Wednesday, 20 March 2024

Production of documents

Production of documents

David DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan) (15:45): I move motion 339 as amended:

That this house:

(1) notes the failure of the Leader of the Government to comply with a number of resolutions of the Council requiring the Leader of the Government to table specified documents in the Legislative Council by particular dates, and further notes that orders for the following have not been complied with:

(a) Hydrogen Energy Supply Chain project on 22 March 2023;

(b) gas and electricity supplies on 15 November 2023;

(c) redevelopment of high-rise public housing sites on 15 November 2023;

(d) kangaroo harvest management plan on 29 November 2023;

(e) Commonwealth infrastructure review on 29 November 2023;

(f) Port of Hastings application for offshore wind turbine facilities on 7 February 2024;

(g) Victoria’s review of Victoria’s approach to illicit tobacco regulation on 7 February 2024;

(2) affirms the privileges, immunities and powers conferred on the Council pursuant to section 19 of the Constitution Act 1975, and the power to make standing orders under section 43 of that act;

(3) affirms the right of the Council to require the production of documents;

(4) requires the Leader of the Government to table in the Council by 1 pm on 30 April 2024 the documents ordered by the Council in the motions identified in paragraphs (1)(a) to (g);

(5) further notes that on 6 March 2024 the government claimed executive privilege with respect to Ken Lay’s final report into a second medically supervised injecting room handed to the office of the former Minister for Mental Health in the week beginning 29 May 2023, which was required to be produced by the Council’s resolution on 21 February 2024;

(6) requires the Leader of the Government to comply with standing order 10.03, which would include delivery of Ken Lay’s final report into a second medically supervised injecting room to the Clerk and may involve assessment by an independent legal arbiter, to be appointed by the President; and

(7) permits that if the Leader of the Government has not complied with standing orders 10.01 to 10.03 in relation to all the documents listed in paragraphs (1) and (5) within the time frame specified in paragraph (4), the Council will at the conclusion of formal business on Tuesday 30 April 2024 (or if formal business does not occur that day, at the conclusion of formal business on the next sitting day) give precedence for a non-government member to move, without leave, ‘That this house suspends the Leader of the Government from the service of the Council for the remainder of today and for the next two subsequent sitting days’.

The motion also makes it clear that there are ancient and well-understood powers of the chamber to call for people and documents. The standing orders in that chapter 10 section are very carefully drafted, modelled I should say on New South Wales. They not only set up the procedure for the production of documents, the scheduling and the tables that are required but also, importantly, set up an arbitral procedure that enables adjudication by an independent legally qualified person where claims of executive privilege are made.

If the mover of such a motion, which is Mr Ettershank, so believes after sighting the document with the Clerk – they are not allowed to take it away, but the procedures are there, they are modelled on New South Wales and they have been successfully implemented over many years in New South Wales, where documents are brought to the Clerk and they are looked at by the mover – that there is a dispute with the government’s position, they can go to the arbiter, who is an independent highly qualified legal person, a person beyond reproach, who is able to then send a report to the chamber and say this document should or should not be able to claim privilege.

So it is a fair process. It is modelled on a jurisdiction that is like us, the Legislative Council of New South Wales. It is probably arguable that the powers of this chamber are ever so slightly greater, but the powers of the Legislative Council in New South Wales have actually been tested. They were tested in the famous Sydney water case, the Egan case that went to the Supreme Court in New South Wales and ultimately to the High Court. Bret Walker – QC at the time, or SC he might have been – was the relevant barrister, and he was successful in prosecuting that case, establishing very clearly that not only did the chamber in New South Wales have the right to get documents but it had the right to enforce these matters too.

It then addresses if the government does not obey this second directive, if the Leader of the Government does not respond. Each of these has had a single motion brought forward. Each of them has had some correspondence from the government, but the government has then largely ignored things and kicked things forward without actually providing the documents. This motion puts a firm time line of 30 April. It is a reasonable time line. It is not a short time line, especially considering that many of the documents sought go way back, deep into 2023, some of them back as far as March, more than a year ago. They will be more than a year long in the tooth when the final deadline of 30 April is reached.

The simplest way for the government to respond to this would be to support the motion and to deliver the documents – to deliver the injecting room document, the Lay report – to the clerks so that the arbitration procedure could potentially apply, and in the case of the other documents bring or deliver them to the chamber and do that in such a way that the chamber is able to manage those documents properly from there. Just the mere decision – ‘We’re not going to do anything. We’re going to sit here. We’ll send a holding letter in the first instance and then do nothing further’ – is unsatisfactory. The government knows it is unsatisfactory. There is no doubt about the powers of the chamber to do this. There is no doubt that we need a motion that is fair, is moderate and actually leads to a reasonable outcome here.

If the government does not deliver those documents that are ordered by 30 April, then what will occur is that the opportunity will be presented in the chamber for a motion to impose some clear sanctions. This would occur immediately after that chop time, which would be around 1 o’clock on the 30th. That would give the government time to bring those into the chamber on the day and would give the chamber plenty of time to look at these in the coming period. If the government does not respond properly to this motion, part (7) of the motion actually lays out a way forward – that is, that at the conclusion of formal business, perhaps around 1 o’clock, perhaps even slightly later, on 30 April, or on an alternate sitting day if for some reason we are not sitting, precedence would be given to a non-government member to move without leave that:

This house suspends the Leader of the Government from the service of the Council for the remainder of today and for the next two subsequent sitting days.

I am not wanting to ever move that motion. I am not wanting a non-government member to be in the position where they want to move the motion. What would be preferable is for the government to provide the documents – provide the Lay report to the clerks so that the arbitral process can commence. That would avoid the need for any of these activities later. If that motion was moved, there would be a debate, as would occur under the current orders in operation for the chamber. It would be a 90-minute debate, and then the motion would be put. It would be a motion that could be amended, a motion which the opposition would be very open to discussing ahead of time in a reasonable, moderate way. But we do not believe the government can go on and on and on not complying with the orders of the chamber. Those orders are made in good faith. The chamber is then in the position where it should seek those documents and pursue those. Again, the government might come forward with some documents, and they might say, ‘Look, here is one tranche of documents, and there are legitimate reasons why we can’t provide other documents.’ That is a matter for debate within the chamber. The chamber can engage in that, but what the chamber cannot deal with is the government just not responding any further than an initial holding response and letting it drift out in some cases, as I say, more than a year into the future. The chamber is being treated poorly. The chamber is in a position where it should say no, that is enough, we want a proper procedure. We have got a process to arbitrate on some of these matters. If that is what the government believes is the right way forward, we are happy to employ that process, and an independent, legally qualified person can look at that.

In the case of the other documents, the government just needs to get on and provide those. If amongst those documents there are individual documents that the government believes for public safety or other reasons ought not be released, it should say so. It should, according to the standing order, provide a tabulated list of the documents and the reasons why it is providing or not providing those and attach the documents or parts of documents that it is releasing. If there is a section of a document that for legitimate reasons is not able to be provided, let us have that discussion. But we cannot have that discussion where there are no documents provided and where there is no proper answer or way forward provided.

