamic this is. I think I speak on behalf of all on this side of the house when I say that we are more than happy to work with the government to make sure it is in the best interests of Victorians at a time of genuine need.

When you travel around through the electorate at the moment, there is concern. They are raising concerns. I know the member for Polwarth raised a genuine concern before around people coming out to country areas in busloads and taking food from shelves, and that needs to be raised in this place. For the government to turn around and say that we are going to reduce, cut out and stop things that happen in Parliament, or change with this amendment to say that we can put it in writing—we have seen the example of what happens when you put things in writing within this Parliament. The government fails to answer. I raised two weeks ago 108 questions on notice that have failed to be answered by this government. I again raised an issue this week, with 70 questions on notice, where the answers are totally and factually incorrect. That is why we need to make sure that Parliament remains. That is why we should be here.

The chief health officer—and I have heard many on the other side interject about the chief health officer—has stated that basically you can stay in Parliament, that the Parliament is exempt and should continue to run. I would actually say not just should continue to run, it is vital that it continues to run, as it has for the past 12 months, 20 years, 50 years—go back to when it obviously started, all those years ago.

The one thing we have had change here in Victoria is the reduction in the amount of days. The Leader of the Opposition went into those days, to say that it went down to 44 days and back up to 46. The one thing I will say to the Leader of the Opposition is that the Labor Party is the only party that would turn around and say, ‘That’s a 5 per cent increase’, rather than focusing on the history and actually saying it is a 10 per cent decrease on what has been happening within democracy in Victoria. They continue to try to curtail debate and make sure that we cannot speak.

One of the reasons we do need to be in this chamber is to raise really important issues that happen out in our electorate. A prime example at the moment would be the Millhaven Lodge retirement village—a place of care, a place where people are obviously more vulnerable, more susceptible to what is happening with the current virus and also with food issues. Then you get a member of Parliament who puts a post out on social media saying, ‘No food in aged-care facility in Pakenham’, and then goes on to blame the federal government and the local member. The member was so embarrassed by the post they had to take it down. We are trying to talk about bipartisanship. A simple phone call from the member for Bass would not have hurt, or to actually go there. It is funny, because when we spoke to them at Millhaven Lodge, they actually turned around and said, ‘No, we weren’t short of food. We had one delivery not turn up’. One delivery. What message is out in the community when a member of government is putting a message out there saying, ‘No food in aged-care facility in Pakenham’? No food. I put it to you that if your mother or father was in that village or in that aged-care nursing home and a member of the government was putting a message out saying there was no food available in that facility, that needs to be raised in this place. That person has to be called out. It is a disgrace—a disgrace—that someone wants to go out there and scaremonger from the government and try to blame the Morrison government and try to blame the feds. We need to raise that in here.

I will give credit. I know that the Premier has been going up and working with the government federally and they are trying to put in place things that are genuinely in the best interests of Victoria and Australia. They are trying to make changes that are uncomfortable. Any leader has to make decisions that are uncomfortable, but many of those decisions over time may require a change in legislation, and you would think the best place to discuss them with the opposition would be in the Parliament so we can then be aware of what is going on.

I was elected to this place on exactly the same grounds as the member for Mordialloc. I had more than 50 per cent of my electorate support me to come in here to be their voice. The member for Mordialloc should agree with me. This is the place that I am going to stand up for them. This is the place that I am going to come into and make sure that their voice is heard. At a time when they have genuine concern in our community, I need to come in here and ensure that I can go through to the ministers, I can go through to the government and ask questions.

But we know the reality. I could show you the email lists. I could show you the FOIs I have put in for which we have failed to get answers back. This government sent an FOI response to the opposition of over 200 pages that were all blanked out. They would not even give us the information in relation to projects at the time. They will not supply the information to us that we have not had. We are getting a briefing today from the chief medical officer or the deputy chief medical officer. Other information comes out sporadically and we cannot get answers that we need to get.

In question time today, and in question time yesterday as well, the Liberal Party did not get up with the National Party and absolutely have a go at the government; we got up and asked specific questions.

Mr Fowles interjected.

Mr BATTIN: I note the member for Burwood wants to interject from there. I do not even think he is entitled to be in the front row, let alone his seat over there, so I would not start interjecting from where he is sitting.

But I will say, when we are talking about it, we are entitled to come in here and speak on behalf of our people, speak on behalf of those that have been elected. We have come in here to make sure that those concerns are raised.

