Wednesday, 8 June 2022

Motions

Parliament of Victoria workplace safety

Debate resumed.

Ms TAYLOR (Southern Metropolitan) (12:57): I think it is important within this debate to point out some of the vulnerable elements, can I say, of the actual motion. I take this point that the motion has a misguided element insofar as it seeks to direct the Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission to investigate Parliament about its policies and structures relating to bullying and harassment, and I also understand that Ms Maxwell has not consulted with the VEOHRC or the commissioner on her motion or the feasibility of the proposed inquiry. There are some real concerns with that, and perhaps if those steps had been taken and Ms Maxwell had consulted she would have realised that there are actually some significant issues with what is being proposed by the motion. In fact there are serious legal complexities about the motion and the VEOHRC’s powers that create real concerns about whether Parliament or the Presiding Officers can direct the VEOHRC to conduct an investigation in the way that is contemplated by Ms Maxwell. So I am not trying to diverge from her sentiment or intent, but there are legal issues with it and they have to be acknowledged in this debate if we are going to be factual about the situation and what is being intended.

The first problem is that the motion seeks to direct the VEOHRC to investigate matters that are outside the scope of the VEOHRC’s remit, so that is a problem. The VEOHRC’s powers are concerned with prohibiting discrimination, sexual harassment and victimisation, but Ms Maxwell’s motion is directed towards bullying and harassment more generally, which is beyond VEOHRC’s jurisdiction under the Equal Opportunity Act 2010. So that is certainly a realistic concern. The second issue of concern is that the motion seeks to direct the VEOHRC to conduct an investigation into Parliament. The EO act provides for a person to request the VEOHRC to review the person’s programs and practices with agreement of the VEOHRC, but there is no power in the legislation to direct the commission to do anything absent its agreement. So that is another vulnerability.

It is also not clear if the Parliament or the Presiding Officers are relevantly ‘persons’ for the purposes of the statutory provision who can make a request of the VEOHRC or whether the statutory criteria which enable the VEOHRC to investigate potential contraventions of the Equal Opportunity Act have been satisfied. For example, section 127 gives the VEOHRC the power to investigate any matter relating to the operation of the Equal Opportunity Act but only if there are reasonable grounds to suspect one or more contraventions of the act have occurred.

These are all complex matters relating to the VEOHRC’s powers and jurisdiction and the basis on which it might lawfully engage in a review which need to be carefully considered. It is not something that should be done on the run or in the absence of consultation with the VEOHRC or the commissioner, so when you look at it that way there are some legitimate concerns with regard to the actual premise of the motion per se that could significantly impede this motion from actually delivering what perhaps Ms Maxwell is intending. I do not want to speak for her or anticipate what she is trying to achieve, but as we can see, there really are some significant issues with this motion. I just think it is important that we have that on the table when we have a debate on an issue, which is a very serious issue, but at the same time you have got to make sure that the motion is fit for purpose, so to speak, as well. So I might leave the matter there.

Sitting suspended 1.01 pm until 2.04 pm.

Ms CROZIER (Southern Metropolitan) (14:04): I am pleased to rise and contribute to Ms Maxwell’s motion which she has put before the house this afternoon. It goes to some issues that have been raised at the commonwealth level. I want to acknowledge her comments. I think she reflected very well in her contribution what has happened at the commonwealth level. Ms Maxwell referenced the independent review into commonwealth parliamentary workplaces, which was established under the former government in March 2021, and that was after some very serious issues had arisen at the commonwealth level. The report of the review that was handed down talks about a whole range of issues and has provided recommendations to the federal Parliament. The executive summary that was provided in relation to that review talks about the context. It talks about understanding the parliamentary workplaces. Ms Maxwell also referenced the nature of parliamentary workplaces. They are quite unique in many ways in terms of how we operate, the hours we operate, who we engage with, the staff we have, everyone working in the precinct and how that expands out right across Victoria. It is a unique environment in many ways. I acknowledge that and I acknowledge the intent of what Ms Maxwell is saying in her motion.

The motion talks about bullying and harassment in workplaces and acknowledges that it is unacceptable. I agree with that. I totally agree with all of those statements. I know that the commonwealth review did look into other things, including sexual harassment, sexual abuse and some other issues which this motion does not go to.

I do want to make some comments because we know that there have been some allegations that have been in the public domain over recent months, and I do want to comment on Ms Vaghela speaking out about her experience. She is a former member of the Labor Party, and in particular she made some comments around the Premier not apologising to her and said she had lost her self-esteem and felt worthless. She feared for her safety. She said the culture was toxic and that she was scared of the Premier.