This, again, is a very modest and reasonable proposal. It is a way to seek these documents and to assert the rights of the chamber, but to do so in a calm and rational way and to have the government respond properly. I reiterate that my favoured outcome here is that the government simply provides the document and goes to arbitration perhaps for the document that it has claimed executive privilege on, and then there is a reasonable way forward for everyone.

This is a sensible motion and a reasonable way forward that asserts the rights of the chamber. These are the historical rights of the chamber to call for people and papers – the powers of the House of Commons in 1856 expressed in our constitution and backed up by the long legal experience of this chamber. Going back, the Legislative Assembly called for documents in the middle of the 1870s and 80s. These powers were used as far back as then in the other chamber, interestingly. In this chamber these powers are rightly cherished. They are rightly seen as the bedrock of the chamber’s powers of scrutiny, its powers of holding responsible governments accountable, and that is what we are seeking to do here today. I implore crossbenchers to support the motion and hope that the government will see the good sense of coming to a collaborative position on this.

Lizzie BLANDTHORN (Western Metropolitan – Minister for Children, Minister for Disability) (15:58): I rise to speak on the motion that has been brought forward by Mr Davis. At the outset I indicate that the government will not be supporting Mr Davis’s motion. The hypocrisy of those opposite truly is astounding. Today they are bringing forward a motion on the Leader of the Government in this place while they are hopelessly divided on the leadership of the Liberal Party. I appreciate that it has been a long weekend –

David Davis: On a point of order, Acting President, this is a very narrow debate about the provision of documents. I did not in the lead speech here in any way widen the motion. I talked about this in terms of the technical and other details in the constitution and the standing orders, and this is not an opportunity to broaden the debate out into some general frolic.

Lizzie BLANDTHORN: On the point of order, Acting President, Mr Davis has clearly moved a motion that relates to the Leader of the Government, although I note that he is not in a leadership position on that side, so I find that a little amusing as well. But I note that Mr Davis has moved a motion in relation to the Leader of the Government, and it is totally appropriate that matters of leadership are part of this debate.

Georgie Crozier: On the point of order, Acting President, the minister is trying her best, but what she was talking about in her opening remarks has no relevance to this important motion that we are debating this afternoon, and I would ask you to ask her to come back to the substance of this important motion so that we can get on with it.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Jeff Bourman): If the minister could just come back to the motion, that would be great.

Lizzie BLANDTHORN: Thank you, Acting President. I note that the motion refers to the Leader of the Government, and I am indeed referring to leadership in my contribution here today. But I do appreciate that it has been a very long weekend for those opposite, particularly when the Leader of the Opposition enjoys the solid support of as few as 10 MPs in the 29-member party room. This is not the most important issue, although clearly for those opposite it is the most important issue that they want to spend their general business time on today. This motion –

Georgie Crozier: On a point of order, Acting President, I know the minister is trying her best to be quite smart. It is not working. This is a very narrow motion. It is an important motion about transparency and accountability, and I would ask you to ask the minister to stop sledging the opposition and being ridiculous in her commentary and to come back to the substance of the motion.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Jeff Bourman): Whilst she is the lead speaker for the government, if the minister could confine her remarks a bit closer to the motion.

Lizzie BLANDTHORN: Thank you, Acting President, and I am pleased to speak to this motion. I am concerned in relation to the moving of this motion that it says a lot about the priority of those opposite that it does not extend to health, it does not extend to education, it does not extend to cost of living or children or disability or jobs or transport. Instead they want to focus their attention on this matter in their time today – Legislative Council documents motions – not disability, not children, not transport, not health, not education. It makes some sense though, I would note, that when you include the indented paragraphs in Mr Davis’s motion there are more individual paragraphs in his motion than there are members of the opposition who support his leader. So, Mr Davis, I am more than happy to speak to this motion today. All you have to do is look at the voting record of those opposite to see what they are focused on, and it is not what is most important to Victorians, as I have just said. Last sitting week they moved a reasoned amendment to delay the delivery of the government’s 50 early learning centres reform, and in the sitting week before that they moved an amendment –

Georgie Crozier: On a point of order, Acting President, I think I am going to be rising to make a number of points of order, because again the minister is waffling. She is talking about everything but what is the substance of the motion. This is an important motion. It is about accountability and transparency in relation to documents motions that this house moved. She might be doing her best to try and be the lead speaker, but I would ask you again to bring her back to the substance of what this motion is about.

Lizzie BLANDTHORN: On the point of order, Acting President, the substance of this motion goes to the leadership of the government, and it is entirely appropriate that in considering this motion there is also a contribution in this place that draws the distinction between leadership on that side of the house and leadership on this side of the house.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Jeff Bourman): This is fast becoming debate. I caution people: if they have got a point of order that is related to the standing orders, have at it, but do not bring a point of debate.

David Davis: On a point of order, Acting President, the substance of the member’s idea of a point of order was that because the word ‘Leader’ is mentioned, anything about leadership could be discussed in a broad sense. The ‘Leader’ word is actually the title of the Leader of the Government. I have given the respectful title, as you would expect. The orders that were made in the Council were made for the direction of the Leader of the Government, and for that reason the motion talks directly about the Leader of the Government in the role that she holds there. It is a narrow motion calling for actions around those matters.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Jeff Bourman): Thank you, Mr Davis. If the minister could keep to the motion, that would be great.

Lizzie BLANDTHORN: Thank you, Acting President. To pick up on Mr Davis’s point there, without further pursuing the point of order, ‘Leader of the Opposition’ is also a title, so it is entirely relevant that the comparisons are drawn.

Those opposite are focused on documents motions while those of us on this side – and I know it has been very foreign to many of you over there for quite some time now – are focused on government. Contrary to the allegations that Mr Davis has put about noncompliance with such motions, as this house is aware, the government does respond to these motions. The government does respond to documents motions, and where it is required we ask for further time. This is a stunt by those opposite to simply trivialise the work that is required to be undertaken by government officials, by departments and by government itself when we respond to documents motions.

In addition, we are debating a motion that proposes an action in over a month’s time, which assumes therefore that certain other actions will be taken. As the Leader of the Government stated in her response to the documents motion tabled in the previous sitting week – Leader of the Government, hence why we are talking about leadership in this motion:

Whilst a claim of executive privilege is made at this time, the Government stands by its commitment to release the report alongside the government’s response to the report.

Do you need me to repeat that, Mr Davis, or are you still confused? As the Leader of the Government stated in her response to a documents motion previously:

Whilst a claim of executive privilege is made at this time, the Government stands by its commitment to release the report alongside the government’s response to the report.