I have had continuous issues raised when it comes to schools. One of the areas where parents are concerned, and rightfully concerned, is that the government are reducing the amount of people that can be in enclosed spaces to 100 people et cetera. I do understand, and we have said we have got bipartisan support that currently government schools will be staying open. But the concern out in the community when you walk down the street and speak to people is, ‘Well, hold on, independent and private schools are starting to make announcements around closing, and some of them have not had a case of the virus at all within the school’. They have not had the coronavirus in the school but they are making those decisions. They are making those decisions based on what they think is in the best interests of their students, they are making those decisions in what they think are the best interests of the families and they are making them in what is the best interests of their staff. They are doing it for the right reasons. I am not saying whether they should or should not close—that is a decision for the independent schools—but we need to be able to come in here and ensure that we can get the right advice to go back to state schools, to go back to the parents who are asking the question, ‘Why are some of those areas deciding to close and others not?’.

Then we can go to the department. I am happy to show the emails in this place over time where I have gone to the department, including—we will use the emergency services—where I have sent an email just recently to the chief of the emergency services, whose standard response is, ‘I’m sorry, Mr Battin, we cannot deal with you; you’ll have to go through the minister’s office’. Or when we have written to the education department locally in Dandenong and the response is, ‘I’m sorry, we’re told we can’t deal with you; you’ll have to go through the minister’s office’. Therefore, if we are not getting the information from the department, we have to come in here and confront the minister, because the minister is elected and paid to be in charge and deliver that. That is all we are asking. We are not asking for much on this side of the Parliament. We are not asking for anything that is outstanding, anything over the top, we are just asking for a Parliament that operates and gives us the opportunity to question the government. A Parliament is here to question the government.

On behalf of the electorate of Gembrook as businesses start to struggle, as we see a change to our schools, as people are concerned about catching a train, with the photo this morning at the train station on Flinders Street at 7.30 am, they want to make sure that their leaders are leading. They want to make sure that leaders continue to do what they should be doing, and my role as an elected representative of Gembrook is to make sure I come in here and, number one, get information they need and ensure I get that information back out to them in any way possible—using social media, going through the media—and work with the government where appropriate to make sure that they are protected, and their interests are the only thing that I am putting forward. That is what we are asking for today.

This motion is going to cut off the voice of the electorate of Gembrook and the electorates of everyone else in this place, and anyone who is not within government—any backbencher, whether you are a Labor backbencher, a Liberal backbencher, Nationals or Greens—will all be cut off from making sure they have a voice and making sure they get treated equally so every area is treated and they can govern for all. I implore the government to listen to the Greens member today and some of the things that he wanted to put in place that would make this place operate smoothly and for the betterment of all Victorians, and that is why I oppose this motion put before the house.

Ms ALLAN (Bendigo East—Leader of the House, Minister for Transport Infrastructure) (12:45): I move:

That the question be now put.

Mr Wells: On a point of order—

The SPEAKER: I cannot accept points of order on this matter.

Members interjecting.

The SPEAKER: Order! I am going to make a ruling or a point and then the member may raise a point if he wishes to. I am not in a position to put the question at this point. Standing order 155 does require me to ensure that the putting of the question is not a denial of the rights of the minority. I note that from those who have contributed to the debate that the Independent member for Morwell has not yet had an opportunity to contribute—he has been in the chamber most of the time listening—nor has a representative of The Nationals. So I do ask the Leader of The Nationals, who is in the chamber, and the member for Morwell to consider very quickly whether they wish to contribute to the debate.

Mr Wells: On a point of order, Speaker, thank you for that because that is exactly the point we were going to raise—that under—

Ms Allan interjected.

Mr Wells: Thank you, Speaker, because under standing order 155, ‘Closure motions’, (2)(b), that was exactly the point that I was going to raise with you—that before the question can be put it is a denial of rights of the minority that you need to consider, so I thank you for taking consideration that there has been no-one from the National Party and that the Independent member for Morwell may also wish to speak. So I thank you for that and ask you to make the next call.

The SPEAKER: I think that was a thankyou rather than a point of order, but I am always happy to accommodate those. Can I just indicate also that given the motion and the amendment before the house have a material impact on the sitting of the house after 2.00 pm today—members following this motion will understand what I mean—it is my intention not to suspend at 1 o’clock for lunch to allow as many members as possible to contribute to debate.

