Thursday, 19 March 2020

Business of the house

Adjournment

Ms ALLAN (Bendigo East—Leader of the House, Minister for Transport Infrastructure) (09:41): I move:

That the house, at its rising, adjourns until a day and hour to be fixed by the Speaker, who will notify members accordingly.

Mr WELLS (Rowville) (09:41): I am sorry, Speaker, but we have not discussed this.

Ms Allan interjected.

Mr WELLS: No, we did not. Just a moment, we have not discussed it—

Members interjecting.

The SPEAKER: Order! I ask members to resume their seats. The Leader of the House!

Members interjecting.

The SPEAKER: Order! I warn members about shouting across the chamber. The Manager of Opposition Business has the call.

Mr WELLS: This is the first that we have heard that we are now going to put the return of Parliament into the hands of the government. The opposition has not been informed about this decision. You would have thought, having a sense of decency in regard to recalling the house for budget today on 5 May, that we would have been consulted so we could have had a discussion with the leadership team and had a discussion with our party room to make sure that we were in agreement with this.

We think it is grossly unfair that the Leader of the House can just get up and make a decision and that the decision is that we will do it when the government decides. So there can be a whole heap of bad news in regard to budget blowouts, deficits, health waiting lists, quality of school education, and for us not to be informed is an outrage. It is an absolute outrage. Now I would have thought, with the thousand times that the Leader of the House and I have had discussions over the last week, that we would have at least discussed this important matter. We will be opposing this and we will want to be voting against this.

Members interjecting.

Mr WELLS: Oh, so that is fine. We are just going to ram it through on the numbers to give the government the right to be able to call the Parliament back when it chooses. They could just wait until there is—

Mr M O’Brien interjected.

Mr WELLS: Yes, declare a state of emergency and just call it back whenever you want.

Surely it is not one of the principles of the Westminster system that the government can just call the Parliament back when it chooses, when it is safe to do. It is wrong. What is going to happen with the budget? We will never know about what happens with the budget in regard to deficits or blowouts. Just bury the budget.

This, Speaker, you cannot allow to happen. At the moment we have been, as an opposition, told that the house will be recalled on Tuesday, 5 May, which is budget day. That went out last year and there have been no changes. This is nothing more than an ambush, and the opposition will be voting against this motion. It is outrageous.

Ms ALLAN (Bendigo East—Leader of the House, Minister for Transport Infrastructure) (09:44): If I could ask for leave. I have already spoken to the motion in moving the motion. But if, by leave—

The SPEAKER: Is leave granted?

Mr Wells: Leave is refused.

The SPEAKER: Leave is refused.

Ms Allan: On a point of order, Speaker, can I explain the reason why, on relevance—

Members interjecting.

The SPEAKER: Order! I have not heard what the Leader of the House is going to say. She needs to make her point of order.

Ms Allan: On relevance, Speaker—

A member interjected.

The SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the House has the call on a point of order.

Ms Allan: Thank you, Speaker. It is—

Members interjecting.

The SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the House has not begun her contribution on the point of order. The Leader of the House has the call.

Ms Allan: Speaker, there is a long tradition in this place and in previous places of a motion of this type being put. It has happened on a number of occasions in the 20 and a half years that I have been in this place. It is standard practice. Can I also put—

Mr T Smith interjected.

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Kew can leave the chamber for the period of 1 hour. I am not going to be shouted at in the chair. The Leader of the House will resume her seat. She is not making a point of order. The member for Kew, I have asked you to leave the chamber.

Member for Kew withdrew from chamber.

The SPEAKER: Are there further speakers on this motion?

Ms SANDELL (Melbourne) (09:46): Perhaps as a way forward, if I could suggest that this motion could be put later in the day to give the Leader of the House a chance to talk to everyone. Just to let you know, we have not formed on a position on this.

Ms Allan interjected.

The SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the House will come to order.

Ms SANDELL: We actually were not consulted. Our leader in the other place—

Members interjecting.

The SPEAKER: Order! I need to be able to hear the member for Melbourne.

Ms SANDELL: Our leader in the other place was told about it.

Ms Allan interjected.

The SPEAKER: The Leader of the House!

Ms SANDELL: Our leader in the other place was told that this may come up, but it did not come up in our discussions with the Leader of the House. So perhaps there is a chance to talk about it outside Parliament and bring it back later.

Ms NEVILLE (Bellarine—Minister for Water, Minister for Police and Emergency Services) (09:47): As I understand, the Leader of the House had flagged with all parties that there was a need—

Members interjecting.

The SPEAKER: Order! I realise there is some passion about this debate, but members need to allow those on their feet to make their contribution and not shout across them.

Ms NEVILLE: The Leader of the House had told parties that we needed an opportunity to discuss how Parliament would operate in the next few months. This is to provide that—

Members interjecting.