For this motion that we are debating to propose an action in over a month’s time, assuming that other certain actions may or may not occur in the time prior to that, is simply ridiculous. It is coming from a confused opposition that is not focused on any of the real issues of the Victorian people – not on health, not on education, not on children, not on disability – but focused instead on a Legislative Council documents motion. As I highlighted earlier, this is merely a stunt by those opposite, who are focused on themselves rather than on improving the lives of Victorians, and all we have to do, as I was saying, is simply look at your voting record. As I was about to say before, you sought to delay with a reasoned amendment the 50 early learning centres –

David Davis: On a point of order, Acting President, this is again a very narrow motion about documents. It is not about a general view about politics in the state or voting in the chamber or whatever.

Ryan Batchelor: On the point of order, Acting President, the terms of the motion, particularly at points (2) and (3), go to quite expansive matters about the powers and functions of both this Council, the Parliament and the constitution. If Mr Davis had wanted this to be narrow motion, he should have drafted it that way.

David Davis: Further to the point of order, Acting President, it is a narrow motion referring to the specific powers of the chamber, which I have enumerated closely in my contribution, and they are about powers to call for documents.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Jeff Bourman): I will ask the minister to go back to the motion, but I might also point out the interjections are fairly wideranging too. It is a bit rough to be expecting the minister to stick to one narrow path whilst I am hearing all sorts of things from the other side. If we can just sort of cruise this through until the end, that would be good.

Lizzie BLANDTHORN: Thank you very much, Acting President. Today’s motion really is a perfect example of the disunity on that side. As I drew attention to earlier, Mr Davis is not a member of the coalition leadership in this place anymore; however, he is leading a motion that provides for the ability to suspend the Leader of the Government. It leads me to these questions: did the leadership group sign off on this motion? Has the party room endorsed this approach? (Time expired)

Georgie CROZIER (Southern Metropolitan) (16:08): What a disappointing contribution from the minister just now. For one, I was not here last week when the government refused to release the documents, so I asked Mr Davis to move this motion.

A member interjected.

Georgie CROZIER: You know where I was – a bereavement in my family. So no, to your question, the leadership group was not fully briefed. I think that is just a low blow, frankly.

This important motion goes to the heart of what we are here to do: talk about accountability and transparency in the interests of Victorians. We are elected on behalf of Victorians into this place to be a place of review, a house of review. When you ask for documents around certain issues, of course there might be some sensitivities, and we understand some of those sensitivities, but a lot of this does not apply to issues that should be in the public domain. Of course I talk about the issue around the Lay report. That issue has been canvassed in this place for years. We have been calling on the government to release the Lay report. There have been multiple iterations from Ken Lay in relation to a second injecting room. There has been lots of confusion and lots of consternation about it, and there have been concerns from business around the plans the government have. We have got the Yooralla building sitting empty down in Flinders Street. It cost over $40 million. We have got businesses hearing from all sorts of other stakeholders, Melbourne City Council and other stakeholders, about what they think needs to be done. We have had projected sites like near the Queen Victoria Market. That did not go down too well, so the government changed its plans on that. We have had the disaster that has happened in North Richmond in relation to the residents’ concerns that have never been properly understood, and despite what the government might say, the ambulance call-outs, drug abuse and antisocial behaviour are still happening. I get emails, text messages and pictures from concerned residents every second day about what is happening in that community. It is no wonder that there are residents and businesses in the city that are also concerned about potentially having a drug-injecting room on their doorstep.

That is why we want to understand what Ken Lay has said. I think it is actually disrespectful to Mr Lay. He has done multiple iterations of this report. There have been draft reports, and obviously they were not what the government liked so, ‘Off you go and do it again.’ I find it incredible. Taxpayers have paid for this work, and taxpayers are not able to see the fruits of Mr Lay’s labour. We need to see that draft report, and that is why we are calling for it. To talk about politics – that has been used as an approach by the government because it is not in their interests. They cannot get their act together, but that does not mean we cannot understand what is in the Lay report so we can work on getting a solution.

We need to be supporting these people with addictions – no question about that. I still would love to know how many people have been rehabilitated that have gone through the North Richmond injecting centre. I can tell you: not too many. The government has fudged all those figures for years.

Ryan Batchelor interjected.

Georgie CROZIER: Well, there are degrees, Mr Batchelor – to your interjection. I have been asking about this. You should hear the stories I have heard about Dr Clark, what has happened down there and the nurses down there. They have actually said what has gone on – some pretty severe and concerning behaviours have gone on in that injecting room. I would say that the public have not been fully informed. The Police Association Victoria put out a survey of their members, and they backed up the increase in criminal behaviour and the safety concerns in that area. There is no question –

Ryan Batchelor interjected.

Georgie CROZIER: Well, you can tip somebody’s head up and get their airway open, and that is what is called saving a life.

Members interjecting.

Georgie CROZIER: You can, and that is exactly what we proved when I questioned Dr Clark and those in the injecting room.

Ryan Batchelor interjected.

Georgie CROZIER: I can tell you, Mr Batchelor – I am a nurse. I actually understand how an airway works, not you. It is not Narcan and it is not an intubation, which is quite a different approach. The statistics that you are talking about are something else.

This motion goes to looking at exactly what is needed in relation to releasing these documents that this house has absolutely asked for, whether it be the Hydrogen Energy Supply Chain project over a year ago, or a year Friday; gas and electricity supplies; or redevelopment of high-rise public housing sites. We have just had that debate in relation to public housing demolitions because you will not release some of the information. It is simply extraordinary, so hopefully the inquiry will find out a bit more on that issue. There is also the kangaroo harvest management plan, which Ms Bath has a great interest in; the Commonwealth infrastructure review; or the Port of Hastings’ application for offshore wind turbine facilities – as Mr Davis has pointed out, that has been a complete farce, a complete debacle. Again, there are so many issues around the government’s decision-making process. They actually have not undertaken the work, and as a result we have got some dodgy and botched decisions that have occurred.

There is the review of Victoria’s approach to illicit tobacco regulation. I actually want to see that. That is incredibly important, because look at what is happening with all of these tobacco shops being torched, the crimes that are going on, the links to criminal behaviour. It is an absolutely out-of-control situation that we have in Victoria – that issue alone, in terms of the government’s hopeless inadequacy of dealing with this issue. These things should be undertaken, and they need to be released as per this house’s wish. I say again we are a house of review. We have been elected by Victorians for that purpose. This is about accountability. It is about transparency. Unfortunately, we do not get transparency with this government. We never got it under the former government either. We saw that through so many situations where we were blocked, we were shut down and we were just not provided with the proper information.

I say again this goes to the heart of what we need to do. Our point 3 affirms the right of the Council to require the production of documents. Mr Davis has gone through very extensively in relation to legislative requirements, the constitutional powers and how they apply in relation to some of the specified documents. He has laid out very clearly a path where it can be undertaken and it can be utilised so that you can actually see what we are looking for here. I think that is a reasonable request to make, and I would urge those crossbenchers and the government to support this motion in the interests of transparency and in the interests of accountability. It is a simple motion that goes to the heart of why we need these documents released so that Victorians can actually understand and see what is going on. I urge you to support the motion.

