Wednesday, 1 November 2023

Sessional orders

Debate resumed on motion of David Davis:

That, until the end of the session, unless otherwise ordered by the Council, the following sessional orders be adopted, to come into operation on the next sitting week:

X. Production of documents – short form documents motions with debate

After Standing Order 10.01(3) insert:

(4) A motion under this Standing Order (other than a motion that imposes a sanction) may be treated by the Council as a short form documents motion with debate. The following short form documents motion with debate procedures will apply –

(a) a member must advise of the intention for the motion to be treated by the Council as a short form documents motion with debate at the time of giving notice under Standing Order 6.01;

(b) a maximum of two motions under this Sessional Order may be debated each day that general business is scheduled to occur;

(c) if additional notices above the number permitted for debate each sitting day are given for short form documents motions with debate, they will be listed on subsequent sitting days in the order that notice was given;

(d) a motion proposed to be debated under this Sessional Order will take precedence at the time prescribed for general business, as follows –

(i) where the House has resolved that certain general business take precedence, no short form documents motions with debate will be called until a member has moved the second reading of any bills for which precedence has been ordered and it has been adjourned pursuant to Standing Order 14.06;

(ii) where the House has not resolved any general business that will take precedence, any short form documents motions with debate will be listed as the first item/s in general business;

(e) the following time limits will apply to a short form documents motion with debate –

(i) the mover of the motion may speak only once for up to six minutes;

(ii) any other member may speak for up to five minutes;

(iii) the total time for consideration of the motion will be up to 20 minutes; and

(f) at the conclusion of debate or after 20 minutes of debate (whichever occurs first), the President will put all questions necessary to dispose of the motion and any amendments.

Georgie CROZIER (Southern Metropolitan) (14:03): I rise to speak to Mr Davis’s motion 5 on sessional orders for short-form documents motions, on which he commenced debate last sitting week. I note that the very reason we are bringing this motion forward for debate is because of the government talking out a lot of issues in our sessions. We are here in non-government business. As opposition members and crossbench members we only have limited time to prosecute issues that we want to bring before the house, and there are many. If you look at the notice paper you will see all of those issue that people raise every week and would like to debate, but we do not get those opportunities.

One of the areas that we think are very important is around the production of documents, and that really goes to the heart of what you need to do in opposition, and that is hold the government to account. We need greater transparency, and we need accountability. Unfortunately with this government we do not get a lot of that, and that is why this documents motion is particularly important: to enable the production of documents when they are requested through a motion of the house – that they be provided to the house. As Mr Davis went through his contribution he spoke of what the motion does. It is about a member advising the intention of a motion that is treated in the Council as a short-form documents motion, with the debate at the time of giving notice under standing order 6.01. Then he went on to talk about a number of other areas relating to the debate but also the time limits which would apply to the motion. As the motion states:

(i) the mover of the motion may speak only once for up to six minutes;

(ii) any other member may speak for up to five minutes;

(iii) the total time for consideration of the motion will be up to 20 minutes; and

(f) at the conclusion of debate or after 20 minutes of debate … the President will put all questions necessary to dispose of the motion and any amendments.

I know that is looking at a truncated debate, if you like, and then getting the decision decided by the President putting the motion, but it is really, as Mr Davis has highlighted in his contribution, that this house used to dispose of these issues very quickly. The mover would get up, put their case, it was a production of documents and it would be generally agreed to by the house. But now it is being dragged out by members of the government, so the limited time that the opposition and crossbench have in relation to being able to debate their other motions is then curtailed. That is why we think this motion is a very simple, commonsense measure. It is a sessional orders change – it is not a standing orders change – and can always be reviewed, but it needs to be undertaken so that we can get those documents that are requested by the house or by the particular member.

Mr Davis also made a point around this very issue of accountability and transparency. He spoke about the history or the precedents that had occurred in the New South Wales Parliament, the information that this house and the administration of this Parliament would seek to get that advice and how legal advice was sought. He did speak of the issues around how that arose in Victoria following on from decisions and procedures in New South Wales. As he said, he spoke about Brett Walker KC – or QC in those days – the advice that was provided and the legal opinion on the powers of the chamber with respect to documents. I think he made a very good point about what Mr Walker spelt out, and that ‍was:

He laid out the parameters and the arrangements by which privileges could be claimed over documents and the matters which would legitimately give rise to such privilege claims and those that would not.

I am reading from Mr Davis’s contribution here:

So it is a comprehensive set of opinions and people ought to feel free to read those, because I think it would inform many in the chamber.

I think that was a good bit of advice from Mr Davis, because when you do go back and have a look in our orders at the tabling of documents provided in accordance with an order, it does talk about those very issues around privilege. Of course when we do ask for documents, we are asking for them for a reason. Often the government will claim privilege and will not provide them, and we think that is a problem in many instances in, as I said, trying to get some transparency and accountability in the processes of government for Victorians to understand exactly what government is providing through their processes. If we could execute these matters in the house in a timely fashion, which this motion seeks to do, then I think we would help the good functioning of the house. It would provide that clarity. It would provide that certainty to members about what they are seeking to have provided by government, and it would be in the public domain. That goes to the very aspect around trust, transparency and accountability.

