Wednesday, 5 March 2025

Motions

Sessional orders

David DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan) (10:55): I move:

That until the end of the session, unless otherwise ordered by the Council, sessional order 6 is revoked and replaced with the following sessional order to come into operation on the next sitting week:

6. Production of documents – short form documents motions

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. The following short form documents motion 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 at the time of giving notice under Standing Order 6.01;

(b) a maximum of two motions under this Sessional Order may be –

(i) moved by non-government members and debated each Wednesday;

(ii) moved by government members and debated on Tuesday and Thursday;

(c) if additional notices above the number permitted for debate each sitting day are given for short form documents motions, 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 on –

(i) Tuesday and Thursday at the time prescribed for government business;

(ii) Wednesday at the time prescribed for short form documents motions in Sessional Order 2;

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

(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.

This is a simple tidy-up of the short-form documents motion. It makes it clear that non-government members get to move short-form documents motions on the non-government business day, which is Wednesday, and government members have the opportunity to move short-form documents motions on Tuesday and Thursday, which are government business days. It is actually a very clear delineation, and it reaffirms the delineation that has developed in this chamber, with the exception of the 1-hour opportunity at the end of the day for the government to move any government business. I understand Mr Tarlamis, the Government Whip, has indicated that there will be use of that time tonight, so that opportunity is there. But essentially, most of the day on Wednesday is devoted to non-government business, and this preserves that. It closes a loophole in the standing orders and sessional orders together and ensures that that division between government business and non-government business is maintained.

I should say that we think that this set of changes will improve the sessional orders. It will make them clear. There will be no doubt about that. We look forward to the support of the chamber. I note that last sitting week the essence of this motion was supported by the crossbench, and it did that because this is a fair and clear way forward.

Jaclyn SYMES (Northern Victoria – Treasurer, Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister for Regional Development) (10:58): Mr Davis, it is actually impressive that you can make a contribution and just not falter. I am sure we can all learn something from it. It is good.

I did not get the opportunity to speak on the similar motion last week. As it turns out, I can pull out some of these notes from last sitting week, because there was a little bit of an opportunity to talk about the proposed sessional order last week but not enough. I can be open: I spoke to a lot of people last week about how I did not like the way the process was brought, and I think the fact that we are fixing it today is a good example of the point I was trying to make.

My concern about last week’s sessional orders changes was not, effectively, being dismissive of the issues. I understand non-government members had concerns in relation to the third general business slot not always getting a vote. In fact not only did I recognise that, I proposed to the opposition and the mover of the motion and other members that whilst we considered the fix for this issue I as Leader of the Government was prepared to give a guarantee that we would facilitate votes for all of the general business slots – whilst we got this right. I thought that was a reasonable compromise to make sure that we could sit down, have a conversation and work through the consequences, and my proposal was it should go to the Procedure Committee. Even if that was not accepted, I would have liked a conversation to avoid some of these issues. I was also particularly concerned about the fact that I had not had an opportunity to have a decent conversation about the impact on the people in this place that are not elected members – the people that have to record us, listen to us, advise us et cetera. Whether they are in this room or outside this room helping us, the impact on them of changes should always be considered, particularly when it can add to the extension of time and particularly later in the evening – dinner breaks, home times, family–life balance and the like. I thought that it was very dismissive of elected officials not to have put this through that process.

I was concerned about last week’s fix. I thought it was rushed. I was not afforded the opportunity to even see early workings of drafts of proposals. In fact I got some old ones through various sources that were not even reflective of the motion that was put up. That is how chaotic this process was. As I said, I found it quite disrespectful to this place. I wanted further time to examine the potential ramifications. It did not take long for members of the government and some advisers that were looking at it to identify that there were some errors. We did not necessarily want to be overly petty, but we took the opportunity to point them out. We took some delight in proving that perhaps we were right, but we will not go over that too much.

But I had concerns about the consequences of the change, as I said, in relation to the impact on this place. I did want to refer it to the Procedure Committee. I stand by the fact that these types of matters should go to the Procedure Committee to allow them to be to be ventilated and for it to examine potential unintended consequences et cetera. But given we have had a little bit of time to consider this sessional order today, we are not proposing to oppose the loophole close, as I think Mr Davis put it. We are letting this go through today. I still think there should be an opportunity for the Procedure Committee to have a look at this. I would also point to the fact that I have had a motion on the notice paper since November 2023 regarding the possibility of reducing adjournment contributions from 3 minutes to 2 minutes. I thought that would have been a good opportunity for the Procedure Committee to consider all of that at once.

I am still of the view that we should have a conversation about the duration of adjournments. It is certainly not my intention to curtail anybody’s ability to raise issues for ministers to respond to, but it has become a growing practice in this place for adjournments to go for up to an hour, if not more. I do not think that people that are accustomed to speaking on their feet about issues necessarily need to fill 3 minutes for every topic. In fact it is not a practice that you see happen in the Assembly. I am not reflecting on the fact that we should copy everything that goes on over there, but when it can have a significant additional time impost or impact to the chamber at the end of the day, often late at night, I would have thought that reducing it by what can be around 20 minutes or more is something that we should consider.