Mr Wells: On a point of order, Speaker, I mean, what material impact can there possibly be when we are arguing that the sitting should be implemented until 7.00 pm? And if you are going to make a ruling that we are going to sit through the lunch break, then that is a ridiculous situation. We should be going for lunch at 1 o’clock as we have agreed. Surely you cannot break the tradition of 1 o’clock on a Wednesday—an order for us to be able to go at 1 o’clock for lunch, come back and do grievances at 2 o’clock until 4 o’clock—or the situation is we can come back to this debate at 4 o’clock.

The SPEAKER: I do not uphold the point of order.

Mr NORTHE (Morwell) (12:49): Just in relation to the amendment as put by the Leader of the House, I guess speaking on behalf of myself and the Independents who are absent who would probably, I would suggest, have similar views to myself, it is an opportunity missed for opposition members and Independent members, particularly coming from regional Victoria, that we have the opportunity to have our say in those forums that are available to us, whether that be by way of a members statements or adjournment matters.

Notwithstanding the fact that all of us in this place should heed any health advice when it comes to the coronavirus, the facts are that we are here. Many members of Parliament from regional Victoria make a long and concerted effort to get to this place and the opportunities that are available to us to put our views and raise issues, which the community sends us here to do. It is important to ensure that we have those opportunities.

The Leader of the House did note to me the proposed amendment, which has evolved into the opportunity for members to submit their members statements and adjournment debate matters in writing, but again that does not have the same impact as standing here. One of the technologies that is available to us as members of Parliament in this day and age is the ability to have video links to our speeches that we make in Parliament, and they are a much better option in many cases when you are delivering a passionate speech to this place on behalf of your community. If we were only able to have that in writing, that is the loss of an opportunity for members of Parliament to put their views back out into their community and be able to demonstrate in a physical sense and an emotional sense the issues that we are sent here to address. From that perspective I think it is a lost opportunity.

But more importantly, as I mentioned, all of us need to heed the advice of the health experts. We are in this place because obviously the health warnings are not enough for us to not be here, notwithstanding that some members of Parliament are absent for various reasons. But we are here and, as I say, for many of us who have travelled hundreds of kilometres it makes no sense that we would not be here for the duration. And again, notwithstanding obviously that the sitting hours have reduced markedly from previous parliaments as well. It is easier of course for those members of Parliament who live in the city or outer suburbs to get back home, but it raises a conundrum for many regional members of Parliament who will be forced to stay here in Melbourne for meetings that have been coordinated either inside of the Parliament or without. To change the operations of the house in this substantial manner is not something that I or the other Independents would support in that regard for all the reasons that I have mentioned.

As I say, going back to the start, Hansard now have a great vehicle available to us in having video links to our speeches. It is not the same as providing an issue in writing. I have already had the opportunity this week to raise many issues around the coronavirus and the impacts that that is having on our community. I do not want to be putting those concerns in writing. I want to be able to stand here in Parliament and do it in that manner. I think what is being proposed by the Leader of the House is not something that I would support, and neither would our community. We are elected by our communities to come here, to express our views as best we can, to ask questions of the government and the relevant ministers and to get that feedback.

Even in the adjournment debate, if I can raise an example, two sitting weeks ago I raised an adjournment debate for the attention of the Minister for Police and Emergency Services about police shortages in my electorate and the levels of crime. During the course of the adjournment debate the minister actually happened to be in the chamber and she was able to provide some really helpful, insightful information that I could immediately take back to my community, and that was helpful. That was in a forum whereby we had a number of local residents who had come to me on the basis of concerns about those high levels of crime. I was able to send back to those community members—there were about 50 of them—via email a video link of not only my contribution but also the minister’s response to my adjournment debate. If we do not have that, we lose the opportunity as well in terms of what is being proposed by the Leader of the House.

A member: Hazelwood pondage.

Mr NORTHE: Hazelwood pondage, yes, that is another big issue. But again, with the here and now, with the coronavirus, I think it is important that members of Parliament from all sides—it does not matter if it is government or opposition—have an opportunity to raise their real and valid concerns and issues surrounding their community members about the coronavirus. As I said, I was able to do that in question time with the Premier yesterday and by way of a members statement this morning, and it should not be in written form. We should be standing here being able to articulate that with the passion and vigour that our constituents expect us to.