I urge all members to support this. I would hope that government MPs understand that these are sensible measures just to deal with the issues at hand and that, despite some arguing against the motion, we do have this motion pass so that we can have those documents in a timely fashion in the interests of all Victorians.

Tom McINTOSH (Eastern Victoria) (14:10): We are here to discuss and we are here to debate a short-form documents motion put forward by Mr Davis. I have got a lot to say on this matter. I am going to start off by commenting on the points that he is putting forward: (1) a short-form documents motion where a member can propose to have the motion debated for a maximum of 20 minutes and (2) a short-form documents motion where a member can propose to have the motion voted on without any debate. That is what we are here to do in this place. We are here to debate. We are here to have a contest of ideas. We are here to bring things forward for our community, for our constituents. We are here to deliver for Victoria. I am a little bit baffled about this, to be honest, particularly when we sit here during question time and we get questions that are – how do I say it – quite often of little significance, little consequence, basically diving into items that are of very little relevance to government or very little relevance to people, to Victorians. Here we are trying to remove discussion and debate of ideas. But that is what it should be: a discussion and debate of ideas.

I think we on this side we know why we are here. We are here to ensure that all Victorians have a better quality of life. We want to see generation upon generation of Victorians have a better quality of life. We are ensuring that they have good-quality jobs; they can get a roof over their head – a safe, affordable, efficient house that they can live in; they can get excellent health care; they and their families can stay healthy; they can get education, training and skills so that loop continues; they can be in the workforce and uptrain and their kids can be in the workforce; they can afford those houses; they can say healthy; and they can continue to be educated. We are investing in the infrastructure to ensure that these Victorian families, Victorian workers, everyone in Victoria, can get from point A to point B, whether that is on our road network or whether that is on our public transport. We are ensuring we do all this sustainably so we have an environment, we have a climate, where we can see generations of Victorians continue to live and continue to have a better quality of life than those before. I am pretty confident everyone on this side has a very, very similar understanding of our purpose as a party.

Other parties in this place – I am not so sure as to their purpose. We have had a fair bit of discussion today about the Greens. Their main purpose is TikTok. When they speak I can basically hear the music in their minds. I mean, when you see it on TikTok the music is there. If I was making a contribution and I was in the Greens right now, I would probably be trying to think about the music or the colour overlay that would be behind me on my TikTok account, poignantly speaking to certain points to just really nail that down. I do not know – a lot of people in the Greens are starting to wonder what their purpose is. They initially had a purpose that was pretty clear, and now it just seems to be, as various contributions today have made out, that they are trying to politically pointscore any way they can to get more votes. Anyway, the member has re-entered. I have been talking about the Greens, so you have missed out.

I can move to those opposite, the Liberal Party, whose purpose seems to basically be – I do not know, do opposition get a Comcar? – who can get into a shadow role to get a Comcar. That seems to be about the three-month fight.

Georgie Crozier: No, we don’t, you fool.

Tom McINTOSH: Whoa! The opposition do not. That is okay.

Georgie Crozier: Do shadow ministers get Comcars? That’s what you said. No.

Tom McINTOSH: Okay, the opposition do not get cars, but that does not change the fact that they are fighting over each other at a three-month interval for who will be the next leader, who gets the elevation onto the opposition bench. And this reflects the point that when they come into this place they are not bringing purpose. They are not bringing purpose to this place, and that is why we hear ridiculous questions at question time, why we hear poor contributions and why in general they are not bringing policy and debate to this place. That is why: because they are lacking purpose.

To come back to the documents motion here, it does baffle me – well, perhaps it is not surprising that they want less time to talk or debate on items, because they have very little to put forward. We currently dedicate an entire day in this place –

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Sorry, Mr McIntosh, I just want to make sure you are speaking on the right motion.

Tom McINTOSH: Yes.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: This is not a documents motion.

Tom McINTOSH: Maybe I am not. So we dedicate an entire day in this place each sitting week to the business of those opposite and the crossbench of this house to raise and debate issues they feel are most important to them and their constituents. Should these changes be incorporated and a request for a documents motion be moved without debate, the only way members in this place could have a say on the motion would be an incorporated speech in Hansard, which very few people would read and which would have no impact on the debate. It is almost an afterthought. This sessional order would set a precedent that more and more types of motions could be debated by having your speech incorporated into Hansard, which is not what we are here for. We are here to contest ideas, as I have said.

Georgie Crozier interjected.

Tom McINTOSH: Ms Crozier, if you want to raise COVID, please do. We are here to contest ideas and debate issues, and the interjections –

Samantha Ratnam: On a point of order, Deputy President, just in reference to your previous intervention, I have just heard the member speak about a documents motion without debate, but I understand this motion is a motion about documents motions with debates – a different time line. I just want to make sure that we are not inadvertently misrepresenting in the house what the motion is, because it is not the correct reading of the motion in front of us.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Dr Ratnam, sorry, that is not actually a point of order. There is no point of order, but I do encourage the member to familiarise himself with the motion that he is speaking on and to come back to the motion at hand, please.

Tom McINTOSH: Yes. I am very, very happy to speak to the motion, and I shall do so. David Davis – anyway, I will not say that; I will leave that out. I am not going to read through the motion; I am going to continue with where I was.