But again, I am open to other options in relation to reducing perhaps some of the time that adjournments take. Some people have suggested other measures such as one per week per person like we do with member statements and the like. I was quite open to that, and I have been chopping that around for a little while. Obviously it is not first-order business for the chamber. It is a very internal issue, not necessarily front of mind for Victorians and the issues that matter to them, which is why it is not something that I have pushed with any gusto. But it is something that I would like to pick up at some point in time because I think that this place could operate better with a few of those changes, but effectively that is what the Procedure Committee is for.

On to today’s motion: I acknowledge Mr Davis has effectively conceded a mea culpa today, and as I said, in an impressive fashion. I am more than happy to forgive some errors of a retransition back to the leader role. It is my experience with Mr Davis that generally he sticks to what he tells you, and I hope that in this case this is what we will see eventuate out of this sessional order. As I said, the main fix is to ensure that the three general business slots that are in general business for non-government members can be afforded their full time for debate, that there is a vote and that the third slot not be cut off. Because of the change there is an opportunity perhaps for that to morph into something other than the three slots and become four slots or five slots depending on how it chops and changes, but I have had a commitment from Mr Davis that the intention is not to do that. The intention is to fill the three slots. Despite this error, as I said, Mr Davis generally is a man of his word when it comes to these types of things. We are, as I said, not opposing the motion, because we have always acknowledged that the fix is warranted, and we want to facilitate that. It is the unintended consequences that have always been a concern of mine. I have watched each week how this sessional order developed. I still think it would be a good opportunity for the Procedure Committee to touch on it as well as perhaps another avenue – I am going to get an adjournment outcome at some point in time, before the end of this session hopefully.

I do put on record that the government is always willing to work with non-government members on the proper operation of the chamber. I would prefer if we could have a more comprehensive and proper engagement with topics rather than rushed changes to rules. I do note that I think that the opposition consulted with a lot of the crossbench well in advance of the government. In these types of things I find that you do not need to put a political overlay on the procedures of the house. I think we all benefit when it operates smoothly. As I said last week, 12 or so hours was not really long enough for me to delve into it, but I do invite any suggestions on procedural matters to come to me in advance. I would appreciate it; I actually like this stuff. Ms Terpstra likes this stuff. If you have got ideas, we are always happy to talk about them. Whether it is through the Procedure Committee or otherwise, we welcome conversations on ensuring that the house operates at its optimum.

Sarah MANSFIELD (Western Victoria) (11:08): I will only speak briefly on this. We will be supporting this motion. I thank Mr Davis for bringing it to the chamber. Obviously when the original motion around these short-form documents spots was drafted, we did not anticipate that government members may have a desire to request documents from their own government, so I am glad to see that has been corrected now. We have made it clear that Wednesday is non-government business day, and it is the day where we on the crossbench and in opposition are able to use this chamber for the things that we believe are important. I would also just like to reiterate that, as I have made clear on many occasions, we are very open to suggestions from the Procedure Committee. We believe that the change that has been made around sessional orders and ensuring that the third spot gets to a vote is a reasonable one, but we are very open to suggestions about other ways we could achieve that.

If the Procedure Committee wants to review how this change is going and come back with other suggestions, including the need for, potentially, consideration of a meal break – if we are having a big day like today could end up being, given the government may want to use their hour of government business time at the end of the day – we are very open to considering that. We are also open to discussions around things like adjournments and other matters where we want to review the timing, the number. I cannot say we will necessarily agree with all of them, but we are very open to a discussion about that. That offer stands. I do not think there is anything stopping the Procedure Committee from looking at this recent sessional orders change. I understand – we do not necessarily disagree – that in an ideal world that would have happened prior to the change, but I also do not think there is anything particularly problematic with the Procedure Committee undertaking that review very soon – having a look at it, coming back with some suggestions. We are really open to a discussion. But for today we will be supporting this motion put forward by Mr Davis, and we thank him for bringing it.

Sonja TERPSTRA (North-Eastern Metropolitan) (11:10): I rise to make a contribution on Mr Davis’s motion in regard to the short-form documents motions. We visited this matter last week, but we need to come back to it this week because there was a bit of a stuff-up. I think everyone in the chamber has acknowledged that this is about fixing the loophole, as Mr Davis called it, which he created. I am also glad to hear Dr Mansfield, on behalf of the Greens, say that they do not oppose the Procedure Committee reviewing this matter. As the Leader of the Government said earlier, what we have been saying all along is that the appropriate place for this matter to be considered is in fact the Procedure Committee, because obviously more minds are better than one and that would have provided a good opportunity for people from all sides of the chamber to contribute. I do note, though, that the Greens are not represented on the Procedure Committee; both the Leader of the Government and I are. It would be a good idea for perhaps some of the other crossies to come along, particularly the Greens, and to be on the Procedure Committee, because I think what the Leader of the Government said earlier is absolutely right.