I do not think Ms Vaghela is the only one who feels intimidated by the Premier in some of his actions and some of his conduct. I know that even in former parliaments he commented on the physical size of a former colleague, Andrew Katos—it was quite a disgraceful comment in relation to his physical characteristics. We all have our own characteristics. As a tall woman I have been called various things over the years, even as a child. We all have different physical characteristics, but coming from the leader I think it backs up exactly what Ms Vaghela was saying and that she was believed. The references to Ms Vaghela as being ‘that woman’—‘that person’, I should say—were just very demeaning and unnecessary comments. I do think that there are many people that believed what she was saying even though she was dismissed and questioned by the Treasurer—her mental state was questioned by the Treasurer—and she did have all of those issues that she was subjected to. They are real. That has happened in this Parliament, by the Premier himself. Now, he is the leader of this state. He should be leading by example, not taking on this type of systemic bullying that was found. Ms Vaghela called it a systemic bullying campaign that sought to undermine, isolate and exclude her and said that he was hostile. These are comments that she said on the public record; I am not saying anything else. But I do think that one of the worst things was about feeling worthless—she felt worthless and her self-esteem had sunk. It does show the extent of that torment that she suffered.

There is certainly room for improvement in terms of workplace bullying and the way that we need to be conducting ourselves. I think there are issues around how people perceive what we do in this place, how we are leaders and how we should be conducting ourselves. Obviously in question time and in the chamber it is a competitive environment and there are things that are said in the chamber that are often said in the heat of the moment, and there are rules and procedures through the Presiding Officer, the President, that will draw us all into line. That is a good thing. That needs to happen, and those standards need to remain so that we all can have that robust debate in a manner that enables us to put different points of view. I mean, we are here to have a contest of ideas and to challenge those in this environment, but when it gets down to the comments Ms Vaghela said when she was speaking out—the spiteful revenge, misogyny and being frightened by the Premier—then I think we are going to another level.

Ms Maxwell’s motion goes to a number of issues around directing the Presiding Officers to jointly write to VEOHRC, the Victorian equal opportunity and human rights commissioner, requesting that the commission inquire into and report to the Presiding Officers on a number of things—the adequacy of existing laws, improvements that may be made to existing laws and whether an independent complaints body should be set up—which I think mirror a lot of what has happened at a commonwealth level.

I do understand that some amendments are going to be moved to Ms Maxwell’s motion, but I have not actually seen any of the amendments to it. We only got those 10 minutes before question time, before we came back in here. I do think this motion does need to reflect the entire Parliament and both Presiding Officers need to be included. Clearly the federal review does reference the Presiding Officers on a number of occasions, and I do think we need to not exclude the Speaker from this process. It needs to be the entire Parliament, and both the President and the Speaker need to be included in any of these issues.

I note Ms Taylor’s comments around the concerns the government has—obviously it has looked into this—on issues around whether VEOHRC is the right body and that it does not have the remit to undertake it. I think Ms Taylor’s words were that it was ‘outside the scope’ of VEOHRC to undertake what the motion is attempting to achieve. There is certainly excellent intent with this motion—that is not the issue—but if it is outside the scope or beyond the jurisdiction of what VEOHRC can actually do, then possibly there will be some issues around how the motion has been submitted.

Again I say these are very serious issues. I think Parliaments are looking at them and governments are looking at these issues. I again reference what I said earlier in terms of the work that was done at a national level and how that can be an example of what other parliaments need to do. But I raise those points that I have made here on this part of the motion in terms of how it would actually work and how Ms Maxwell’s motion would be able to be implemented. With that, I say again I am concerned about the allegations that have come into this house, especially around the Premier and what he has said about certain members within his party and others. I think that is hardly becoming, and I do think there is a culture of toxicity within the Labor Party. That is obviously evident with some of those comments that have come out in the public domain. I will leave my comments there, as I have now run out of time.