Harriet SHING (Eastern Victoria – Minister for Housing, Minister for Water, Minister for Equality) (16:16): If only Hansard could record a sigh, because we appear to be back in this place again whereby the coalition is seeking to reinvent history around its track record on transparency and the provision of documents. I note, before we have any objections by way of people leaping to their feet – and I see Mr Davis may be in fact looking forward to an opportunity to talk about a relatively narrowly cast motion in the terms that he did when Minister Blandthorn was speaking – that in fact Ms Crozier has just traversed some pretty broad ground in relation to the subject matter of various matters described in this documents motion, and it is important to create that nexus between the subject matter of the documents being sought and the tactical efforts being used and indeed relied upon by many in this chamber to make various political points. In doing that, it is necessary perhaps to examine some of the history of the disclosure of information.

Mr Davis went right back in time almost to the Magna Carta and perhaps the annals of history around decision-making in a collective authorising environment, and what he did do was refer to longstanding obligations and indeed considerations as they relate to the provision of information, including but not limited to the way in which claims for documents are able reasonably to be tempered by the application of various matters of privilege to them, whether in whole or in part. This is again something which Mr Davis is well aware of, because he sought to rely upon that in the course of the discussion sought to be really drawn out by the former Liberal–National government here in Victoria in relation to the business case for the east–west link. I remember in the course of that particular process of longstanding obfuscation that the business case for the east–west link that was eventually released – eventually – was 11 pages long. The font size, as I recall, would have been about a 30-point font size. It was dot points, and not dot points in a font size of about 30 on both sides of the document; there were large-scale pictures on one side and then there were triangular dot points and a large-scale font. I think it was about the least comprehensive outline of a business case for a multibillion-dollar project that anybody could imagine. No wonder those opposite did not want to release it, because frankly it was an embarrassment. But that notwithstanding, the now opposition relied upon claims of executive privilege, cabinet in confidence and commercial in confidence, as it was entitled to do. Notwithstanding the absolutely shambolic, underwhelming disaster that was the basis upon which multibillion-dollar decisions were made, it was made for the purposes of consideration by the then coalition cabinet. When we talk about transparency, we are also inviting a discussion around the way in which transparency operates, enabled by this Parliament, in the requests for documents and tempered by the operation of privilege as it might relate to cabinet in confidence or to commercial in confidence.

We have heard a lot about value for money – value for taxpayers money – in this place. Therefore it is at its very least disingenuous for those opposite and indeed anybody else to argue that commercial in confidence ought be relegated to the side in favour of disclosure when the very impact of that will almost axiomatically lead to a change in the way in which government negotiates and receives the benefit of large-scale contracts. This is a curious conundrum that those opposite have: on the one hand they have, as they are appropriately able to do, in government’s view, relied upon the application of cabinet-in-confidence and commercial-in-confidence principles; on the other they are saying actually they do not matter because they have another purpose for seeking these documents and being able to make hay with them. We have seen an ongoing theme from those opposite around what is spectacular doublespeak, on the one hand wanting documents and on the other hand refusing or failing, whether through a combination of wilful blindness, ineptitude or otherwise forgetfulness, to provide them. In the 57th Parliament the coalition in fact left just under 1200 questions without notice unanswered. That is about double the amount of questions unanswered in the 58th Parliament. In addition to that, we saw, when documents were sought from the coalition government, no documents provided at all for 50 per cent of its motions. So I would invite people who are in the process of considering where they might sit on this particular motion to bear that in mind when listening to the ardent and highly principled rhetoric from those opposite, and indeed from Mr Davis in moving the motion.

We have also got a compressed format for documents, and the standing orders have been amended to be able to bring two short-order opportunities for documents motions per week. This was something which was spoken about with great enthusiasm from those on the crossbench wanting to ensure that there was no opportunity for a lack of interrogation of information and to be able to do more with less in a parliamentary sitting week of finite hours. It is pretty rich, therefore, for people to be seeking to penalise the Leader of the Government for not tabling responses to these documents motions when in fact it is the crossbench who have added to the waitlist of the documents that are now sought to be provided to the Parliament. We are talking about voluminous documents motions. We are talking about a process that requires significant assessment of the extent to which commercial in confidence or cabinet in confidence might apply. This is a process which government needs to work its way through. We do not do so in an effort – notwithstanding any claims that Mr Davis might make to the contrary – to obfuscate. This is about making sure that for all of the many classes of documents being sought it is well understood the extent to which they might have elements of cabinet in confidence or commercial in confidence apply to them and making decisions about disclosure that will not otherwise overstep the parameters of those privileges. I would like to see that we have a consideration of these matters by reference to not just the nature and the class of the documents but also their impact.

I was fortunate enough to be in this place in the first term of the Andrews government. What I saw at that time was utterly breathtaking: the opposition combined with others in the chamber to boot out the then Leader of the Government in this place Gavin Jennings for six months. For a six-month period there was no Leader of the Government in the chamber. What that meant was that at the very heart there was a lack of opportunity to interrogate the very things that the opposition and members of the crossbench were interested in hearing about. This is the most perverse of outcomes. On the one hand documents are being sought, but on the other hand, if they are not provided, we are going to remove the Leader of the Government from a chamber where there are otherwise opportunities to ask said Leader of the Government for information or answers to questions. We have heard a lot about the importance of having a chamber that can ask for and seek information and make inquiries, yet the substance of this motion is to boot the Leader of the Government out. It is otherworldly, the extent to which there has been a cognitive dissonance on this particular motion.

Government has careful processes, through the complexions of any government which is lucky enough to occupy incumbency, to assess documents and to facilitate their release. It would be another example of the trivial approach to tactical opportunity for the Leader of the Government to be removed from this place, thereby lessening the opportunity for parliamentary scrutiny in a search for answers or perhaps public opportunities to talk about the government and why those around this chamber not in government are somehow relevant to the work that we do.

Melina BATH (Eastern Victoria) (16:27): I am pleased to rise and support Mr Davis’s motion 339 in relation to the production of a number of very serious and significant documents and the importance of that transparency that this house should be noted for. It is interesting that the lead minister for the Labor Party, for the Labor government, criticised us, saying that the issues contained within this motion are not of importance and citing some other quite important issues that need to be addressed.

Harriet Shing: On a point of order, Acting President, if Ms Bath has an allegation to put, she should do so by way of a substantive motion. Nobody has actually said that. Nobody has said that. There is no lead minister of any government that has said that.

Members interjecting.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Jeff Bourman): I might be able to help you with this. I think it is not a point of order as much as a debate, so as you were.

Melina BATH: Looking at the documents that are contained within this motion, these are very important documents that need to be in the public domain. They are very important particularly for my Eastern Victoria Region electorate. If we look at the Hydrogen Energy Supply Chain project document that the government is still holding close to its chest, this has great relevance for not only the transition into renewable energies but, in that transition, the creation of jobs and the upholding of a lifestyle in Eastern Victoria Region, in the valley, which is undergoing enormous challenges and pressures largely and overwhelmingly because of the Andrews, now Allan, government’s policies. It is super important to be looking into and investigating what is happening with the HESC project. We know that the HESC project came through in a successful completion. It was a trial, literally as it said, energy supply chain project. It dealt with and converted coal from Loy Yang to hydrogen and then successfully shipped it from the Port of Hastings off to Japan. This government now has the opportunity to take up an offer from a consortium, in conjunction with the Japanese government, for $3.2 billion. We want to understand what the government is doing in this space. We feel that it is highly important –

David Davis: Public interest.