The SPEAKER: Order!

Ms NEVILLE: What this motion enables is for those discussions to happen, as we have an evolving situation. I have heard a lot, unfortunately, from those opposite that suggests to me that people do not understand the seriousness of the issues that we face as a community. We need to do this responsibly, just like every other meeting. Every other organisation across the country is currently reviewing how they operate, how they meet. This is an appropriate motion that enables those discussions to occur. It is not presuming when or where Parliament is sitting. It is enabling the discussions to happen properly in an evolving situation. Each day it changes. Each day the advice changes. Each day the directives from the chief health officers change. We need to be able to accommodate that, and we need to be able to do that by passing this motion today for those conversations to happen between the parties to get a resolution that fits with the situation that we are in.

This is an appropriate motion. It is not about closing anything down. It is about opening up a responsible debate. Just as I said, every single organisation across the world, across this country, is reviewing how they operate. This provides us with an opportunity to review together what that might look like. Where we are in two weeks is going to be very different to where we are now, and where we are in three months will also be very different. This is about us trying to ensure that there are appropriate discussions that take account of the changing circumstances. I urge the house to support this and enable those discussions to occur.

Ms STALEY (Ripon) (09:49): The Minister for Police and Emergency Services has just made a nonsensical contribution to this debate. While she did it in a reasonable tone, her argument was that we need to be able to discuss together what will happen in the future.

However, the motion being put by the Leader of the House, in conjunction with the motion that the government rammed through yesterday, has us going home early, has us not sitting and has us not set with a date for the future under this motion, and therefore all of the opportunities that we have around this place to discuss the sorts of things that the Minister for Police and Emergency Services just raised have been taken away.

Now of course, the next sitting date is the budget date. I would put into context that other parliaments, as others have said, are addressing the seriousness of COVID-19. For example, the federal Parliament, through consultation between all parties, has come to an agreement that not all members of Parliament are going to Canberra, and they have revised quorum mechanisms. And they have those discussions going on.

But in this Parliament, instead what we have seen is the Leader of the House and the government at every stage seeking to ride roughshod over democracy, over the traditions of the house, and not have consultation. In every other Parliament they are dealing with these very, very serious issues, but they are not doing it by being authoritarian. That is not the way to go. This is the time when we need democracy to be at its finest, and instead what the government has done is immediately gone into authoritarian mode. This is yet another example of it. And with that I move an amendment to the motion and my amendment is:

Omit all the words after ‘until’ and insert ‘Tuesday, 5 May 2020’.

This Parliament needs to debate the budget. We have already seen that the budget is in deficit. This government drove the budget into deficit—$1.1 billion deficit—before we even had COVID-19 or the bushfires. We have got $24 billion in cost blowouts. Those cost blowouts, that $24 billion, could be available now to be actually fighting COVID-19, but instead this government has not been able to announce a stimulus package, unlike every other government in Australia, because it has not got the money. It has run out of money.

And so Victorians absolutely need to see the budget. They need to see it on 5 May, and we should be given every opportunity to have that budget exposed to Victorians. Then we will see the true nature of this government’s finances, which are appalling. And there is no reason that we cannot come together using some modicum of agreement to not have everybody in the chamber. It is quite possible that we will have the Treasurer giving his budget and me giving my reply with the clerks and the Speaker; we do not all need to be here. There is no reason.

Other parliaments are dealing with this crisis by making sensible adjustments to how many people are in the chamber. Because that is the problem with this virus, of course—it is about social distancing. Whereas this government’s idea of fixing that is just to have the Parliament not sit, and let them sit out on the terrace drinking beers with no social distancing. This government is not acting, when it comes to this Parliament, in relation to the advice of the major health authorities or to how other parliaments are behaving. And this motion is yet another example of the Leader of the House and the government arrogantly running roughshod over democracy, which they want to do at every point. Because of course they are not fundamentally democrats.

Now, this is the problem, and when the times get tough you have got to actually show leadership. And leadership is standing up and being accountable for your budget, being accountable for your actions, and not shutting down the Parliament at every opportunity just because you do not want that exposure. If this motion had come without what we had yesterday, perhaps there would have been a bit more appreciation for it. But this is just part of a pattern. The government at every stage is shutting down debate, constantly shutting out the opposition, and it is just not good enough.

Ms HENNESSY (Altona—Attorney-General, Minister for Workplace Safety) (09:54): We are in very, very challenging times, and whilst I understand and appreciate the strength of passion that those on the other side of the chamber have shared and exhibited, the reality is that we are living in an international health crisis. We have a set of circumstances where we have a national cabinet that is meeting several times a week in a very fluid set of circumstances, having to make very difficult decisions, directions and advice to the country. It may come as some surprise to those that sit opposite, but Victoria is actually part of the country. The cooperation that we have seen from the leader of Victoria with the leader of our country, I think, provides a fantastic example of the fact that difficult decisions are having to be made because we are living in a time of uncertainty.