Mr GEPP (Northern Victoria) (14:14): I rise to speak on Ms Maxwell’s motion and to thank Ms Maxwell for bringing this to the chamber. This is an issue that certainly during your time in the Parliament, Ms Maxwell, you have been passionate about, and it certainly reflects many of the views that you have espoused over the last few years. I am very pleased to see that the Minister for Workplace Safety is also in the chamber, because she has said on many, many occasions that behaviour in a workplace that compromises the health and safety of any worker is unacceptable. There must be a standard that we must all uphold in every workplace in Victoria. That does not just go to the physical of course. It goes to all aspects of workplace behaviour, and bullying and harassment can occur in many forms, as we know. You may not need to physically harm somebody to engage in such behaviour. It is unacceptable, and the minister, to her credit, has said on many occasions that she will always strive for the complete and total eradication of any form of bullying and harassment and any practice in any workplace that would compromise the health and safety of any worker.

Of course this does not come to this place lightly. Historically—I am not just referring to Parliament here, I am talking about all workplaces—we know that there has been for many, many years entrenched bullying and harassment in many workplaces, particularly for women, who have been on the wrong side of this for so long. Finally, in the last few years there has been a concentrated and considered effort across the board and the very general acceptance that any behaviour of this sort is intolerable. Of course Ms Crozier just touched on some of the things that we have all seen and heard about Canberra in recent times in the federal Parliament. Of course we do not have to cast our minds back too far. Too often here, Parliament and the parliamentary precinct, it was a different type of workplace to any other in the state or in the nation. Whilst that may be true, in many respects it does not excuse any behaviour which is outside of the accepted norms in terms of workplace behaviour. We should all follow those rules, and Parliament in particular should be seen as an exemplar of best practice in terms of the prevention of and response to bullying and harassment and sexual assault in workplaces. We should not be seen as anything different.

I am very pleased of course—and I think it is important to quickly place this on the record—about the work that was done by Speaker Brooks and President Elasmar in this place back in 2020 when they engaged Lander and Rogers to review the existing laws and policies, which found that standing orders that govern MP behaviour when Parliament is sitting are a framework that could be developed to apply to members outside the chambers. It was recommended that Parliament establish a framework to provide a clear pathway for individuals to make complaints to an independent body which would have a power to investigate, resolve and escalate complaints where necessary. So it is important that we recognise the work that has already been done in this space and the very positive work already undertaken by the Speaker and the President to address some of these important matters that Ms Maxwell’s motion addresses.

We do say, however, that the motion in some parts also challenges some legal advice that we have received, especially around the concept of exclusive cognisance, and we think it is not applicable for the motion to compel the Speaker to write to the Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission under that principle. Legal advice also suggests that VEOHRC may not have the jurisdiction or the legal framework to conduct an investigation within some of the terms that are proposed. So to that end, the government will be moving an amendment. Perhaps it might be a good time for that to be circulated.

Perhaps if I might, whilst that is being circulated, just say that the amendment has been discussed with Ms Maxwell. I will not speak for Ms Maxwell, but my understanding is that there is support for the government’s amendment; Ms Maxwell will speak for herself on that matter of course. The intent of this amendment is to streamline the process that was proposed by Ms Maxwell and to provide an element of simplification overall. I move:

1. In paragraph (4) omit the words ‘Presiding Officers to jointly’ and insert ‘President to’ in their place.

2. In paragraph (4) omit the words ‘to the Presiding Officers’ and insert ‘to the President’ in their place.

3. In paragraph (5) omit subparagraphs (a) to (g) and insert the following in their place:

‘(a) President of the Legislative Council;

(b) Clerk of the Legislative Council;

(c) Secretary of the Department of Parliamentary Services;

(d) Parliamentary Budget Officer;

(e) executive government;

(f) any other relevant employers identified by the commission; and’.

4. Omit all the words in paragraph (6) and insert the following in their place:

‘(6) requires the President to table the report in the Legislative Council.’.

In essence, as I said, the amendment attempts to simplify and streamline the process. It omits references to ‘both Presiding Officers’ and instead inserts ‘the President of the Legislative Council’. We believe that does add that layer of simplification, that streamlining. It does not require both Presiding Officers. It also addresses that legal matter that I talked about earlier in my contribution of exclusive cognisance. I will leave my contribution there, but I again thank Ms Maxwell for bringing this motion to the house, and I commend the amendment to the house.

Ms PATTEN (Northern Metropolitan) (14:21): I am pleased to rise on Ms Maxwell’s motion. When I was reflecting on this motion I immediately went to Brittany Higgins and the bravery of that young woman in standing up in a very daunting place. These can be daunting places. Many of us would remember our first days in these places, and they are daunting. You are not quite sure what sort of behaviour you are to accept and what you cannot accept. We are told that we are jumping into a bearpit and that we should accept the rough-and-tumble of this place, but that is not true and that is not right. When we see the extreme offences, the criminal offences, against someone like Brittany Higgins, even then the pathway for her to seek justice was not clear. In fact the pathways just ended up as dead ends for Brittany during that process. I believe that Ms Maxwell is absolutely right, that we do need to ensure that we have the correct pathways not only for our staff but also for members ourselves. This is growing, and I agree that this is really important.