That will continue for me in the next couple of days. I have a question without notice tomorrow, and I know that will be in order, but I also have an adjournment debate tomorrow evening. Again, I assume at this stage it will be around coronavirus and hopefully again a minister will be in the chamber to respond to that and I will be able to have those video links and that video footage from Hansard that I can relay back to my community, because that is the way we operate in this day and age. In the absence of any health warnings or advice from the chief health officers about the operations in Parliament, it makes sense to me that if we are here through the duration of operational hours as standing orders require, then we should be here. Again, I am reinforcing the fact that regional members of Parliament in many cases have had massive upheaval to their weeks to come to this place. They have put arrangements in place. We are here; let us be here for the duration unless there is other health advice or warnings that state otherwise.

In closing, I understand the intent from the Leader of the House, and I respect the fact that she has provided myself and others with a briefing on the intent. In this case, it is not something that I agree with—from my perspective, wearing my local member of Parliament hat. And I am sure the member for Mildura, having travelled all those miles and catching a plane to come to Parliament—I would suggest, without putting words in her mouth—would agree with my position, as would the member for Shepparton for those valid reasons. It is an opportunity, as the member for Shepparton says on a regular basis. At every opportunity that is available to us in opposition to contribute to forums and to contribute to debates and to raise issues and concerns on behalf of our community it is our responsibility to do so. We should not lose those opportunities in the current forums that are available to us for all the reasons that I have mentioned. Again, it is not the same in Hansard if you lose those opportunities via video links and video footage to go back to your community with the issues that you have raised during the course of a sitting week.

There is no need, in my view, to reduce debate in any of the forums, as has been suggested by the Leader of the House. There have been some good points raised by the member from the Greens. I very, very rarely agree with anything that a member from the Greens would say, but in this case there is some common sense, which is not too common coming from anybody from the Greens. Nonetheless I think the points that have been raised by many of the opposition members are very valid, and I would reiterate from my perspective that the amendments as proposed would not be supported by myself nor indeed by other Independent members of the house.

Mr WALSH (Murray Plains) (12:59): I rise also to speak against the motion from the Leader of the House and also the amendments that she has put forward as well. One of the things that you take on as a value in life is treating other people as you would have them treat you, and when dealing with this motion and dealing with the contribution from the Leader of the House about wanting to have support for her changes, I cast my mind back to the 2010 to 2014 government when the Leader of the House was the leader of opposition business. I think, ‘How would she have handled this?’. She would have railed against this. She would have given an impassioned speech about how when we were on the Treasury benches we were shutting down the opposition from raising their issues here in this Parliament. So I think the Leader of the House, who is saying she wants support from us for her ill-gotten motion, would have done the same as us if she was in the same position.

We are elected to come to this Parliament to represent the people that send us and to raise the issues that are important to them. An absolute tenet of the Westminster system of government is the Parliament, executive government, and Her Majesty’s loyal opposition, who are here to raise their concerns and hold executive government to account. The Parliament is more important in the Westminster system than executive government. So the motion we have from the Leader of the House is about lessening the impact of the Parliament in the Westminster system. I just think that is totally abhorrent to our system. With an issue of crisis, an issue of war—as the Treasurer said, this is like a war—it is important that the Parliament functions even more effectively than at any other particular time. So to think that you would have a motion that is going to close down the rights of members of Parliament to raise issues on their constituents’ behalf, particularly for the opposition members of Parliament to raise issues that are important to their constituency in this time at the moment, is just totally wrong.

I understand that you are within the standing orders, because there is no provision for lunch within the standing orders, but I think to actually hold off the lunch adjournment is wrong as well, if I could be respectful about that. I believe this debate should have gone on till 1 o’clock, we should have adjourned for lunch, we should have come back, we should have gone through the normal standing orders, normal sessional orders, and we should have had a grievance debate. What is more important in a week when we have the issues around coronavirus, when we have got all the issues around people’s health and safety, and when we have got people who are absolutely stressed and beside themselves that their business is going to close its doors, that they will be out of a job and that the people they employ will be out of a job? That is the time that we should actually have a grievance debate, and the members of Parliament should have the opportunity to raise those grievances on behalf of their constituency.

They just say that a member of Parliament can email in. We know it takes months and months and months to get a formal response in the form of a ministerial letter. How long is it going to take to get an issue answered as a members statement or as an adjournment issue? How long is it going to take to actually get a response to those issues? If I have a constituent that raises something with me and wants me to do an adjournment issue about law and order and the lack of police numbers in my electorate, for argument’s sake, do I tell them, ‘Oh, I’ve sent an email’? They will laugh at me. They will say, ‘What the hell are you doing? We asked you to go to the Parliament. We asked you to raise this particular issue on our behalf’. As the member for Morwell said, he does a Facebook post with the actual visuals from the Parliament. I think one of the great changes that has come in here is the fact that we can actually use that feed to show people what we actually do in this house. It is important that we can be seen to be doing our job. It is not only about doing the job; it is important that we be seen doing our job.