I do not think it is appropriate, when we talk about an order that is going to impact the running of the house, that we fail to consider the very people who help keep this house running, and that is the clerks, the security people, the Hansard people and all the rest of it. I pointed that out in my contribution last week, but it fell on deaf ears and the change was rammed through this chamber. It leads to the other point on this, which is that I want to know what deals were done between the Liberals and the Greens to get this through. There was clearly a deal. What was done in exchange for that deal? There was a political overlay put on it. It seems silly. Winning at all costs for the sake of getting a deal done and getting a win on something like this is kind of nonsense when really we have all got an interest in seeing the effective and efficient running of this chamber and making sure that there are no unintended consequences experienced by people who are not elected to this chamber but certainly are integral and very important to the running of the chamber.

I note the Leader of the Government talked about Mr Davis being a man of his word. Talk is cheap, quite frankly. I like to see actions. I think actions speak louder than words. I have also had the benefit of serving on committees with many Liberal members, crossbenchers and the like, and I have seen some of these sorts of stunts undertaken on committees as well, where it is just about getting a win and defeating the government for the sake of getting a stupid win. It is really petty and just ridiculous, quite frankly, when what we need to see is more bipartisanship on things like committees. We also need to see bipartisanship on things like sessional orders, because we are all impacted by them.

I have never had a member of the public come up to me and say, ‘I’m voting for you because you’ve done 10 all-nighters this session.’ It is nonsense. It does not happen. But it is like some kind of weird marathon that people like to wear as a badge of honour and thump their chest and go, ‘Wow, we had an all-nighter and we really held the government’s feet to the fire.’ What a load of utter garbage. The sort of debate that we are having now around this sessional order is again reflective of a kind of bravado that people like to carry on with. It is very macho, like, ‘Wow, we beat the government.’ No-one cares. We have said before that we could light ourselves on fire in here and no-one would care. But the thing is we have got to consider the impact that this has on other people.

The bottom line is we are not opposing this motion and we are not going to call a division, but because there has been a deal done I would like there to be some transparency and to have the Liberals or the Greens disclose what they got in exchange for supporting Mr Davis’s motion, because they did.

Evan Mulholland interjected.

Sonja TERPSTRA: No, no, no. The Liberals do deals with the Greens on all manner of things, and this is the point: they do not like it when that gets exposed. I can say this: the best disinfectant is sunlight, but those opposite do not like sunlight. They want to operate in the shadows all the time and then just come in and gazump the government and go, ‘Look at us. Aren’t we amazing.’ It is not appropriate. We have seen it with other changes to other things. On short-form documents motions the government gets gagged because we are not allowed to speak. Again on the sessional orders, we tried to tell you last week – God forbid that you ever actually get a chance to be in charge of things, because it would be rather shambolic – because we are back here today actually fixing the sessional order that Mr Davis stuffed up last week.

I would like to see things like the Procedure Committee actually do its work and be able to be in a position to have proper, thorough, considered analysis of any change to the sessional orders. I note the Leader of the Government talked about wanting to change the length of adjournments. I note there was an email put out by Parliament staff this week talking about the fact that even on constituency questions some of them are missing the mark because they think, ‘Well, I’ve just got to fill up time and make sure I keep ministers’ offices busy rather than actually putting forward constituency questions that are serious and are something that people care about.’ Some of them are missing the mark. I actually appreciate the Parliament staff pointing that out to us – not just to Liberals, but to all of us. We all got that email saying that if you are going to do a constituency question, there are things that it needs to comply with. I appreciate that guidance and advice, and had this gone to the Procedure Committee, we also would have been guided by the clerks in that regard. These things could have been pointed out to us all and we would have avoided the embarrassing display which was last week and this week.

Labor members put on the notice paper our short-form documents motions that we wanted to debate, but in a show of good faith we have withdrawn all of those because we want to get a fix on this. We are always willing to work with those opposite and the Greens, but you just want to weaponise everything because you think you are in opposition and you want to try and get a small win and go, ‘Wow, look at us, aren’t we special?’ It kind of falls flat and no-one cares about it. In the community no-one cares about that. What they want us to do is to be in here having serious debates about matters that are important to them, legislation that actually helps people with their lives.

As I said, the government opposes this motion, but we are not going to call a division on it. I just think that all of the points that were made last week in regard to this motion should have been heeded by Mr Davis, and to be quite frank, he has been here long enough to know better. It was just a really disappointing display of poor behaviour from those opposite. I could go on and on and talk about the poor record of those opposite.

Tom McIntosh interjected.

Sonja TERPSTRA: Absolutely, I could talk about how many documents motions they have opposed and how many documents they never released. I could go on and on and on about FOI access, because the record of those opposite is actually terrible, really ordinary.

But what we do over here every time there is a short-form documents motion is that we do not oppose it. We go, ‘Yes, sure, put it through.’ We do not oppose them. The departments who are the subjects of these things always do their very good work – again, hardworking public servants who are charged with analysing –

Evan Mulholland interjected.