I am hoping that we will see real change in the federal Parliament. Certainly what that ignited and what that is continuing to fuel I can only think is positive and will only be positive for workplaces like this one but also for other workplaces. Ms Maxwell is absolutely right: we should be setting the example. We should not be ignoring it. We should not be saying, ‘Well, Parliament’s Parliament; you know, these things happen’. That should not happen. We cannot do that. We cannot walk past this.

I think back to last term when we went through the White Ribbon accreditation for Parliament House and for the organisation that is Parliament. I was fortunate to be on the task force for that accreditation process. I can tell you, part of that process—and it was an interesting process—was we started with sending out a survey to all of the members and to staff about attitudes around sexual harassment and around attitudes to a whole range of issues. And it was startling, some of the attitudes that came back. I mean, it was an anonymous survey, but when you saw the things that people thought were acceptable behaviour it was astounding. It made me really look at people differently in Strangers after that, wondering who had answered those surveys in the way that they had been responded to. But then as part of that process we went through some education. We were trying to bring people forward and raise people up. And I was pleased to see that when we did a follow-up survey some things had improved and a few people had figured out that, no, sexual assault is not acceptable in the workplace and a whole range of other things which it astounded me that they did. So this Parliament was actually the first parliament, I think—certainly in Australia but possibly in the world—to get that White Ribbon accreditation. Since then White Ribbon has obviously had its own issues, and I do not know whether those accreditation processes are still there.

This motion is absolutely right. I think we do need to do something, and it is correct. We have talked about it. We have got a code of conduct. We have talked about the fact that we do need some independent adjudicators or an independent person for people to go to, but we have not got there. So I think this motion again urges us, nudges the government and nudges the Parliament to actually achieve this. I accept the amendments that the government has put to this as a more direct way of doing this, because in some ways the Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission (VEOHRC) cannot look at bullying. It cannot look at some of those things that are outside the commissioner’s remit there. But we should be an exemplar of best practice, and that is what this motion calls on us to do. I think that is entirely right.

Women have been dealing with this for centuries. We have been trying to work out pathways, trying to deal with it and trying quite often to not upset people in the process of doing that. So in 2022 we do need to draw that line, and we need to say, ‘That’s not acceptable’. And I would not just say it is for women, I would say it is for all people. We want to see a respectful workplace. Yes, in here we probably say things that we would never say outside this place and outside this actual chamber. There is that. But bullying is not acceptable. Harassment is not acceptable in this workplace ever. This is where this motion goes. People keep saying, ‘Oh, this is a real women’s problem’. It is not. It is not a women’s problem. If I was going to say anything, it is a men’s problem. But I do not actually think that this is gender specific, because I think bullying happens across the board. I think men and women are both guilty of that.

I commend the motion. I suppose my issue is that I am not sure that VEOHRC is going to be able to do much with this, but I think it certainly raises the issue again. It reignites the need for us to do something in this place and for us to lead the community and to lead by example. I hope that this does achieve what Ms Maxwell has set out to do.

Ms BURNETT-WAKE (Eastern Victoria) (14:28): I rise to speak on the motion moved by Ms Maxwell, and I thank Ms Maxwell for bringing this before us today. It is a conversation that is very, very important. We should have it, and we should always continue to have a conversation about this subject.

The Victorian Parliament is our workplace, and just like any other workplace, we all deserve to be able to go to work without being subjected to bullying, harassment or intimidation. That has sadly not been the case for everybody who works here. We have heard of systemic bullying, issues with the complaints process and complaints not being taken seriously or followed up by people in this place. I also want to echo the sentiments raised by Ms Maxwell, Ms Crozier and Ms Patten that we should be exemplars. The community looks up to us, and we should behave appropriately. The people of Victoria look to us as leaders, and we have the opportunity to set an example for other employers and employees in our community. We have the opportunity to show them what a respectful workplace looks like. Many people look up to us, as I said, and we have a diverse range of employees here, from members to contractors, parliamentary staff and electorate officers. Regardless of one’s role, whether in this Parliament or elsewhere, no-one deserves to be bullied or victimised at work. We can show Victorian businesses how they should respond to all claims of bullying, sexual harassment and assault in the workplace. Our behaviour would go some way towards setting a standard for Victorian workplaces to aspire to.