On this side of the house it is something that we want to avoid. We are not simply here to submit our homework to the Hansard office. We are here to debate the matters of importance to Victoria, not to make TikTok videos – I am sorry, Dr Ratnam, you missed out before. To look into the sky and make TikTok videos – that is not the purpose. We are here to debate the matters of importance that I laid out before that we clearly have in the government – important matters that matter to working Victorians and to all Victorians – as I said before, jobs, housing, education, health, transport, climate change.

Georgie Crozier: They’re all going well!

Tom McINTOSH: And it is going well. It is going well. And we saw that the things that we brought to the last election, whether it be the SEC, our investment in infrastructure or early education ‍– right across the board Victorians backed us in. They backed us in with a 56-seat majority. We have had one term, two terms, and in our third term we continue delivering a pipeline of work that we are absolutely committed to, which just keeps bringing me back to the point – because we have purpose, we have clear goals, and those goals are to deliver for Victorians, for all Victorians to have a better quality of life and continually improve their quality of life. It is this deep commitment on this side, our deep commitment to equality, deep commitment to diversity, deep commitment to respect and respecting all Victorians and to ensuring that we as a state are moving forward together. We are not singling out people, we are not trying to leave people behind and we are not trying to shut people down. That is why we have debates in this place, because those are the things we believe in, the things that we will stand up for and the things that we will come to this place and say every day.

John BERGER (Southern Metropolitan) (14:20): Today I am speaking on the motion which pertains to short-form documents and was moved by my colleague opposite, Mr Davis. It begins:

That, until the end of the session, unless otherwise ordered by the Council, the following sessional orders be adopted, to come into operation on the next sitting week …

It proposes:

(4) A motion under this Standing Order (other than a motion that imposes a sanction) may be treated by the Council as a short form documents motion with debate. The following short form documents motion with debate procedures will apply –

(a) a member must advise of the intention for the motion to be treated by the Council as a short form documents motion with debate at the time of giving notice under Standing Order 6.01;

(b) a maximum of two motions under this Sessional Order may be debated each day that general business is scheduled to occur;

(c) if additional notices above the number permitted for debate each sitting day are given for short form documents motions with debate, they will be listed on subsequent sitting days in the order that notice was given;

(d) a motion proposed to be debated under this Sessional Order will take precedence at the time prescribed for general business, as follows –

(i) where the House has resolved that certain general business take precedence, no short form documents motions with debate will be called until a member has moved the second reading of any bills for which precedence has been ordered and it has been adjourned pursuant to Standing Order 14.06;

(ii) where the House has not resolved any general business that will take precedence, any short form documents motions with debate will be listed as the first item/s in general business;

(e) the following time limits will apply to a short form documents motion with debate –

(i) the mover of the motion may speak only once for up to six minutes;

(ii) any other member may speak for up to five minutes;

(iii) the total time for consideration of the motion will be up to 20 minutes; and

(f) at the conclusion of debate or after 20 minutes of debate (whichever occurs first), the President will put all questions necessary to dispose of the motion and any amendments.

Having read this motion, I will stay relevant to it, but there is quite a broad amount to talk about in this space. At its heart this motion aims to introduce two new procedures into this place, which are a short-form documents motion, where a member can propose to have the motion debated for a maximum of 20 minutes, and a short-form documents motion without debate, where a member can propose to have the motion voted on without any debate. This motion will not be supported by this –

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Mr Berger, there is no mention in the motion of any documents being required without debate.

A member interjected.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: No, but he just said it had two angles to it: one to request a document with debate and one to request a document without debate. We are only talking about a motion that has short-form documents with debate.

Georgie Crozier: On a point of order, Deputy President, I think members of the government are very confused. They have obviously got the same speaking notes from whoever has provided them, but the motion, if you read the notice paper, is very clear. It is item 5, and it does not go to those points that you have mentioned, Deputy President, so I am just wondering if the government MP can explain what he is talking about.

Ingrid Stitt: Further to the point of order, Deputy President, if members opposite or even on the crossbench are taking issue with members’ contributions, perhaps they can address that in their contributions rather than constantly interrupting government members with points of order.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: That is not a point of order, and even Ms Crozier’s is not a point of order. I was merely pointing out to the member, who was speaking about a motion that requires documents to be produced without debate, that there is no reference to that in this motion, and I would ask him to return to the motion.

John BERGER: This motion will not be supported by this side of the chamber, as we believe in democracy and debate. We believe in the tradition of this place. Currently the orders of the house are clear. Section 5.07 of the Council standing orders notes that:

(1) General business is business initiated by members who are not members of the Government party or parties.

(2) General business will take precedence over all other business on Wednesdays in accordance with the order of business prescribed by Standing Order 5.02.

The sessional orders of this place are clear: general business time is 90 minutes, about an hour and a half, with the mover or sponsor gaining 20 minutes of debate; lead speakers, 10 minutes; and the remaining speakers, 10 minutes, with the mover or sponsor in reply gaining 5 minutes. The reason I note the hour and a half is that I have noticed it often runs slightly over.

Why make changes to the rules? The rules have been agreed to by this place and this Parliament and countless others before. We have dedicated an entire day in this place each sitting week on Wednesdays. Sometimes 1 am speech-writing sessions occur on this side of the chamber to ensure that every motion is taken seriously by the democratic representatives of this place. Every sitting Wednesday we dedicate a whole day to business of those opposite and those on the crossbench. Members of this house can raise and debate issues they feel are most important to them and their constituents, and that is the right thing to do.