Sonja TERPSTRA: We can talk about Jeff Kennett if you like and his legacy, Mr Mulholland. If I can take up that interjection, how many schools did you close? How many thousands of teachers did you sack on your watch? We can absolutely bring it all out. But the point is: you tie up government departments, who are funded to do important work on behalf of Victorians, and you tie them up with these pointless documents motions. I really would like to go back through the record and see all of the documents motions that this government has not opposed and all of the documents that have been released to those opposite and check whether they have actually come back in here and talked about any of the documents that they have got and read them or used them in any meaningful way, because I can tell you they have not.

Evan Mulholland interjected.

Sonja TERPSTRA: Exactly. I cannot wait to talk about the SRL business case more, because Mr Mulholland now acknowledges that it actually exists, which is fantastic. He has read it now. Now that it has been tabled in the Parliament as well, I cannot wait to actually talk about that so much and tell people in my region about how much those opposite actually oppose the Suburban Rail Loop. It is fantastic, because I know so many kids in my region want to catch a train to university. But again, those opposite do not care about kids in my region. All they want to do is come in here and stuff up our sessional orders. That is what they want to do, Mr Galea. They just want to come in here and stuff up our sessional orders.

I could talk about this government’s record of bipartisanship, when we have tried to offer advice – and considered advice – to those opposite, and particularly about Mr Davis last week, how this was going to end in tears, and it did. Here we are having to spend more time on this fixing it up today. I am not as optimistic as perhaps the Leader of the Government is. I am going to wait and watch with great interest, because actions speak louder than words. I will guarantee you, I will lay London to a brick, Mr McIntosh, that we will have some kind of stunt or scam about something else next week, because that is how they roll. I will conclude my contribution there.

Michael GALEA (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (11:20): I think to begin my remarks today I would like to quote from a very similar debate we had last week in this place about sessional orders, when Mr McIntosh opened his contribution by saying, ‘Well, well, well.’

Tom McIntosh interjected.

Michael GALEA: Indeed, here we are again. Well, well, well, who could have predicted that we could be here again? Certainly not Mr Davis after all the Labor members who spoke last week told him how ridiculous it was to be amending sessional orders on the fly like he did. The very fact is that last week he was attempting to fix his previous mistakes in rushed, on-the-fly sessional orders. He came in last week with yet another rushed, on-the-fly, slapdash – as he is prone to – sessional orders change. He had only given the government 2 minutes before this coming up in the general business meeting, so who knows how many drafts he had. We saw all sorts of different versions of it. Who knows what was going on in that Liberal room that week. Again I am sure they were probably more focused on each other’s backs and whatever knives were in them than on whatever sessional orders they were doing. But here we go again. Labor members warned them. Labor members consistently said, ‘Don’t do this on the fly. You will most likely cock it up again.’ And what happened? He cocked it up again. We saw in fact every non-government member of this place vote for a motion that actually took the short-form documents motions out of general business. We know that non-government members are, rightfully, very protective of their general business day, so it is staggering that they would consciously choose to move those short-form documents motions out of general business into a different session.

As the Treasurer outlined in her contribution, yes, we took the time to look at it, and we discovered that once again Mr Davis had cocked it up. This is exactly the sort of thing that would have been avoided had it gone to the Procedure Committee in the first place, which was exactly what we were saying. There is no point in changing a sessional order and then saying, ‘Oh, but Procedure can look at it later.’ You do the work properly first, and then you allow for these issues to come up. You allow for them to be resolved, and then you put them forward. But that is not how Mr Davis does it, and as he is the Leader of the Opposition in this place, that is very worrying indeed. We have seen how slapdash he has been in the past with more serious things even. We saw it when he could not even provide any of his election costings when he was Shadow Treasurer. When he was at a press conference to give out his election costings, he did not have them. And now we have the third time this term, the second time in two sitting weeks, that Mr Davis has come into this place to use –

A member interjected.

Michael GALEA: They have the time. They can use it as they wish; it is completely their prerogative. Three hours in the past couple of weeks to discuss sessional orders – that tells you where the priorities of the Victorian Liberal Party are. Three hours to debate sessional orders. First it was 90 minutes because he decided to do a last-minute rush job and fix his previous cock-up. The second time was this week, because despite all advice from this side of the chamber, he mucked it up again. He mucked it up again because he did not go through the proper process. So now we have another 90 minutes of time today in general business, which the Liberals claim to hold so precious, but this is what he is doing with it. Three hours. It is quite extraordinary.

Even though government members were the only ones in this place to vote against this change giving government members the right to put through short-form documents motions, we did have the situation where the rest of the chamber voted against us. They gave us that option, so we exercised that option. We are not here to run around and play stupid games and disrupt the business of this house, and I note the considerable work of Mr Tarlamis as our whip and many others who have worked very hard to resolve the issue, but frankly, it was done to make the point that if you are going to muck around with these things, if you are going to cock it up once again, that comes with consequences. Votes in this place – it is a relatively minor thing, obviously; we are talking about sessional orders – have consequences. So do not come back and complain that you do not get to put a short-form documents motion in if you have voted specifically to allow government members to do short-form documents motions. As I say, we do not have any interest in needlessly putting our own motions in to the government for our own documents, but it was worth noting that point. Having withdrawn all government short-form documents motions this week we did of course, as has just recently happened within the last hour, see two further short-form documents motions raised and discussed and indeed put through that were raised by non-government members.