Melina BATH: Absolutely, and no more so than for the people in my Eastern Victoria electorate. We are putting on record the need to have that in the public domain.

If we look at the gas and electricity supplies document – again, the government has its Gas Substitution Roadmap, a highly unrealistic road map – we need to see the details contained within this document. Again, the most important issue is about keeping the lights on – keeping electricity pumping through our transmission lines into peoples’ homes and into hospitals – and keeping the wheels turning. Gas is a critical issue, and it is a critical issue in the transmission to renewables in the landscape. It is not likely that we can just switch off these coal-fired power plants without having that whole pipeline –

Harriet Shing: On a point of order, Acting President, given previous rulings on this matter, I would ask that you bring the member back to the substance of what Mr Davis has described as a relatively narrow-cast motion.

David Davis: On the point of order, Acting President, it is narrow. Members are entitled to explain the documents that are being sought and the importance of those documents, why it is in the public interest for those documents to be available and importantly why the standing orders may show that they should be provided.

Harriet Shing: So now it is about subject matter, is it? We can go into that?

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Jeff Bourman): Order! In fairness, I am not going to uphold the point of order, because really there are two references to energy here and I think Ms Bath is entitled to go down that avenue should she wish.

Melina BATH: Thank you, Acting President. We looked towards the redevelopment of the high-rise public housing sites on 15 November 2023, and indeed we just saw a motion before the house, which passed, for an inquiry into this very important subject. Therefore providing those additional documents into the public domain of course has relevance. It is very much relevant to those people who are about to undergo enormous change and relocation and have concerns.

If we look at the kangaroo harvest management plan, we know that the previous management plan, from 2021 to 2023, expired at the end of last year. We want to understand what that management plan is. Where is it? What does it look like? We know certainly that primary producers have the right to continue to work producing the very best agricultural products that they can in this state. We know that there needs to be a balance around kangaroo culling and management of kangaroos but also production of agricultural products. We need to see and understand what this document means.

If we go to the Port of Hastings application for offshore wind turbine facilities, we see very clearly this is of a highly important nature, because we know that this state government has been blocked through the federal government in relation to the Port of Hastings. Critically, even the government’s own media releases speak to the importance of the Port of Hastings as a renewable energy terminal in order to get those, I think it is, 2 gigawatts of energy and electricity within this system. These are really important plans that need to be unpacked, and we need to work collectively on them to solve the energy crisis that is before us in this state.

If we also, finally, go to the other points of interest and look at that Commonwealth infrastructure review, again there are critical issues. There are critical pieces of infrastructure that need to be unpacked and dealt with. We see time and again that this government is ploughing on into infrastructure that may well not serve our Victorian population going forward. Part (3) of this documents motion also looks at affirming the right of the Council to require the production of documents. We do have this right. It is important that we as the house of review continue to delve into and support that transparency. I will certainly be supporting Mr Davis in his motion today, and I urge all the rest of the crossbench to do the same.

Michael GALEA (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (16:35): I rise today to speak on the motion which has been put to us by the erstwhile member of the Liberal leadership team, Mr Davis. As I start, I would actually like to pick up on something that Ms Bath said in a rather extraordinary attack on Minister Blandthorn. I am sure Ms Bath knows all too well that she completely misrepresented Minister Blandthorn. That is not what was said. In fact the point that I understand Minister Blandthorn was making was that she was emphasising not the importance of the things that this opposition could be looking at but the importance of the things that this government is looking at. So it was completely inappropriate. As Minister Shing referenced in her point of order, it is something that is more appropriate for a substantive motion if she seeks to do that. I look forward to seeing whether she will. I am sure she probably will not because she knows that Minister Blandthorn did not say what she alleges.

But it does prompt me to pick up on something that Minister Blandthorn was discussing before, which was the extraordinary admission through interjection that apparently this was not put through the entire Liberal leadership team. Now, absolutely putting Ms Crozier to one side – we know she was absent last week – it is quite extraordinary if you are not going to consult with, I do not know, Mr Mulholland, who is a member of the Liberal leadership team in this place –

Harriet Shing: Who would know these days?

Michael GALEA: Who would know these days indeed, Minister Shing? I am not sure if even Mr Pesutto himself knows, because he was last seen running away from people in the parliamentary precinct who were trying to give him a summons – running into lifts or running out of lifts. I am not sure if anyone can find Mr Pesutto, so that perhaps explains why Mr Davis did not consult with his party leader Mr Pesutto – that is, if he did not. I am not entirely clear if he did or did not, but if he did not, perhaps it is because Mr Pesutto was running away, like he is wont to do. Again, a very, very shoddy performance that we are seeing from those opposite. And to pick up on something that Minister Blandthorn raised as well, which is extraordinary in light of the fact that in the 57th Parliament, when those opposite were last in power – and Mr Davis will no doubt recollect this; he was one of them; he in fact I think is the only one of those benches who was here in that period, unless I am mistaken –

A member: He’s not going anywhere any time soon.

Michael GALEA: He is not going anywhere, and we are all the better for it. But he would know better than anyone else that 50 per cent of all documents motions that were passed in this place in that term of Parliament were completely ignored – not responded to with a delay or a justification or a claim of executive privilege. Fifty per cent were completely ignored. That is quite different from a government coming into this place and explaining that something is currently subject to executive privilege. Now, without delving into the McMullan principle and the importance of executive privilege, that is a valid consideration of government, especially things that are subject to cabinet consideration. It is a longstanding tradition of Westminster parliaments, in relation to which as well, as sometimes needs to be the case, where the government comes back to this place and says, with a justification, that it does need more time. That is completely different from outright ignoring, which is what happened when Mr Davis, when he was a minister, was part of a government that did.

Members interjecting.

Michael GALEA: It is unclear as well from Mr Davis’s interjections whether this is a wideranging or a very narrow motion, and based on the previous contribution by Ms Bath I think one would have to conclude it is quite wideranging. But it does, as Mr Davis says, go to leadership. And again, as I say, and as Minister Blandthorn says as well, there are more paragraphs in this motion than there are current members of the Liberal Party who support Mr Pesutto’s leadership. That is what we were led to believe over the weekend. Again, if Mr Pesutto is still leader by this time today, this time tomorrow or this time next week, perhaps you could enlighten us now, Mr Davis?

David Davis: On a point of order, Acting President, this is territory that we have been in before. We have got a member straying well, well, well outside the form of the motion.