As an example, last sitting week if we had not personally asked the Premier a question about the fact that the Timboon and Heyfield Lions clubs had not been paid for what they had done to actually shift donated hay to the bushfire farmers to make sure their livestock did not die, if we had just sent an email to the Premier saying, ‘Can you do something about this?’, I think even you, Speaker, would be hard-pressed to think there would have been some action out of that. By the fact that things are raised in this chamber, by the fact that there is video feed that can be used, by the fact that there is a news camera here quite often taking footage that goes to everyone across Victoria and by the fact that the Premier would look very, very silly if he did not do something about that, it will mean that hopefully—and they still have not been paid—the Lions clubs of Timboon and Heyfield will actually get paid for carting that donated hay. But if that had just been an email, I am sure it would not have even got a response—let alone an action—to those particular issues. As the Leader of the Opposition said, this is a part-time Parliament anyhow.

We are sitting less days than we have ever sat before. With the changes to sessional orders about being family friendly—and I do support those changes—we are not doing as much as we used to do when I first came to this Parliament. We are not putting the hours in. We are not having the opportunity to scrutinise legislation that we used to have. I may stand corrected, but I believe we have hardly had an opportunity to go into consideration in detail on any bills in the life of this Parliament, let alone the life of the previous Parliament.

When it comes to the adjournment debate, one of the tenets when we were in government between 2010 and 2014 was that we actually had a row of ministers on the bench at 10 o’clock when this Parliament went on the adjournment. If you were unfortunate enough to be following Peter Ryan, who usually took about 20 minutes in answering the adjournment matters that he got, you might get 5 or 10 minutes to answer an adjournment matter. But most nights, on the adjournment debate, the answers went for at least 15 or 20 minutes, if not the full half-hour. With what we have now, the best result we can get is actually having a minister who will stand up and at least identify the issue that was raised and the minister it was raised for. Some of the ministers just stand up and say, ‘We’ll pass those on to those ministers’. As we are seeing from the number of points of order after question time about questions on notice that have not been answered, there is little response from the government around these particular issues.

The government business program this week includes the North East Link Bill 2020, a piece of legislation that will not be used for five or six years. Why would you have the business program taken up with that piece of legislation? Why not actually dedicate that time to allow opposition members to have members statements and to have adjournment matters?

A member: We could have grievances.

Mr WALSH: We could actually have a grievance debate. With the coronavirus pandemic that we have and the stress that is out there in communities, I think the grievance debate is an absolutely essential part of the Parliament for this sitting week.

The issue I wanted to close on is the fact that all the members on our side of Parliament that I have been talking to today are being inundated with calls. Our offices are inundated with calls because our constituents are extremely worried that with the way people are acting in supermarkets they will not be able to buy the basic food and essentials they need for life into the future. We need the opportunity to debate that issue in Parliament this afternoon in the grievance debate. It is that important. The night before last in the Echuca supermarket there was a fight over a bag of pasta. A bag of pasta burst and spread all over the floor. Security guards had to be called because people were fighting over a bag of pasta. When we have got issues like that happening in our community, we need to make sure we have the opportunity to debate and raise those issues in Parliament.

I will finish by saying that one of the motel operators in Echuca came into my office today absolutely stressed that he has had nearly all of his bookings cancelled going forward. They are the sorts of issues that we should be debating in this Parliament. He was saying the federal government’s initiative goes some of the way, but he actually needs more business support than that; otherwise he is going to close his doors. He will actually shut that motel because he will not be able to survive through what is going on at the moment. These are the issues are important to the people that send us to this Parliament. These are the issues that we should be debating. We should not be voting on the Leader of the House’s motion now. We should be going to lunch, we should be coming back—

Ms Allan interjected.

Mr WALSH: The Leader of the House wants to trivialise this issue. The grievance debate is absolutely critical for this sitting week.

Ms ALLAN (Bendigo East—Leader of the House, Minister for Transport Infrastructure) (13:09): I move:

That the question be put.

House divided on question:

Question agreed to.

The SPEAKER: The house is considering an amendment moved by the member for Essendon to the motion moved by the Leader of the House. The question is:

That the amendment be agreed to.

Amendment agreed to.

The SPEAKER: The question is:

That the motion as amended be agreed to.

House divided on amended motion:

Amended motion agreed to.