On Tuesday when the Leader of the House spoke to this chamber she forecast this very motion by saying that decisions would have to be made. She put on the record that she would be cooperative and open and collaborative about future arrangements. But what she is not in a position to do is put a motion before this house that essentially takes risks around people’s health and wellbeing in an environment that we do not have the information about. She made a commitment to say that she will continue to work and engage with you about future sittings of the house. She has had discussions with many people throughout this week. The fact that we are now in a set of circumstances where that goodwill seems to have evaporated is unfortunate, but that does not then mean that we should take the risk about making commitments that we cannot keep in a fast-moving COVID-19 environment.

This is a sensible position. This is a sensible position whereby the Leader of the House has given a commitment to continue to work with those on the other side of the house about what the future arrangements might be. She has been open, she has been consistent and she has behaved in a way and given commitments on the record that say, ‘We will continue to work with you about future sittings of the house’. That is the long and the short of it. I accept that those opposite may not like it, but the fact of the matter is that that is the decision the government has made and that is how the government will vote on this resolution.

Mr Walsh: On a point of order, Speaker, I seek leave to respond to what the Leader of the House said about me.

Leave refused.

Mr Walsh: On a point of order, Speaker, the Leader of the House has said that she told me this was happening. That is just blatantly not true.

The SPEAKER: Order! I have already asked members in this debate not to use a point of order to contribute to debate. I ask the Leader of The Nationals to resume his seat.

Dr Read: I seek leave to make a brief contribution on this.

Leave refused.

Mr Wells: On a point of order, Speaker, by refusing leave you are not allowing the members of Parliament who you have claimed have told—

The SPEAKER: Order! The Manager of Opposition Business! Members will resume their seats.

Members interjecting.

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for South-West Coast can leave the chamber for the period of half an hour.

Member for South-West Coast withdrew from chamber.

The SPEAKER: I will not have members talking across the Chair while I am on my feet.

The Leader of the House has moved:

That the house, at its rising, adjourns until a day and hour to be fixed by the Speaker, who will notify members accordingly.

The member for Ripon has moved an amendment to omit all the words after ‘until’ and insert ‘Tuesday, 5 May 2020’. The house will divide on the question:

That the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question.

I remind members supporting the amendment by the member for Ripon that they should vote no.

House divided on question:

Question agreed to.

House divided on motion:

Motion agreed to.

Mr Wells: On a point of order, Speaker, with the new motion that has been agreed to by the Parliament, for the opposition what sort of notice will we now be assured of as to when Parliament will resume? Because, I mean, we have been ambushed once this morning, and I would hate to think that we are only given a couple of days notice, for example, for us to be able to resume Parliament.

Ms Allan: On the point of order, Speaker, I can respond on behalf of the government to the point of order and refer the Manager of Opposition Business back to my comments in this place yesterday when we debated the motion on the arrangements for this week. I gave him my very clear commitment that I would work with all members of this place on the future arrangements of how Parliament would operate and how, given we are in some challenging times, that would require some assistance and cooperation from those opposite. I intend to honour my commitment to provide as much advice as possible to the opposition, to non-government members and indeed to our own government members as well, as we are all in the same situation, but it is very difficult to even plan what we are doing tomorrow let alone where we might be in two, three, four weeks time. I will just reiterate that we will work very hard to work with non-government members on the return of Parliament.

I would also like to remind all members that the use of a sitting of the house motion in the way I moved it earlier today has been standard practice by all governments for a very, very long time in both chambers of the Parliament. It has often been deployed, for example, at the end of a sitting year for our longer summer break. There is nothing unusual in a motion of this kind. Therefore there will be nothing unusual, I would anticipate, in how the Parliament advises members. In between that, as I said, I reiterate that I will continue to work as best as I possibly can with non-government members. However, to do that it will need some assistance from those non-government members to match that spirit of cooperation.

The SPEAKER: Order! On this point of order, I would be very keen to meet with both the Manager of Opposition Business and the Leader of the House at some point today to have further discussion about the very point of order that has been raised.

Mr Riordan: On a different point of order, Speaker, listening to the debate earlier from my office, I just seek your clarification for future reference on something I have not seen in my four years here, where leaders of both the National Party and the Greens made comments that were in complete contradiction to the manager of government business, who said that she had informed them of the process. I seek your clarification, when we have such starkly differing views from two senior members of other parties, where that leaves us for the future if the government can just say they said something and then that was completely refuted.

The SPEAKER: Order! I thank the member for his point of order, but I am going to ask the member for Polwarth to resume his seat. That is not a point of order.