Those of us who work here and indeed people in every workplace should be able to feel safe and secure at work. Our workplaces should be places where we thrive, where we work together and learn from each other and where we do our best to make a positive change for the Victorians we represent. Our work should not be tainted by situations of bullying or harassment. The Occupational Health and Safety Act 2004 requires employers to eliminate risks to health and safety. This includes identifying risks to psychological health and other risks that may lead to workplace bullying. Employers need to control these risks and revise risk control measures. Any bullying that occurs in this place is not only a breach of the occupational health and safety act but also a breach of human decency.

No-one deserves to be bullied or put down. Bullying and sexual harassment ruin lives and they take lives. They do. They lead also to increased absenteeism, increased rates of depression and anxiety and lost time and productivity. A 2020 survey by Safe Work Australia found that 60 per cent of workers experience bullying in their careers. One in three women and one in five men make claims for mental disorders that stem from bullying or harassment. Almost 20 per cent said they had experienced discomfort due to sexual humour. These are awful figures—terrible. Workplace bullying is proven to cause anxiety, panic attacks and physical illness. It impacts directly on relationships with colleagues and on family and friends when those workers head home at the end of the day. At its absolute worst, workplace bullying can be deadly. People go to work every day to make a difference in their own ways, whether it be working towards company objectives or in our case to represent our communities. It is disgusting that some people think they can bully and put down others who are just trying to do their job.

Speaking out against bullying takes courage. When someone comes forward with a complaint of bullying, harassment, sexual harassment, intimidation or victimisation, they should be listened to and that complaint should be immediately acted upon to mitigate risks. No-one deserves to be bullied, harassed or intimidated in the workplace, and workplaces should continually review and refine their complaints mechanisms and policies.

Dr RATNAM (Northern Metropolitan) (14:34): I am pleased to rise to speak on Ms Maxwell’s motion and thank her for bringing this important matter on for debate in this chamber. The community was rightly shocked at the revelations coming out of our national Parliament and the toxic culture of harassment and bullying that has been revealed in the last few years. Brittany Higgins showed enormous courage to speak out about the appalling way she was treated in the aftermath of an alleged sexual assault and together with Grace Tame has shifted the conversation around the country on the treatment of women and girls. It is a vitally important and ongoing discussion we all need to be having, and the reality is our parliaments are not exempt. The Sex Discrimination Commissioner, Kate Jenkins, undertook a comprehensive investigation into the culture of the federal Parliament, and her report, Set the Standard, has lessons for all of us. She found parliaments and MPs have an important leadership role to play in setting the standards of appropriate behaviour. I quote:

Trust is lost in the institution of Parliament when—

parliamentary workplaces—

… do not meet these standards that are expected of the rest of the Australian population—whether that be in their workplaces, community groups, sporting clubs or other contexts. As the Commission heard from participants, ‘[t]his is Parliament. It should set the standard for workplace culture, not the floor of what culture should be’.

The reality is we work in a strange place. Power dynamics swirl around us and our staff constantly, and as we know, power imbalance is at the heart of bullying and harassment behaviours. The Set the Standard report also comments on problems created by unclear and inconsistent standards and the structure of employment as contributing factors to be addressed. The report found, for example, that:

The insecurity of employment has a chilling effect on people speaking up about bullying, sexual harassment and sexual assault.

These are concerns that apply as much to our situation as to the federal Parliament.

The report also put an emphasis on improving gender and diversity representation in Parliament and amongst our staff. I believe it is an excellent idea for the Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission to undertake a similar review and in particular to look at the potential for an independent complaints body for all staff. Parliament is a strange workplace. It is an exciting workplace—we are all here making a difference in the lives of Victorians—but it also needs to be a safe workplace.

In conclusion, I hope debates like this usher in a renewed commitment by all of us to address these issues and a recognition that we all have a responsibility to act. This may be a complex working environment, but that does not mean that responsibility should be shifted to others and be thought of as for others to fix. If we do not address bullying, sexual harassment and sexual assault in this workplace, it will continue to be an unsafe workplace for women and it will mean more and more people will not want to work here and represent their communities in this place at a time when we urgently need more diversity, more gender representation and more representation from Victoria’s diverse communities in our Parliament to grapple with the issues that we collectively face. I commend this motion and look forward to a commitment across this chamber and across this institution to addressing this issue, because if we leave it unaddressed, it will continue to foster a very dangerous and unsafe workplace for women and people from diverse backgrounds.