But really, what an absolute signal to the Victorian community that this is what your focus is. This has been the number one item on the Liberals general business slot for two weeks running – 3 hours. For all the things that you could be raising and discussing, clearly this is what you care about, and that is quite a remarkable thing indeed. Whilst this side of the house brings in bills and motions that affect ordinary people, while we are working to improve their lives, their communities, their infrastructure and their services, they are the priorities that you bring into this place. What it also signifies is that they cannot even be trusted. If you cannot even get a sessional order right, if you cannot go through the proper process and you have got to insist that you are fine to do it all yourself and then you muck it up not once, but twice, and then you have to come in and fix it again, what does that say about how you are going to write legislation? This is the alternative government of the state. What sorts of gaps and errors will they put in legislation if Mr Davis is in charge of writing some bills? It is, frankly, very, very telling and very concerning.

Mr Davis last week told us in his closing remarks four times that this was a sensible change he was bringing in – four times he said this was sensible. What on earth is sensible about coming in, mucking it up and having to then spend another 90 minutes the following week fixing up your own mistake? What on earth is sensible about that? That is maybe what is sensible to Mr Davis. Perhaps he is taking the Belle Gibson approach to sensibility. Maybe he is the Belle Gibson of the Victorian Parliament. Whatever he says is the fount of wisdom and truth, and that is very sensible and that is very fine and no need to question that. Perhaps that is the approach he is taking today – the Apple Cider Vinegar approach. But how else can you explain it? What is in any way sensible about coming in and spending 3 hours of time over two weeks to continually have to fix up your previous mistakes, when we have told you on this side of the house: do it properly; go to procedures. We will do whatever we can, as the Treasurer said; we can do whatever we can to accommodate in the meantime. We will then even debate it on government business once it comes back from the Procedure Committee, so it does not have to be used in one of these slots. But no – he knows best and here we are; we have the sensible outcome today apparently of spending even more time debating Mr Davis’s cock-ups.

Clearly his own colleagues are dreadfully embarrassed by it. No-one else has spoken from the Liberal side on this motion and no-one on the Nats side – I am sure they are bewildered as well – not Mr McCracken, who was in the chamber before, not Mr Mulholland – I hope you will give a contribution on this, Mr Mulholland – and not Dr Heath.

Tom McIntosh interjected.

Michael GALEA: I think he might be gearing up, Mr McIntosh. I hope he is.

Tom McIntosh interjected.

Michael GALEA: He has got a wry smile indeed. Maybe we will hear Mr Mulholland somehow finding a way to defend the ineptitude of the situation that we find ourselves in, which his leader has put us into. Maybe he will come and defend that, but if not, then perhaps none of Mr Davis’s own colleagues will support him, and maybe once again that knife-sharpening machine will be revved up in light of this repeated litany of cock-ups that we have seen, the repeated litany of absolute failures on the part of Mr Davis to even get a sessional orders change correct.

Mr Davis himself does have a terrific way with words, as Minister Symes outlined, and the ability to stand up po-faced and push through as if this was a perfectly sensible, reasonable thing again today – although I do note he could not even talk for longer than 4 minutes, which is as we know very, very unusual for Mr Davis, very unusual indeed. So they know that they have mucked this up. In the scheme of things that we do debate in this chamber it may be a trivial thing, but clearly we have an opposition that is focused on trivial things, and they cannot even get them right. And if you cannot get a sessional order right, how on earth are you expected to legislate on behalf of the people of Victoria?

They have cowed in embarrassment. Mr Davis is not even in the chamber, and the very small number of Liberal members who are here clearly have no willingness to speak up in defence of this outrageously ridiculous situation. Again, if we were to see Mr Davis continue in his role, and Heaven forfend if he were to have that chance to actually legislate for Victorians, well, goodness gracious – apple cider vinegar for everyone.

Evan MULHOLLAND (Northern Metropolitan) (11:30): I rise to speak on my good friend and colleague Mr Davis’s motion on sessional orders, and I find the comments quite ironic –

Sonja Terpstra interjected.

Evan MULHOLLAND: Ms Terpstra is going. Ms Terpstra spoke about more bipartisanship on committees, but I could not help but notice the Economy and Infrastructure Committee’s local government services inquiry report, where her voting record was not even partisan with her own Labor colleagues – several votes against Labor colleagues.

Enver Erdogan: On a point of order, President, on relevance here, we are talking specifically about a procedural motion about the sessional orders, and I think Mr Mulholland has really drifted off.