This place should be a place of debate. Rather than limiting the debate of important issues in this place, this side of the chamber has been focused on debating the passing of the most important legislation of the day, the work of the people democratically elected. I am sure that if those opposite listened to me more, they would realise that I agree with them on a lot of things and they agree with me on a lot of things too. Just two weeks ago we all came together to condemn horrific animal abuse and domestic violence. But let me be frank, my staff and I diligently prepare for parliamentary sitting weeks. We take matters very seriously. But although the participation in this place may be limited, it is important for the dignity of this place that people know that, despite them not watching it, we do watch it and that they trust that we are using their time productively.

We take these people’s time seriously, so I do not understand how this matter has been brought up. Not a single member of my community of Southern Metro, which I note Mr Davis is also a member for, has contacted me about this. I wonder if anyone in our community has contacted Mr Davis about this. Our community of Southern Metro is more interested in us getting on with the job, which is why we have seen historic votes for Labor in our community. They are more concerned about making Victoria fairer, a more equal place and a place with better jobs, cheaper public transport, better public transport and the things that matter. That is why we are doing what matters here on this side of the chamber.

As this motion has to do with motions themselves, I want to talk about some of the important motions that have been introduced by this side of the chamber – motions to be debated about the important things that we are doing on this side of the house for Victorians: for instance, notice of motion 171 by my colleague Ms Ermacora, which acknowledges our commitment to growing women’s and girls sport in Victoria, and notice of motion 204 by Mr Batchelor, which recognises the Allan Labor government’s reforms to clear the backlog for approvals and build more quality homes and faster. This motion talks about general business and normal practices of the house. Why should we stifle debate? Why should we stifle what is discussed in this place? I often enjoy the amazing contributions that my colleagues make, some of which are somewhat entertaining. There are a notable few that I have enjoyed the most, but I have seen plenty of notable contributions in this first term. For instance, Minister Tierney reported to the chamber that the Port Fairy SES is now complete – what a great achievement – and Mr Galea talked about the importance of treating our frontline retail workers with respect and dignity after the final sitting of the year. And I have noted the fantastic work of the Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees Association in this place. It is the sort of achievement that matters and would be avoided in Parliament if this motion was to be passed.

Some of the most important matters are debated in this chamber. In this very room my colleagues Ms Ermacora and Mr McIntosh raised a very important matter, and I will quote Mr McIntosh because I think it is pertinent:

… under the leadership of Craig McRae and Darcy Moore this club has turned its culture around. It is a culture of acceptance, diversity and inclusiveness, and we have thrived.

So I join with my two great Pies-supporting colleagues to say that it would be a shame for matters like this not to be debated. I often have taken the opportunity during debates on Wednesday to contribute to a wide range of topics, and I hope for this to continue. As the people’s business, it is important and must be allowed.

To wrap up my contribution today, we know that the bills in this place are often passed after vigorous debate, many amendments and late-night committee sessions. For instance, in 2017 we passed the Voluntary Assisted Dying Bill 2017 after long and very emotional debates in both this place and in the other. We introduced nation-leading rental reforms in 2018 after vigorous debate and negotiations with the crossbench, as is right. And our pandemic response and the work we did to keep our state safe happened after great debate in this space and thanks to the contribution and the cooperation of the crossbench. Debate is a – (Time expired)

Samantha RATNAM (Northern Metropolitan) (14:30): I am happy to speak in support of this motion and to note the quite extraordinary contributions we have heard from the government so far. I would briefly like to respond to a couple of points made before going to the substance of what we are debating here. We have heard two members of the government. I am sorry for interrupting; I am reticent to interrupt while somebody is on their feet. However, I think it was really important to clarify and correct for the record what the motion that we are debating today is actually about. It is really important. What we are actually talking about is how we use our time in this place. We are talking about a change in sessional orders which goes to the heart of an important lever to improve transparency. It is about how Parliament works to improve transparency, and that is why it is on the notice paper today.

In response to an attempt to minimise it, which I have heard from the government – that this is not important and we should be debating other things – yes, there are lots of really important things to debate, but how we operate in this place to improve transparency and accountability and hold governments of the day to account is also really important business of this house, so I am pleased to see us talk about how we work and how we can work better. We might not have many constituents writing to us about sessional order changes, and I doubt many constituents have written to us about sessional order changes in the past, but we still see it as important. We have a process set up to regularly review sessional orders, because it is really important that at regular intervals we look at how this place is operating and we strive to strengthen and improve it at every turn, which is what this motion is about. Essentially, it is about how we use non-government business time on Wednesdays, as it is in the Legislative Council, to make sure that we are able to make the most efficient and best use of non-government members’ time in this place.

The Greens absolutely support this change to sessional orders. This will allow documents motions to take on a slightly different category or status to help them be debated, agreed to and discussed more quickly. We already have different categories and statuses of motions before this chamber on non-government business day. For example, bills do not have a time limit, because we have agreed that they need more time for debate than other types of motions. Motions have a time limit of 90 minutes, which has been agreed to by this chamber in the sessional orders that we agreed to at the start of this term. It is important to understand there has been some history here about the status of documents motions. At the moment documents motions are treated with the same status as other types of motions, with a 90-minute debate limit.

