Thursday, 7 April 2022

Adjournment

Ms SYMES (Northern Victoria—Leader of the Government, Attorney-General, Minister for Emergency Services) (10:39): I move:

That the Council, at its rising, adjourn until Tuesday, 10 May 2022.

Mr DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan—Leader of the Opposition) (10:40): I propose an amendment. I move:

That all words and expressions after ‘adjourn’ be omitted with a view of inserting ‘until Tuesday, 3 May 2022.’ in their place.

That is budget day. This chamber ought to be sitting on budget day, and it ought to be sitting in budget week. The government does not want the scrutiny that comes with the chamber sitting in budget week. We believe that the chamber should be sitting in budget week. There is a very low number of weeks planned for sitting this year, even lower than in normal election years, and the chamber ought to be sitting more. It certainly ought to be undertaking more non-government business, and I should say, in terms of government business, we certainly would be prepared in that week to sit on the Thursday, if the government wished to do so. But at the least we should be sitting on the Tuesday. We should table the budget papers, and there should be opportunities for questions and scrutiny that flow from that.

Ms Symes interjected.

Mr DAVIS: Why wouldn’t the government want to sit in budget week? Well, I will tell you why they would not want to sit in budget week—because this budget will have a very significant debt coming to the fore and a very significant deficit. These are very significant points, and the state is at a considerable point of financial challenge. Why wouldn’t we sit on budget week when the Assembly is sitting? We do not need to be directed by the Assembly as to when we as a chamber choose to sit. I would suggest that this amendment is very reasonable.

I understand that the crossbench may have been talking to the government about this amendment too, and I have not made any secrets about this. I have transmitted this to everyone and discussed it at the meetings earlier in the week and indeed in previous weeks, and I understand that the government may be prepared to negotiate or discuss with the crossbench and the opposition some additional opportunities for non-government business. That is only part of the story here. The other part is the scrutiny of the state government’s budget, Victoria’s budget. Why on earth wouldn’t we sit in budget week?

Ms CROZIER (Southern Metropolitan) (10:42): I rise to speak in support of Mr Davis’s amendment. It is the most critical of times, and we should be in the Parliament scrutinising the government’s budget. We know that there are massive issues with the government and their lack of transparency around what they are putting forward to the Victorian public, and we have a duty as elected representatives to be here, especially on budget day. For the Leader of the Government to interject during Mr Davis’s motion and say, ‘To bring back people from the country for one day—

Mr Davis: Well, two days is what we are proposing.

Ms CROZIER: We are proposing two days, but the Leader of the Government interjected and said they are not bringing people back for one day. If that is the excuse, how utterly pathetic. How outrageous. MPs come back to this place all the time for one day—for committee hearings and for a whole range of things. The government does not want scrutiny. They do not want us in this house—

Ms Symes interjected.

Ms CROZIER: Here we go again—the Leader of the Government failing to understand the importance of what this house does. We need to be back here, and I would urge the crossbench to support this amendment. It is about scrutiny, and it is about our key responsibilities and what we are here to do. To be in this house on budget day, of all days—we should be here.

Dr CUMMING (Western Metropolitan) (10:44): I rise to speak on the government’s motion to adjourn this house until 10 May. Attorney and government, I wish for you to actually put on the record the negotiations that you have had thus far with the crossbench around the loss of this day and the possibility of having additional Fridays to actually catch up on the days that we have lost plus make it very clear on the record that this government will actually allow the independents in this place to have their time in the way of question time and to have their allotted slots which have been lost. I do understand the intent, which is that on budget day we receive the budget in cling wrap, as the house of review. It would be great to actually spend that time, that week, so that when we do sit I could actually have a more fulsome contribution on this government’s budget. But for me, I want the transparency and the accountability in this place from the government actually giving the reassurance that, due to that day being lost and the other days that have been lost, we will have these Fridays. This is the intention.