Ms MAXWELL (Northern Victoria) (14:37): In summing up, I would just like to say that whilst not everybody always agrees in this chamber, my motion has started the conversation, and that was the pure intent of this motion. If we do not start the conversation, we have no way to implement change. I also just want to reiterate that, as Dr Ratnam so elegantly put it, we as members of Parliament have to be responsible for this change. It is not up to us to expect others to do it for us, and I do want to say that a behaviour you walk past is a standard you endorse. I would also like to thank everyone for their contributions today, particularly those that were given in the spirit of the intent of this motion, which is to provide a respectful and considered review of the adequacy of the existing laws, policies, structures and complaint mechanisms within this Parliament as a workplace.

We know that people’s definition of bullying and harassment varies, but if that is how somebody else has made you feel, you should have an avenue to be able to discuss that privately with somebody who is independent and to be able to seek the support that you need. As a number of speakers have also conveyed today, this is a place of vibrant democracy, and the operations of this bring together an incredible array of people that contribute in many varied ways, whether you are a member of Parliament, a Clerk, a ministerial staffer or a parliamentary adviser; whether you work in the precinct or at an electorate office; whether you are part of security, the property team, the Parliamentary Budget Office, the Office of the Chief Parliamentary Counsel or any other role that contributes to the work of Parliament and parliamentarians. I have always tried to work from a very solutions-based perspective, and I certainly put this motion forward with that intention. Safe workplaces are important for everyone, and the complex nature of the parliamentary workplace can make it quite an isolating place for people if they need support.

I would like to clear up a couple of matters suggested earlier by Ms Taylor during this debate and just put on the record that I indeed wrote to the Victorian equal opportunity and human rights commissioner in March and provided a copy of this motion. A member of my staff also spoke with someone at the commission’s office, and the commissioner responded in a very simple way, noting that they would watch with interest.

The motion includes the word ‘requests’, and this is in line with the wording in section 151(1) of the Equal Opportunity Act 2010, which says:

On request of a person, the Commission may enter into an agreement with the person to review that person’s programs and practices to determine their compliance with this Act.

It is also in line with other reviews, such as when the commission reviewed matters relating to Ambulance Victoria; the terms of reference note that the chair of the board of Ambulance Victoria requested the review.

I think Ms Taylor indicated a belief that some of the parameters in the motion could be out of scope for the commission. I would imagine if that were the case, then the review would simply say so. While the wording of this motion may have some components in it that some people might want to nitpick over perhaps, I stand by the extensive process that I undertook in drafting this motion.

I would also like to thank my parliamentary adviser, Karen Rourke, who devoted many hours, weeks and months to researching and drafting this motion. I also acknowledge broader work that the government indicates it has undertaken or is undertaking around workplace safety in general. I also note that some work has already been done in developing a framework for the behaviour of members of Parliament, because as members we are quite unique in that we are not employees. I do consider that a wider review could certainly complement the development of this framework.

Wherever this motion and other actions lead to from here, I hope there is some positive action to ensure that the mechanisms in place are fair and reasonable and that they provide adequate and appropriate support when needed for any member of this workplace. I thank the chamber for this debate.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: The question is that the amendments proposed by Mr Gepp be agreed to.

Ms Maxwell: On a point of order, Deputy President, just for clarification, I thought it was Mr Gepp. Is it Gepp or Gepp? Could I have that on the record?

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I have a problem with it because it has a G in it. If it is Mr Gepp, it is Mr Gepp. But it is a frivolous point of order.

Ms Crozier: On a point of order, Deputy President, I understand as there is a motion we do not have an opportunity to speak to the amendments put by Mr Gepp.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Ms Crozier, because it is a motion we just vote on the amendments, but there is no speaking to the amendments.

Mr Gepp: On a point of order, Deputy President, I do not want to take time up in the chamber on this matter, but I have pointed out on numerous occasions the pronunciation of my name. It is ironic that again it was mispronounced during this particular debate. But the characterisation of somebody correcting the pronunciation of another member’s name as frivolous is frankly offensive.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Sorry, Mr Gepp. I apologise. I did not mean to mispronounce your name. It just came out that way. I am just saying that we are in the middle of actually voting, and I did not think it was the right time to raise that particular point of order.

House divided on amendments:

Amendments agreed to.

Amended motion agreed to.