There have been discussions for months, if not years, with different parties in this chamber across a number of parliaments about how we can make documents motions work more efficiently, recognising that they are really important and it is important we have some debate on them. But perhaps they are not the same category as other motions – for example, sending off a matter to a parliamentary inquiry, which requires more substantive debate. We have had discussions in this Parliament, informal discussions, where there has been some agreement saying that we understand that documents motions might not need the whole 90 minutes and therefore we will attempt to limit our speakers and get them through as quickly as possible, recognising that they are important but they might not need the full extent of time as other motions do. However, that attempt at an informal agreement has not worked. From time to time different people and members in this chamber have sought to, in some ways, misuse the fact that it is a documents motion to speak about a whole range of things, as we have witnessed in this debate today already, and have not really homed in on the relevance of the motion. Essentially, they have not acted in good faith to that agreement that we have been trying to make through convention and practice as opposed to rules. But given that that attempt at that informal agreement has not worked, it now needs a sessional order change to formalise the different category that we are going to treat documents motions in.

Documents motions in themselves are really, really important. As I mentioned, they are an important mechanism of transparency, especially for non-government parties who want to find out a bit more information. Essentially, the question is: do we want documents released or do we want them to continue to be hidden or cloaked in secrecy? If our other mechanisms were working more efficiently, like freedom of information; if we could get clearer answers, for example, during question time from government ministers; if we could get more comprehensive responses to our adjournments and constituency questions, perhaps we would not need to bring up as many documents motions as we do before this Parliament. But for years on end now we have found that it is very, very hard to get documents and information from government. We have heavily redacted documents – if and when they are ever released – provided to us, which does not help us understand what might be happening, and it is really important we apply transparency and scrutiny over government decision-making. That is one of our big roles in this place as non-government parties. This motion is about ensuring this mechanism works as efficiently as possible.

The documents motion, through changing the sessional order, that is proposed today would still allow debate, and I think that is really important to understand because we have had government members represent that somehow it would not require any debate and we are somehow trying to stifle debate. It is just putting a new time limit on documents motions, therefore giving them a different type of category. We will still be able to have debate of up to 20 minutes, all members will be able to contribute and there will still be a tabling option, which is an option that is available to other types of motions throughout the sitting week. It is an ordinary mechanism that we have made available to each other to be able to contribute to debate. It is just changing the category of documents motions and changing the time limit for that debate before a decision, and it would certainly help us get through more documents motions, which are really important for transparency, scrutiny and accountability in this place.

So the Greens wholeheartedly support this change. We would have liked to have seen this change occur by agreement and convention, which can happen in this place, but despite multiple attempts over many years to get some sort of agreement that was acted on in good faith and abided by by parties in this chamber, unfortunately we have not been able to reach that agreement, and therefore we have to do it through a rule change to the sessional orders.

As I mentioned, documents motions are really, really important. For example, I have got a documents motion on the notice paper currently, documents motion 190, asking for the government to release all the relevant background documents regarding its recent announcement that it would demolish 44 public housing towers and privatise all those public housing estates, selling off 75 per cent of the land and outsourcing its responsibility to provide public housing. If the government would actually make those documents available to the public, we would not have to go through a documents motion, but this government is reluctant to provide us any information through question time or through any other mechanism that we have available, and that is why it is really important that the Parliament has a motion, when all those avenues fail, so that a member of this Parliament can come here and say, ‘Look, we’ve tried everything we can to get these documents that are in the public interest to help us advance an area of policy and to interrogate a government decision,’ and when all those avenues fail, we do bring it to the chamber. It is important that we have a mechanism by which we can ask for those documents. What we have seen over the years is unfortunately government members talking at documents motions because they are trying to avoid us getting to other motions on the day of non-government business. We have one day of non-government business. There is no non-government business in the lower house, the least democratic house of any Parliament across this country, so it is really important that in this place we are doing everything that we can to ensure that non-government business day works as efficiently and effectively as possible. Documents motions are a really important part of that, and this change will help us hopefully see more of those documents released by government that are in the public interest that apply the scrutiny, accountability and transparency that we absolutely need to be applying to this government right now.

Harriet SHING (Eastern Victoria – Minister for Housing, Minister for Water, Minister for Equality) (14:39): There is a movie called Fantasia, and it has got a sequence in it that involves a young wizard played by Mickey Mouse. Mickey Mouse, in attempting to make a task easier – carting water – casts a spell whereby the buckets and the brooms multiply. He falls asleep, only to wake up to find that the entire system is rather out of his control. When I am thinking about this motion, it is in fact Fantasia that comes to mind, because what this motion is in effect, to my mind, attempting to do is create a production line of documents motions which in and of themselves have not been an issue for government and are not an issue for government. In fact government has repeatedly maintained the position and demonstrated by its conduct in the tabling of documents the position that, wherever possible, documents sought under a documents motion will be provided where they are not subject to privilege or where they are not subject to matters relating to commercial-in-confidence status.