Harriet Shing: On the point of order, Acting President, first we heard Mr Davis say it was narrowcast, then we heard Mr Davis say it should be broad-ranging because it had some nexus to the subject matter of the motion, and now we are back to narrowcast. Where there is a link – and there is at points (3) and (4) of the motion itself – the member is well within his rights to be canvassing the subject that he is in the process of doing.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Jeff Bourman): I will actually uphold the point of order, because I do not really think the opposition leader is really relevant to this motion. If the member could just continue at least roughly down the path of the motion, that would be awesome.

Michael GALEA: Thank you, Acting President. Yes, he is certainly not relevant to many in this place – not many across there indeed.

I will pick up on one thing as well that was said before, again talking within the broad confines of this motion, and that was Ms Crozier’s remarks about medically safe injecting rooms. I am frankly quite horrified by those remarks. We have lots of debates and cut and thrust in this place, but I was genuinely quite horrified by the flippant way in which those opposite regard our healthcare workers and the workers in that centre as well, as inferred in response to Mr Batchelor’s interjection about the I think 63 people whose lives have been saved in this medically safe injecting centre. It does not sound like that is of interest to Ms Crozier, frankly, by dismissing it and saying, ‘Anyone can crank someone’s airways open. Is that what you call saving a life?’ That is an appalling way to enter into this debate. I do not care whether you are a former nurse or not, that is an appalling thing to say, an appalling way to talk about firstly those healthcare workers, who do remarkable work day in and day out, but also the people who are going through that very difficult situation when they are facing the need for that care. I think if that is the approach that you are taking, it is remarkably appalling, particularly from someone who professes to be a former nurse. We all know about the walking across picket lines and everything else that Ms Crozier used to do, but that is quite an extraordinary broadside against people. To flippantly regard saving someone’s life in a medically safe injecting room as being no different to someone cranking someone’s jaw open is absolutely appalling – and it is typical of those opposite.

Ms Crozier is of course on the Liberal leadership team along with Mr Mulholland, and frankly that makes it even worse – for the Liberal leadership to be actually saying this. Without straying too far away, I would like to know if Mr Pesutto endorses those comments. Does he endorse that, and does he support the medically safe injecting room in North Richmond? The remarks, as I say, quite frankly are shocking, not befitting of anyone in the chamber, let alone anyone who claims to hold a leadership position. I could talk all day about the pantomime of leadership in that party – and we know that you are held together just about as well as a rusty Daewoo – but it is absolutely beyond measure to say that.

I will again note this is in relation to the many documents which are being responded to: there are various claims of executive privilege. There are some reasonable delays, which have been explained to this place, but they stand in stark contrast to a party which when they were last in government completely ignored 50 per cent of all documents motions that were put through this place and which also left 1174 questions without notice not responded to. To come in here now and talk about openness and transparency is quite frankly remarkable from you lot, especially in light of, again, the east–west link, as Minister Shing referred to, signing us up to a dodgy contract just before the election, with a poison pill and with a remarkably infantile business case that you fought at all costs against having released. We now know why as well – 30-point font dot points. It is quite remarkable indeed – because we know that is what those opposite are all about. It is all about the stunts. It is all about the theatrics. But when it comes down to it, there is no substance, there is no plan for Victoria and there is no willingness to engage in debate either. That is why, amongst many other reasons, I will not be supporting the motion today. Aside from that, the extraordinary measure of going straight to the first option – I know you have watered it down now, under considerable pressure – of a suspension, rather than taking it through the proper process, just shows the cavalier and reckless attitude which you take in this place, so I do not commend this motion.

Samantha RATNAM (Northern Metropolitan) (16:45): I rise to speak in support of the opposition’s motion calling on the government to comply with the previous orders of this house and the standing orders and produce documents. The motion lists seven requests for documents made by this house to the current Labor government that have been ignored. It has become routine for this government to ignore such motions. But it should not be, and as other jurisdictions demonstrate, it does not have to be. The documents motions referred to in the motion we are debating are from different members of this place from all sides of the political spectrum and in respect of a variety of important matters. It is not a partisan motion or specific to any issue, rather one about whether the government of the day is complying with the rules of this chamber and, perhaps more importantly, the democratic principles of representative democracy and responsible government.

Our form of representative democracy, which was hard fought for over hundreds of years, has at its heart the notion that the Crown, or in today’s understanding the executive government, is subject to the Parliament, which in turn is representative of the people. Representative democracy and responsible government are not simply theoretical or esoteric principles but are ones with practical application to the operation of the Parliament and the behaviour of the executive. In 1998 the High Court of Australia recognised specifically its application in a case related to the New South Wales Parliament and its right to request and receive documents from the executive. To quote from the High Court in this case:

Under the system of responsible government, those Ministers are responsible to the Parliament. For that system to work effectively, for the Administration to retain the confidence of the Parliament, the Houses of Parliament must have access to information relating to public affairs and public finance which is in the possession of the government of the day.

In respect of this recognition by the High Court the executive of the day in the New South Wales Legislative Council now respects and follows its almost identical standing orders to Victoria’s in relation to the production of documents – meaning, unfortunately, Victoria is once again the national laggard on matters of government integrity and parliamentary standards.

Yesterday in a briefing organised by the Centre for Public Integrity, Dr Simon Longstaff, one of Australia’s leading ethicists, argued, and I am paraphrasing, that all members of Parliament have an obligation to protect the legitimacy of democracy itself. That is what this motion is getting at. He also characterised the government’s refusal to comply with the standing orders and requests for documents as an ethical failure on behalf of the government. His point was that just because it has become routine for the government to ignore the Parliament does not mean it is right or ethical.

As I noted previously, Victoria has the unenviable claim of being the least democratic Parliament in the country and quite possibly in the Westminster system globally. In large part this is due to a culture developed over successive governments of treating the Parliament with contempt. But regardless of the history of how this culture in Victoria developed, it is incumbent on today’s government and this executive to start respecting the Parliament and the people of Victoria, because it is this Allan Labor government that currently refuses to comply with standing order 10.02(1) when it comes to claiming executive privilege over documents.

For the record, it is perfectly legitimate for a government to claim executive privilege, and there are numerous good reasons why a document should not be made public, particularly as it goes to cabinet deliberations. But in Victoria the government and executive have decided that they will be the sole arbiter of their claims to their own executive privilege, which under any understanding of accountability makes a nonsense of the standing orders. Standing order 10.02(1) requires the government, when claiming executive privilege, to provide the documents to the Clerk. We understand that no Victorian government has ever complied with this rule, and therefore no arbiter has ever been appointed to determine claims of executive privilege. In New South Wales they have similar standing orders, and they work well. Last year, from 26 orders for documents, nine resulted in an arbiter report. The difference between New South Wales and Victoria is not in the rules but in the culture: an executive which respects the role of the Parliament versus one who does not. I should add that this respect in New South Wales is apparent whether the government of the day is a Liberal or a Labor government.