The PRESIDENT: Sorry, I just got into the chair, and I actually missed a bit of the contribution, so I will ask the member to continue.

Evan MULHOLLAND: I am happy to, but Ms Terpstra was allowed to talk about committees, and I was talking about a committee in general where there was a lack of bipartisanship. I was simply pointing out the fact that given the member said there needs to be more bipartisanship on committees, the record does not show that.

Ms Terpstra also raised interesting points about deals with the Greens and what the Liberals might have got or what the Greens might have got, back and forth about a deal with the Greens. We do not operate like the Labor Party; we do not make a deal with the crossbench on one piece of legislation that results in a completely different change to another piece legislation. The government does a deal to get the Greens votes on one piece of legislation, then all of a sudden in their short-stay accommodation bill we see a whole bunch of nasties giving massive powers to local governments at the Greens’ behest, which they claim as a win in negotiations with the government. We do not operate like the Labor Party.

Ms Terpstra was talking about public servants and public servants having to deal with these document motions and what a good job they do; I assume because of the Silver review led by the Treasurer there might be less of them, so that is obviously a concern. They still go on about Jeff Kennett; they still have nightmares about someone who was Premier a few decades ago and still try to claim a bogeyman on that side on someone the electorate does not really know.

We saw many discussions about sessional order changes on that side of the house, and we saw the government still banging on about 3-minute adjournments, but I actually find 3-minute adjournments quite useful; they are quite useful in explaining in depth, in detail, different issues. For example, my adjournment from last week, where I talked about Donnybrook Road once again, which I speak about every week, has been viewed by over 10,000 people in my community and Mr Erdogan’s community. I think they are quite useful in being able to explain, in a longer form, tricky issues in your electorate, so I think it would be a retrograde step for this chamber and this Parliament to limit that time that members get to seek the action of a minister. I have still got an outstanding adjournment to the Minister for Roads and Road Safety and the Minister for Transport Infrastructure to actually come out and join me on Donnybrook Road in peak hour – maybe Mr Erdogan can join me as well – just to see for themselves. I might not have been able to make that request had the adjournment been a minute shorter.

Mr Galea spoke about a whole bunch of things that are not relevant to this motion. He said that we were more focused on each other, but I would say that the government is more focused on who is going to be the next leader and who is going to be the next Premier. Mr Galea also said that we do not know what we are voting on, but Mr Galea’s friend Mr Carroll does not know what his department is doing, whether it is ankle bracelets or whether it is the VCE exam debacle. It is always the bureaucrats, and never the minister, that know what his department is doing. The gall of Mr Carroll’s friend saying that we do not know what we are voting on when the minister does not know what is going on in his department is quite shocking.

Michael Galea: On a point of order, President, I do not think I specifically said that those opposite did not know what they were voting on. The fact that Mr Mulholland is admitting that is quite extraordinary. I said that they should have known what they were voting on.

The PRESIDENT: There is no point of order. Mr Mulholland to continue on. It is a bit noisy, so if he can continue without too much help, that would be great.

Evan MULHOLLAND: Getting to the point of this motion and documents motions, which we have spoken about – making documents motions available for the non-government members in this place – I do read the documents motions that come back, many of which are heavily redacted and have privilege claimed over them, which we have spoken about quite a bit.

There are issues with both the secrecy of this government and the way the government uses the institutions it has available to silence Victorians. We saw that with over 7000 non-disclosure agreements given out on the North East Link. Even community sporting clubs around the Suburban Rail Loop were made to sign gag orders to not criticise the government or the SRL, which forced them to invite Labor MPs to all their events. This is the kind of process in democracy which I think is unacceptable.

Documents motions are a useful way to increase transparency and increase integrity in Victoria. The government tried to invade non-government business day with their own motions. All but one were already available. You had this strange display from the other side, trying to seek documents which were readily available either from the table office or just by googling them, but that is what they decided to do.

We are quite concerned about the lack of transparency under this government, particularly around what is going on at the North East Link at the moment, not that any of the 7000 people around the North East Link could even talk about it. Ms Terpstra should have come to our North East Link forum, which 400 people attended. We did ask the Minister for Transport Infrastructure to send a government representative. She clearly did not want Ms Terpstra going – a point she has complained about. I would agree that the minister should have sent Ms Terpstra. I will finish my contribution there. I am glad the Labor Party is not opposing this sensible change.

Tom McINTOSH (Eastern Victoria) (11:39): Well, well, well, here we are again – I will say it again. I will acknowledge Mr Mulholland. He has got more front than Myers. None of his colleagues were willing to stand up on this motion. They are hiding away in their offices, embarrassed and ashamed of what their side has done to see themselves here again today, so at least Mr Mulholland stood up, and in fact he stood up and spoke for longer than Mr Davis, the lead speaker. I would have thought Mr Davis could speak a bit longer because he already had the speaking notes for this prepared for him by his staff last sitting week when we were here. I do not know about anyone else this morning, but when my clock radio went off and I Got You Babe by Sonny and Cher was playing, I thought, ‘Oh, my God, I am in Groundhog Day – we are here again; we are doing it all again.’ Unfortunately, I did not keep my notes from last time. I could have referred to them again, but here we are again. Mr Mulholland, I will give it to you, you stood up, then you fronted up, so well done. Mr Davis, I just want to pick up on some incredible quotes – ‘a loophole’ that has got us here. It is a wormhole that has got us here, that has opened up and taken us two weeks back in time. Absolutely incredible, Mr Davis.