I want to take up a couple of things that Dr Ratnam said about the objective being to improve transparency. In and of itself, the shortening of time for debate does not improve transparency, and when Dr Ratnam says all members will be able to contribute, that is factually incorrect, because based on the time frames that are clearly set out in this motion, that is not possible.

Samantha Ratnam: You can table a contribution.

Harriet SHING: I will take you up on that interjection, Dr Ratnam – you can table a contribution. Now, if that is actually what you are getting at, namely that contributions to this chamber can simply be tabled, then that would seem to strike right at the heart of your rationale for just about every question you ask in question time. That is in fact why questions on notice are there, and perhaps you might better use your time in actually just tabling a whole lot of questions on notice to be addressed by the relevant people in accordance with existing standing orders.

Dr Ratnam, when I listened also to your contribution – and this is something which characterises any and all documents motions in this chamber – invariably we get to the subject matter of the documents and the class of documents that are being sought. So notwithstanding attempts by people, most specifically Mr Davis, and it is a shame he is not here because he would probably say, ‘This is a relatively narrow motion; it is a narrowcast motion; it seeks to gain access to certain documents’ – and you might want to do a word search of that particular phrase, because I suspect Mr Davis has said it dozens of times – it is then only a matter of time before we expand into, like Mickey Mouse and his hopeless bucket situation, a discussion of the subject matter at hand. Now, Dr Ratnam just demonstrated this very point when getting to her feet to talk about motions and information being sought as it relates to Greens motions on the notice paper and the way in which they sit and seek various outcomes and various documents. If we are to have a debate of only 20 minutes, this does not allow all members to speak. This does not, despite protestations to the contrary in the pious narrative that persistently pockmarks Greens contributions, improve transparency. So if we are going to improve transparency, what I would put to the chamber is an amendment. I move:

Omit all words and expressions in the preamble and replace them with:

‘That this house requires the Procedure Committee to inquire into, consider and report on the following proposed sessional order and in particular examine the implications of creating this new procedural process and how this new process may impact the running of the house:’.

I seek to see if that amendment can be circulated, Deputy President, and with your forbearance I might keep going, given the time that is not available in accordance with the desire to have this conversation, rather interestingly, given the subject matter that we have here. In fact, if we were debating this motion right now, we would have run out of time, right? We would have run out of time, and there would only have been six members of this chamber who would have been able to actually have a say.

Given that the Greens are all about transparency and, in addition to that, given that the Greens love a referral to a committee or an inquiry, why don’t we just do exactly that? I am not sure whether the Procedure Committee has in fact looked at this, but it strikes me that the amendment being sought achieves the very objectives that Dr Ratnam has just put onto the record – that in actually looking at the implications of creating this procedural process and what impacts it may have we are in the best position possible to know through that committee’s work what the outcome might be. That is a committee comprised of parliamentarians well placed to look into the very matters around the subject, the function and the processes of the Parliament.

It would beggar belief if the Greens were not to agree to this particular reference to the committee, given all of their previous form in doing exactly that. In fact when I think about the seriousness of various documents motions, if we were to overlay the proposal by which this motion has been framed on a situation that occurred some five years ago – the then Leader of the Government Gavin Jennings was in fact removed from this chamber for a period of six months in consequence of government’s inability to provide information that was subject to commercial-in-confidence and cabinet-in-confidence status, so when we are talking about relatively straightforward motions, let us be really, really clear – recent history confirms that in fact this need for transparency is absolutely germane to the discussions and the work of this chamber. If we are going to have a discussion about limiting the capacity for this sort of debate – debate which in the past has led to the inability for the Leader of the Government to be in this chamber for half a year – then let us at the very least get the Procedure Committee to look at it, because you cannot, in all good conscience and again in good faith, a phrase Dr Ratnam used before, say that this is in fact a matter of little consequence, that it will expedite transparency. Well, at what cost – at what cost, given that we have previously seen a documents motion which meant that the Leader of the Government could not step foot in this place for half a year? Think very carefully about what that means.

To anybody who is inclined to talk about freedom, to anybody who is inclined to say that this place needs to have a measure of transparency to it, this motion does entirely the opposite. This motion is about creating Mickey Mouse and his buckets in a recreation of Fantasia for the purpose of a process that does not in and of itself change the way in which government might consider documents motions, because government will make its decisions based on the documents being sought, the classes of documents and in fact the way in which there may be obligations that otherwise attach to those documents. This does not change the way in which that framework operates, and it would be, I think, an exercise in misrepresentation, which I would hope that nobody in this chamber intended to convey, that somehow the passage of a limitation of time around the sessional orders will lead to a different set of outcomes. It may well lead to various parts of opposition business day on a Wednesday being shaped differently. If that is the objective of it, if this is in fact not about documents, then those who have spoken in favour of this motion should actually be prepared to say exactly that, because when we are talking about a motion which does not enable everybody to speak, which caps speeches at 6 and 5 minutes and caps total time for consideration at 20 minutes in a process of this house which has previously given rise to the Leader of the Government being booted out for six months, we cannot underestimate the impact of that proposal. We oppose the motion and propose the amendment.

Sonja TERPSTRA (North-Eastern Metropolitan) (14:49): I rise to make a contribution in regard to this motion in Mr Davis’s name, and of course I have had the benefit of hearing Ms Shing’s contribution, and I note the amendment proposed by Ms Shing. I think it is a sensible amendment. I think it is entirely appropriate for the Procedure Committee to consider a matter such as this, rather than a motion like this being brought through the Parliament. I think it is quite concerning to note some of the changes that are being proposed.