We are pleased the opposition revised the motion to bring back a debate on the suspension of the Leader of the Government in this house when the house resumes in May. Suspending a member, even for a short period, is a serious matter, and it was a step that we were not prepared to support today. However, it is also a very serious matter to breach the standing orders and defy the will of the house, for the reasons I have outlined. We sincerely hope the government heeds the call from this motion, produces the relevant documents and lives up to the notion of good government in both the applied principle established by the High Court and the literal meaning of the expression. If not, we will be forced to explore further mechanisms to reinstate the primacy of the Parliament over the executive and protect Victoria’s representative democracy, as it is I believe incumbent on all of us elected to this place to do so. We commend this motion.

Jeff BOURMAN (Eastern Victoria) (16:50): I make a short contribution to this motion. This motion broadly has two parts, parts (1) to (6) and part (7). Parts (1) to (6) are fairly straightforward; the government has not produced a number of documents that it is meant to, and this is a problem. Well, clearly this is a problem, and I wish to have my support for parts (1) to (6) noted. Part (7) is where I may have an issue, and hopefully it is an issue that we never have. I was here when Mr Jennings was suspended for six months. I did not vote for it, and I will not vote to deprive any representative of the people of being in this house. Whilst I support this motion, I implore the government – they have the opportunity – to sort this out between now and whenever in April it is. Should that not happen, we should work on another sanction that does not involve removing a member of this Parliament from the house even for a short time.

Nick McGOWAN (North-Eastern Metropolitan) (16:52): I rise to speak also in support of the motion. Hubris is what has brought us here, and it is quite a list that the government have managed to collect over this small period of time. In fact it is no surprise that today, just as we finished another debate in respect of housing transparency and the figures around what has occurred and what has not occurred, of course belatedly the government came to us and certainly some of the crossbenchers offering to share documents and share things that we have had to otherwise seek to acquire through formal means.

I do not know what it is about the current government or their state that they suddenly feel that everything they have to do has to be done with a veil of secrecy. I have seen this over the course of this state’s history afflict many governments, and this government seems to be severely afflicted, with seemingly no medical diagnosis and certainly no treatment available to them at the moment. I feel some sympathy for the government because clearly they are sick. They are sick because they cannot do what is right, and it is a threat to democracy. When you want to act behind the shadows, when you want to conceal what it is you are doing, then the public have every right to ask why. They have every right to understand what is being done in their name. They have every right to understand what is being done with their money.

We have quite an impressive list here of documents that were sought and have been routinely denied and routinely ignored. What is concerning about this is it is not just a one-off. It is a pattern of systemic behaviour, and ultimately this kind of behaviour is the kind of behaviour that leads to corrupt practice. Now, I would hate for that to be the case, but how do we know that that is not the case when you simply cannot see what is occurring with the decision-makers of this state? It is that serious. It really is serious, and it goes for all sides of politics. I have long grappled with this issue myself, but I cannot understand why. At some point when you are spending public money, the public have every right to know what the contracts are. They have every right to know what is being spent. In my view, frankly, it should not last more than 12 months. In 12 months time, things change and businesses change.

If you are spending the public money, the public have every right to know every single detail about the contract that is being signed, and that goes for every one of your big builds – or big cons, as we like to call them these days. The big house con is the biggest con of all, although it has got a couple of competitors for that. We have got the Commonwealth Games con, we have got the –

Ryan Batchelor interjected.

Nick McGOWAN: You are building houses – how many houses are you building? I am glad you have interrupted me there because that is a beautiful segue, houses. Let us talk about houses. If you want to talk about houses, I am happy to talk about houses – not that this is part of the motion. I am bringing up an interjection. It is a long-held position of this house that members have certain leeway when they are interjected upon. What I understand is that there are 221 homes. That is the total gain in public housing owned by this government. What a disgraceful position – the billions and billions of dollars. Now, Minister, I do not blame you necessarily yet. I am going to give you a pass today. I am in a generous mood. I do not know why – something has got into me. It could be all the lollies I have been taking, it could be the haircut, it could be any one of those things, but I am going to give you a pass. Admittedly, that last Premier of ours had a brain fart and suddenly thought, ‘Here’s an idea: let’s destroy 44 commission tower buildings. Let’s do that. Let’s tear them all down.’ It is one of the single greatest acts of environmental vandalism writ large upon this state. I cannot even begin to imagine the tonnes and tonnes of concrete, the tonnes and tonnes of steel – all of those things, done with an absolute lack of transparency. Not once in the debate in this house has anyone actually offered any evidence that this is what had to happen – not once. So I welcome the interjection to talk about housing for just a moment, because we might have run out of time a little bit earlier today. I am conscious of the time, and I have probably taken more than my allotted time.

Members interjecting.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Jeff Bourman): Order! Mr McGowan to continue without assistance.

Nick McGOWAN: I will bring my remarks to a close. These are serious matters. They do not just pertain to housing, although housing I think we have addressed in some good measure today, thanks to the crossbench and the Liberal Party, who are proudly forging forward and ensuring that the people of Victoria do receive answers and they do receive transparency over documents. I support this motion wholeheartedly.

Ryan BATCHELOR (Southern Metropolitan) (16:56): I am pleased to rise to speak on the motion. I am disappointed that the mover of the motion is not in the chamber to continue his participation in scope hokey-pokey, where we did not know whether this was a broad motion or a narrow motion, depending on who was speaking on it, but what we do know –

Members interjecting.

Ryan BATCHELOR: Here we go; he is back. What we do know about the motion that Mr Davis moved before us is that he had to change it because his original motion was so far from being acceptable to anyone in the chamber.

His original motion, which he moved on 7 March, gave notice on that sitting day of a motion that had many similar features to the motion we are debating today but was not the same as the motion we are debating today, in particular because he sought in the motion that he had moved in this chamber to originally just suspend the Leader of the Government forthwith without the consideration of the matters that have been debated today. Over the course of the last couple of weeks this cunning plan that Mr Davis had concocted hung around his neck like a bit of an albatross. He was forced, in an attempt to actually get people to potentially vote for the motion, to amend it at the last minute, which he did yesterday afternoon. For the last couple of weeks members of this chamber have been thinking that we were going to be debating a particular motion from Mr Davis, and the substance of that has changed pretty dramatically in the last 24 hours. So that is just an observation about how considered and thought through this motion really is, such that in the space of a couple of weeks it has had to change pretty dramatically.

The second thing I wanted to get to was just a bit of detail about the kinds of materials the documents motions that have been passed by this chamber are seeking to get. We have had in the course of debate since the standing orders were changed by the chamber last year a series of motions that have sought to require the Leader of the Government – and it was not just, as some of the contributions that were made by Mr McGowan suggested, that they were really only after the contracts. These are just some examples of the content of the motions that have been moved and are being sought. In respect to the motion on the review of the application by the Port of Hastings for offshore wind turbine facilities, which was moved on 7 February, that sought all correspondence associated with consultation with respect to that proposal – not just the submissions that were being made to the federal government but all correspondence relating to consultation with respect to that proposal. It asked for that entire cache of emails, presumably, to be delivered to this chamber within three weeks. That is just one example of the material that is being requested in these documents motions, an exercise that is so rightly defended – so fervently defended – by those opposite.