While Victorians want us to be talking about the cost of living, while Victorians want us to be talking about things that impact on them, it is the chaos within the Liberal Party, the chaos that has led to Mr Davis being back in charge of the opposition in this place, that has seen this come about. I really would have thought Mr Davis would know better – someone who talks about tradition, someone who talks about respecting this place, someone who talks about proper process, someone who has been here for far longer than I. I would have thought that he would have seen fit to go and take this to an appropriate committee.

Enver Erdogan interjected.

Tom McINTOSH: Proper consultation. There has been a lot of conversation on that side about consultation, and this was rammed through. To borrow some of Mr Davis’s language – the sort of language he uses when he does not actually have facts or figures or stats to back it up – the shadowy, dark murkiness that led us to this place where this motion was rammed through. And here we find ourselves now.

We know Mr Davis has an aversion to doing the hard work. We saw that before the 2022 election. When he was Shadow Treasurer and was asked about costings for his party’s policies, he could not come up with them. He did not have the attention to detail. It is further proof, yet again, that the Liberals are not fit for government. I think one of my colleagues, Mr Galea, may have said before: if they cannot even get this right, the simplest of simple things, how on earth do they think that they are fit for government? I can understand that through their revolving door of leaders and the chaos they have come out of over the Christmas break –

Renee Heath: On a point of order, President, a point of order was just called before on relevance. This is just a disgusting waste of our time, and I ask you to bring the member back to the motion.

Tom McIntosh interjected.

The PRESIDENT: Mr McIntosh, I have heard the point of order. Since I have been sitting here, I think that all sides of the chamber have taken a fair bit of liberty on this particular motion, but I will call people back to the motion.

Tom McINTOSH: I do agree with Dr Heath. This is a disgusting waste of time which has been brought to this place by David Davis and the Liberals, wasting all of our time when we could be discussing things that are absolutely important to Victorians.

I will just finish up on the point I was making. I think Mr Davis and the Liberals are distracted because of their revolving door of leaders over the summer. This would not have happened under Ms Crozier’s watch. This would not have happened under her watch. Mr Davis clawed into his new role on the fly – Fly Davis. We warned him that this would happen, and here we are. Like many of the questions that come up in question time that are lacking in detail, that are lacking in facts or figures, this is the same thing we have seen from the Liberals, we have seen from Mr Davis, since he has come into his new role. I imagine the Liberals – I imagine all of us – hope that the Liberals can get their act together and get something as simple as a motion such as this together.

On this side, we want to be using our time in government to be talking about the things that matter to Victorians, things like kindergartens – three- and four-year-old free kinder so we can get our kids in with other kids for 15 hours, 30 hours, get them educated earlier, get that best start to a best life. In new buildings – I spoke before in my members statement about a new kinder I just opened last week in Tootgarook and visiting one that we opened last year in Korumburra. In primary schools they are saving parents from doing the double drop-off, so parents can get back to work. Then our kids get familiar with the surroundings and they go into the primary schools – primary schools that we are investing in, teachers that we are investing in, so these kids can come through academically and emotionally. Then they come out and go into a TAFE – a TAFE that we have invested in with staff that we have invested in to ensure that then they can go into jobs, jobs that we have supported in an economy where there are jobs. Low unemployment in this state – these are the things that Victorians care about, not a procedural motion that Mr Davis might put up and might have three goes at.

I will tell you what Victorians care about: they care about health services, they care about the hospitals we are building right across this state and they care about ensuring that nurses are paid properly and ensuring that our ambos are paid properly. These are the things that matter to Victorians, not a motion like this. It is about ensuring that we have the housing for Victorians, that they get that education, they have got the health care, they have got the pipeline and the pathway into jobs and the pipeline of jobs to work in, and then houses that are near loved ones, near families and where, if they want to do so, they can raise a family, something Mr Mulholland used to stand up and talk about. Now that he is in a straightjacket we do not hear that. Mr Mulholland, I do want to, just to make sure –

Evan Mulholland interjected.

Tom McINTOSH: I am sorry, Mr Mulholland, your reaction just got me there. I do want to come back to the debate, as it is fit and proper to do so – this disgusting waste of time, as Dr Heath pointed out. Mr Mulholland talked about Mr Kennett. Mr Mulholland raised Mr Kennett. The nightmare of Kennett, Mr Mulholland talked about, and that nightmare is etched into people’s minds. With all these things I just talked about – when you talk about schools, when you talk about TAFE, when you talk about transport – it is etched into people’s minds, that nightmare of services being cut, jobs being cut, train lines being shut down and ripped out. The hospitals that were either privatised or closed down – people remember. Thank you, Mr Mulholland, for raising the Kennett nightmare, because people remember.