I heard Dr Ratnam’s contribution as well, and really it is not right to say that every member would have an opportunity to contribute on a motion in 5 minutes. I know a number of us in this chamber who make contributions regularly on a range of things all would struggle to say anything meaningful in 5 minutes; 5 minutes is actually not a very long period of time. The way that the motion is framed necessitates the fact that clearly the effect of this motion would be to actually nobble the government from saying anything at all, and that is very concerning given that each member in this chamber is democratically elected as a member of Parliament to represent their community and to debate motions that are brought before this house.

This government, particularly in our chamber, have a very longstanding and consistent record of releasing documents under documents motions, subject to any of the things Ms Shing talked about. The documents might be subject to privilege, or other documents might not be within our control to release. For example, some of the motions that I have heard debated in this chamber call on the government to release documents that are not in our control, so that is a nonsense in and of itself. Often documents motions are also used as a stunt simply to attack the government on something that either the opposition or others have dreamed up in the place.

Getting back to my earlier point, the whole point that Dr Ratnam makes about around transparency – it is actually the opposite. It does not improve transparency to nobble debate, to stifle debate, to demand that representatives in this chamber should not be heard on a motion on matters that are of importance. As I said, the government regularly releases documents under documents motions. Again, I am concerned around some of the debate and the motions that have been brought in this house and particularly from the Greens. Their rhetoric is that we are all bad, we are all corrupt on the government benches and there needs to be increased transparency. But the reality is it is gaslighting us all, because it is actually the opposite of what is being said. It is really like a cult. It is like, ‘We’re going to torture by dripping water on everyone’s forehead.’ It is like, ‘No, you’re corrupt.’ We are all sitting here scratching our heads going, ‘What on earth are you talking about?’ And I know most Victorians would have the same thought process. Most people are reasonable and competent and understand debate and the concepts that are being discussed. But also Victorians have a really good nonsense meter – there is another word for it and I cannot say it in the chamber – and what is coming from the Greens really is a whole load of nonsense on this.

As I said, it is dressed up as saying, ‘We need transparency,’ but what they are actually talking about is nobbling government members from speaking. Again, it is an absolute disgrace to have to even listen to the Greens try and dress this motion up as something that is going to improve transparency and improve the ability for people to debate documents motions. As I said, the government actually has a really strong track record of releasing documents when we can, so it is just not relevant. As Ms Shing said, the amendment that is being proposed goes to the Procedure Committee to actually look into this. That is more of an appropriate forum for matters such as this to be dealt with, rather than have this – it is really a stunt. I am waiting for the next TikTok video or something.

Members interjecting.

Sonja TERPSTRA: It is funny. I can hear the laughter from the Greens opposite. It is interesting, the laughter from those opposite. They should be laughing. The laughter from those opposite belies the point here that they should be embarrassed about the way they are conducting their politics on TikTok, and I might refer to the member for Richmond in the other place, who recently said that we were evicting 40,000 people because we are privatising and selling off all the public housing. This is another example of what I just referred to in regard to this motion: the complete alternative universe that the Greens live in where they say something with impunity because they will never be in government. They are not fit to govern. Their juvenile antics are to continually say things that just clearly are not even factual. They are just not. No-one will take that seriously, and yet they remain completely unaccountable for the things that they say.

With that frame and that background, I struggle to understand how Dr Ratnam and others can come into this place and say that the changes proposed by the motion under Mr Davis’s name are about improving transparency. It does the complete opposite. If you are proposing to disallow and stop the ability for government members to speak and make a contribution and debate a motion that calls for the release of documents, that does anything but increase transparency. It does the opposite. What that does is shut down debate. It interferes with the democratic processes that are conducted in this chamber, and that is something that should be roundly condemned.

I do not know – why don’t we all of a sudden do away with non-government business? Why don’t we have a motion about that? Really, what is the point of it? It is getting completely ridiculous that we have to debate these sorts of things. We could go on with all manner of ridiculousness and say that this is about improving the productivity of the chamber, for example. If we could do away with non-government business, then the government could continue to talk about all of the things that we have done and the fact that at the last election we actually increased our majority, which means that the Victorian people actually have confidence in us despite what those opposite might say or think or what the Greens might say. The fact that the Victorian people returned us to government with an increased majority would drive them crazy over there, because clearly no-one is listening to them except when they are talking to themselves.

This motion that Mr Davis has brought is ill conceived. I know the Greens see it as an opportunity to join with the Liberals and to work against the government, but again what everyone needs to remember and reflect on in this chamber is that the Victorian people returned us to government so we could get on with the business of governing for Victorians and doing all the things that they elected us to do, not have minor parties who will forever remain unaccountable for their actions interfering with the business of government. This motion should be roundly rejected, but having said that, the amendments that Minister Shing proposed to have the Procedure Committee deal with this matter are far more appropriate. I will conclude my contribution there, and I encourage others to reject this motion and support Ms Shing’s amendments.