Plus, obviously I have brought up in this place the sessional orders for us to be able to sit, as we did, in a hybrid way when other members here on this crossbench, in the government or in the opposition have COVID or have to isolate due to this government’s insistence on people actually isolating, when they are still well, because they are close contacts of somebody in their family or in their household or under a roof—when you do not know if they have a separate roof, a separate wing or plenty of space and have not even come into contact with that additional person living in that house—and on picking which people are essential and not but choosing well people to stay home. For me, I want the sessional orders to change so that we can actually work in a hybrid setting. We were doing that last year, but the government dropped that in February and has watched members of Parliament here not attend—and you are all right with that. It is an easy fix and something we were doing before. So for me, I want the assurances from this government, because lip-service I have only received.

Mr ONDARCHIE (Northern Metropolitan) (10:47): I am at a loss to understand the logic of the government moving a motion today to say, ‘Let’s not come back for over a month’, when it is our job in this place, particularly in this house, to ensure that scrutiny, accountability and responsibility apply to this government. Now, I have to say I did not hear the interjection from the Leader of the Government, but after listening to contributions from others, including Ms Crozier, apparently there was a comment made about ‘Why would you drag regional members back to the house for one day?’. I do not hear that interjection, but if that was the case, let us not drag them back for one day, let us drag them back for the whole week and we sit.

I have to say, that goes to the logic: if there is some debate about dragging regional members back for one day, I remind the government that during the height of the pandemic they put a ring fence around metropolitan Melbourne and said, ‘Regional people can’t come back to Melbourne—unless you’re an MP that needs to come back to vote for the pandemic bill’. That was the change to the criteria then: ‘We need the regional members back in Melbourne to vote in support of our pandemic bill’. So the rules changed back then. Today we have a government saying, ‘Let’s not sit for over a month’, thereby, as we know from this government, avoiding scrutiny, avoiding responsibility and avoiding accountability. I support the amendment.

Dr Cumming: On a point of order, President, on Mr Ondarchie’s contribution, is the Leader of the Opposition willing to actually amend his amendment to ‘for the rest of the week’?

The PRESIDENT: There is no point of order.

Mr Davis: President, I will just respond to that. I would be very happy to, but the mechanism actually is that it moves to the day, then it would roll on from there. I have indicated the intent.

Mr FINN (Western Metropolitan) (10:49): I certainly support the amendment moved by Mr Davis. If you talk to any Victorian at the moment, one thing is a grave concern—

A member: Any Victorian?

Mr FINN: Well, just about any Victorian—any real Victorian. They are concerned about the transparency of this government. They are concerned about the government, and particularly they are concerned about a Premier that thinks he is better than everybody else. They are concerned. And I get correspondence, I get people contacting me every day, saying, ‘Where does this government get off? Where does this Premier get off, pulling the stunts that he does and getting away with it?’. What we need is more accountability. What we need is some transparency. We do not need this house to be sent to the backwoods for over a month during a sitting year. It is just quite nonsensical. I very strongly support the amendment by Mr Davis. I sincerely hope we do sit all week, because we need the Parliament to make this government somewhat accountable at least.

Ms SYMES (Northern Victoria—Leader of the Government, Attorney-General, Minister for Emergency Services) (10:50): I would urge members to support this motion. There is absolutely no intention to avoid any scrutiny. There is plenty of opportunity to go through the budget. Everyone will have an opportunity to talk on the budget. I will sit there for as long as you like. You can ask me questions about the budget. On budget day a lot of us will really like being out talking to the real people that Mr Finn refers to about what the budget means or indeed what you think it does not mean. That is your right as members of Parliament—to go and talk to real people.

In relation to Dr Cumming’s request for further consultation, there is no actual loss, because this is not new today. This is consistent with the calendar that has been put out, but I have heard from the crossbench that they are really keen to make sure that they get all of their slots. That is not a problem. Let us sit down and work that out. We can make arrangements, whether it is a Friday or some other mechanism, to ensure that you get what you need to do this year. That is not a problem.

I would urge people to support this. I am sure I will miss seeing some people for a month, but I think there will be a lot for us to talk about out in our communities, and hopefully we can get through today and do our best. I think when we do our best is when we are out there, representing, hearing from our communities, and then we can come back and we can talk about it in depth.

House divided on amendment:

Amendment negatived.

Motion agreed to.