In the drafting of that they are placing a request to the government to provide materials that, just on the face of the motions themselves, are exceedingly voluminous. Then they have the temerity to come in with a motion just weeks later and say if this is not complied with in full – if all of the emails with stakeholders about a pretty significant commercial project, as one example, or all of the submissions received in a review are not provided in full – then we will initiate the suspension of the Leader of the Government. That is making a mockery of the obligations that this chamber has to exercise the very considered and substantial authority that is vested in it by both the nature of the statutes that set up the self-government arrangements in the colony of Victoria back in the mid 19th century and the Council’s powers to compel the production of documents over time. It is seeking such volumes of material – seeking that all correspondence and all emails associated with an extensive stakeholder consultation period be produced within three weeks – like that is somehow the responsible exercise of a very significant and important function of this chamber. I think that just demonstrates the seriousness, or lack thereof, with which those opposite take these matters. If they were actually interested in the substance of the issues that we are debating, then they would be a lot more thoughtful and considered in the motions that they draft and bring in to the chamber – but they are not. Whatever the motivation, whatever the genesis of these motions –

Nick McGowan: Accountability. Democracy.

Ryan BATCHELOR: Maybe it is. I hope it is. I hope that they have noble goals, because exercising the functions of this chamber should be done with seriousness, particularly when the stated and requested consequence of noncompliance is, as Mr Bourman said in his contribution, a very significant one of denying an elected representative their ability to participate in this chamber and denying members of this chamber the opportunity to hold them accountable for the exercise of their executive functions through its operations.

This is a serious thing, and people should take it seriously. The level of detail that is being sought in this motion, three weeks for all correspondence relating to a stakeholder consultation period, is not taking this mechanism seriously, and it is certainly not taking this debate seriously. What we have seen with the reading in of this motion by Mr Davis on 7 March and in getting to this point today, where he has had to substantially change the motion because it was not good enough in the first place – it was a pretty sloppy effort – again is the need for Mr Davis to change his approach, because he has done something that he probably over-egged a little bit, on the first point. What we want to see is the ability for this chamber to think about how it exercises these exceptionally important powers and to do so in a way that does not require the government to produce ridiculous amounts of correspondence back and forth – emails, whatever – in ridiculously short periods of time. These are important issues, and they should be taken seriously.

Richard WELCH (North-Eastern Metropolitan) (17:06): I rise to speak on the motion. Our system of government cannot function without the adherence to democratic principles. We all know that. Some of those are the obvious ones – freedom of speech, equality before the law et cetera – but there are more subtle ones that go along with these democratic conventions that it is our duty here to observe. Accountability within government is one, and accountable government is only upheld as a principle if conventions on transparency are observed and honoured. Today we have a government that has no respect for such values and operates with impunity for its breaches. It is reflected in a government that will describe adverse findings as ‘educational’, that will allow ministerial failings to be walked by, and here it is the systematic failure to provide documents via procedural obfuscation. The standard you walk by is the standard you accept, and we – and I am talking to all corners of this chamber – cannot take this path. The government must take pause and reflect and take the proper action.

Here I get to use a phrase I never thought I would have the opportunity to use. It might be akin to mentioning the Scottish play. But to listen to the intellectual gymnastics over there defending it, methinks thou doth protest too much. The proper action is to respect parliamentary process and conventions that we all rely on. Do not walk past. Do not be party to degrading our democracy, because if this becomes accepted practice, none of us can do our job properly – none of us – and we cannot serve our community. The government should make good and correct accounting of the obligations to this chamber and to the voters we all represent. They should release these papers. I endorse this motion.

David DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan) (17:08): I will be brief in summing up. This is a very important motion, as a number of members have clearly stated, and I thank those who have supported the motion. They clearly stated that this motion needs to be taken very seriously. It is a serious motion. It has been carefully thought through. It has been negotiated with many on the crossbench. There have been discussions over a long period of time. It is critical to get to a point where we can actually reinforce the powers of the chamber for the good of the community. This is about accountability. It is about democracy. The government is intent on thumbing its nose at democracy.

Some over there have said they have not had enough time. One of these motions was moved on 20 March last year. The idea that there was not time for the government to respond to that motion – I mean, honestly, it is sad and depressing that the government response has been that sort of response when actually they have had 12 months and will have another month now to respond. What I would say is that on 30 April the best way forward would be for the government to simply provide the documents and in that interim period provide the Lay report to the Clerk, and the Clerk will institute the process that is laid out in the standing orders. As Dr Ratnam said, and I thank her for her support and the party’s support on this, that set of standing orders has not been employed, and this is an opportunity to have a fair arbitral process.

If the government has got a strong claim of executive privilege, it should be able to be tested. There is legal opinion about this. There are legal cases, as we know through the Egan case and elsewhere, where documents have been tested in this way. There is actually some case law which should assist an arbiter to make reasonable, grounded, plausible decisions and do so in a way that does not compromise a government document. That is what happens in New South Wales, and there is no reason at all in the world why it cannot happen in Victoria as well.

Equally, the other documents that are listed here, the tranches of documents that have been held back by the government, with some of them it is very clear that they are doing this wilfully because they think they can get away with it. They think they can thumb their nose at the Parliament, thumb their nose at democracy, thumb their nose at accountability. I say that is wrong. I say we have got to have a fair way forward. We have devised, I think, a fair way forward. The government will have the opportunity on 30 April to table those documents – or before, preferably clearly before, much before, but if not, some of them on 30 April – and then the last part of the motion will be entirely unnecessary. That is my preferred way forward. If we do need to come to the last part of the motion, which is to commence a motion to impose a sanction on the Leader of the Government, I indicate now that I will talk with each and every member of the crossbench about the way forward there. We need to find a way that we can all agree on where we impose a modest, clear and fair sanction on the Leader of the Government who has chosen not to comply with these important orders.

Remember too that these orders have been made for the benefit of the community. It is in the public interest that these documents are released. If I just pick one – the gas plan – we know that the Australian Energy Market Operator is about to release very significant gas documents or predictions about the future of gas and the reliability of supply, in the next day or so. That set of documents will help immensely in assessing Victoria’s future, this set of documents that the orders seek. The gas substitution plan is obviously very impactful on the community, and we want to see the government’s modelling and how they have arrived at some of these policy solutions. So that is just an example of one of these motions and the importance of that motion. It is in the public interest. The chamber has the power to direct that these documents be provided and it has the right to impose sanctions if necessary. I hope that it is not necessary, and I hope the government takes the opportunity to provide these documents to the chamber and the community.

Council divided on motion:

Ayes (22): Melina Bath, Jeff Bourman, Gaelle Broad, Katherine Copsey, Georgie Crozier, David Davis, Moira Deeming, David Ettershank, Renee Heath, Wendy Lovell, Trung Luu, Sarah Mansfield, Bev McArthur, Joe McCracken, Nick McGowan, Evan Mulholland, Rachel Payne, Aiv Puglielli, Georgie Purcell, Samantha Ratnam, Adem Somyurek, Richard Welch

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

Motion agreed to.