Georgie CROZIER (Southern Metropolitan) (14:57): This has been the most extraordinary afternoon of debate. We have had government members speaking on wrong motions; they have not even understood what is on the notice paper. We have had government MPs talking about shutting down non-government business because they have been elected – yet the rest of us literally have not? It has been the most extraordinary, arrogant display, by you in particular, Ms Terpstra, with the comments that you made about elected representatives in this house.

Sonja Terpstra: On a point of order, Acting President, I take offence at Ms Crozier’s comment about me that I am arrogant, and I ask her to withdraw.

Georgie CROZIER: On the point of order, Acting President, I am sorry that Ms Terpstra has interpreted it that way. I was saying that the debate was arrogant, but I am happy to withdraw if she has taken offence.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Bev McArthur): Thank you, Ms Crozier.

Georgie CROZIER: As I said, there was arrogance in the debate around why they are elected and the rest of us are not. We have a role to play to hold the government to account, and that is what this is about. It is about the government providing documents to the house, to the people. That is what it is about. You are all talking about curtailing debate. Well, there are a lot of bills and there are a lot of motions that come into this place that we would all like to speak on, but we do not get the opportunity because of the processes and the way that the sessions of 90 minutes are timed. We cannot always get an opportunity. So the argument you put forward about every government member wanting to speak on a documents motion is ridiculous. We all have to manage our time and our speaking according to what we have in the house.

I have to say that the government’s reasoning behind their argument is exactly why all members should be supporting this, because that is what it is about – accountability, transparency and having a sensible process around the production of documents. It is not a full-blown motion like those listed here that have various points members want to speak to on behalf of their constituents or their responsibilities, and there are a lot of motions in here that I would like to debate. We are not going to get to them all, but they are important. They are an important part of the process of what we do in this place.

Sonja Terpstra: Let the Procedure Committee deal with it.

Georgie CROZIER: You talk about the Procedure Committee; I take up the interjection. The Procedure Committee is made up of members and is made up of the President. The members on that committee are the President, my colleague Dr Bach, me, Mr Erdogan, Ms Lovell, Ms Symes and Ms Terpstra. So the government has a majority on that committee. It is a government-controlled committee, and of course the government would want to put something like this to the Procedure Committee, because they control the committee. No, the house is debating this, and this is an issue around what happens in the house – the sessional orders – around a very simple procedure that we have on documents motions. Dr Ratnam and others who have been in this house for some time know that we used to do documents motions very effectively and very efficiently.

Harriet Shing: You kicked Gavin out for six months with a documents motion.

Georgie CROZIER: I tell you what, your side of the house misses Mr Jennings. He was an extraordinary contributor.

Members interjecting.

Georgie CROZIER: That is a different thing, but the contributions that he made – he was the Mr Fixit of your side, and you have really missed him.

Nevertheless, I get back to what I am saying here. The coalition will not be supporting the government’s amendment, because they do not want this motion to go through. It is a sensible motion that provides the house with certainty for this term of Parliament around documents. I think those that have contributed understand the importance of accountability, understand the importance of transparency and understand why it is important that the house has a timely debate. I would have to say, for the minor parties that actually do not get as many speaking options as the coalition –

Harriet Shing interjected.

Georgie CROZIER: But, no, you are missing the point. If they want a documents motion and have another motion to get to their time, you are going to talk it out, so it is to their benefit to have an opportunity to be able to ask for documents in a timely fashion. That is what government does not understand – the importance of why we are asking for documents. I do not understand why the government is kicking up such a fuss over this, but it goes again to accountability and transparency, and I would urge all members to support this very sensible motion.

Council divided on amendment:

Ayes (17): Ryan Batchelor, John Berger, Lizzie Blandthorn, Enver Erdogan, Jacinta Ermacora, David Ettershank, Michael Galea, Shaun Leane, Tom McIntosh, Rachel Payne, Georgie Purcell, Harriet Shing, Ingrid Stitt, Lee Tarlamis, Sonja Terpstra, Gayle Tierney, Sheena Watt

Noes (19): Matthew Bach, Melina Bath, Jeff Bourman, Gaelle Broad, Katherine Copsey, Georgie Crozier, Renee Heath, Ann-Marie Hermans, David Limbrick, Wendy Lovell, Trung Luu, Sarah Mansfield, Bev McArthur, Joe McCracken, Nicholas McGowan, Evan Mulholland, Aiv Puglielli, Samantha Ratnam, Rikkie-Lee Tyrrell

Amendment negatived.

Council divided on motion:

Ayes (22): Matthew Bach, Melina Bath, Jeff Bourman, Gaelle Broad, Katherine Copsey, Georgie Crozier, David Ettershank, Renee Heath, Ann-Marie Hermans, David Limbrick, Wendy Lovell, Trung Luu, Sarah Mansfield, Bev McArthur, Joe McCracken, Nicholas McGowan, Evan Mulholland, Rachel Payne, Aiv Puglielli, Georgie Purcell, Samantha Ratnam, Rikkie-Lee Tyrrell

Noes (14): Ryan Batchelor, John Berger, Lizzie Blandthorn, Enver Erdogan, Jacinta Ermacora, Michael Galea, Shaun Leane, Tom McIntosh, Harriet Shing, Ingrid Stitt, Lee Tarlamis, Sonja Terpstra, Gayle Tierney, Sheena Watt

Motion agreed to.