Evan Mulholland interjected.

Tom McINTOSH: We know if there is an Edward Scissorhands 2 you will be casting yourself in the lead role, because cut, cut, cut is all you would do if you had your hands on the levers of government.

There is a motion coming up on electrification that Mr Davis is going to raise. I will be really interested to see what he is going to say there, because we know he has got no attention to detail, as with the Liberals. They have no values that underpin anything that can give them some substance to inform policies. Mr Davis has come back into the chamber – it is good he is here. The Liberal Party have nothing other than a hands-off-the-wheel approach to government. They do not want to do anything that delivers for Victorians, and this is why they are unable to come to this place with rational, sensible debate, with some policies that bring something to the table. They do not bring anything to the table. They sit there and say no, no, no – the noalition. This is why we end up in a place where for consecutive weeks we are having a debate on this procedural motion that we should not even be talking about. We should be talking about things that really matter to Victorians. It is a disgrace, Dr Heath. We should be talking about things that matter to Victorians.

I am proud to be part of a government that has shared values – a collegial group – that we use to get our policies together, because they are instilled out of values that we believe in, values that will improve the lives of every single Victorian. Livability, affordability – we want that for people, and that is why we come to this place with things that matter to people. I really, really, really hope next wacky Wednesday I do not hear my alarm go off, I do not hear Sonny and Cher, because I do not know if we can do this for a third time. Mr Mulholland, I know you do not want to be here for a third time. It was very gutsy of you to stand up and try and cover Mr Davis’s tracks. He has come back in. I have run out of time.

Ryan BATCHELOR (Southern Metropolitan) (11:49): Where do I begin? Probably with the continued exhortations coming from the backbench of the Liberal Party about what an absolute waste of time this motion is. I think probably the cat was belled just minutes ago when we had an interjection from Dr Heath, who raised a point of order about the waste of time that this motion is. Mr McIntosh talked about groundhog day, because that is what it feels like. Two weeks ago the first general business slot on Wednesday was devoted to a motion that was the most critical thing to the Liberal Party in this chamber. On a day when they got to set the agenda two weeks ago, they said the most critical thing that we should be talking about, first thing on a Wednesday, were the sessional orders. Not about Victorians, not about the issues that matter to Victorians – all about them.

Two full weeks later, one sitting week later, here we are back again, and what are we talking about? The sessional orders. The day when they get to decide what the most important issue facing Victorians is, we are debating further changes to the sessional orders to fix a mistake made by the last change they made to the sessional orders, which we had to debate to fix a mistake they made in the change to the sessional orders that they moved in November 2023. I agree with Dr Heath that this motion is a waste of time. She also said that we are going to try to get to something serious soon, by way of interjection. She said we are going to try to get to something serious soon.

Michael Galea interjected.

Ryan BATCHELOR: Why not start with that indeed, Mr Galea? Why not change the priorities the Liberal Party presents to this chamber and talk about other issues – more serious issues, in the words of Dr Heath – and get on with the debate? But we cannot, because we are in the unfortunate set of circumstances where the new leadership of the Liberal Party have decided to operate by thinking they know best and deciding on courses of action about the way this place operates without consultation, without engagement, without going through the proper processes of, for example, taking proposed changes to the sessional orders to the Procedure Committee. That would be the way that you would do it in an ordered and sensible way, but no, no, no. The new leadership of the Liberal Party have decided that they know best, that they know the right way to do things and they do not need to talk with anyone else. Their way is the right way. But it was the wrong way, because they got it wrong. They did not just get it wrong once, they got it wrong twice, because this is the third time that we have debated motions on changes to the sessional orders in this Parliament instigated by Mr Davis, and every time we have had to clean up the mess that they have left before.

In 600-something-odd days they are going to be making a case to the people of Victoria that they are capable of governing this state. What I think this episode demonstrates is that they are incapable of governing themselves, they are incapable of governing this chamber and they have got no chance of governing this state. If the people of Victoria were watching the unedifying spectacle about changes to the sessional orders, listening to the contributions that are being made in the course of this debate, I think they would be appalled at the priorities that have been presented by the new leadership of the Liberal Party as to what matters most to Victorians, because that is what this entire episode is all about. That is what the waste of time that Dr Heath is lamenting is all about. That is why we think if you want to go through a process of trying to change the sessional orders, the best way to do it is to have a conversation with everyone in the chamber, take it to the Procedure Committee, work it through, get agreement and bring it in.

We spent 90 minutes the first time, we spent 90 minutes the second time, and we are now into our fourth and fifth hour of debate in this parliamentary session on the sessional orders. Why? Because the Liberal Party’s strategy is to talk about themselves first and foremost. They are not interested in prioritising debates about the cost of living. They are not interested in prioritising debates about housing, about our plans to build more homes to give more Victorians the opportunity to live in the communities that they want to live in.

They do not want to bring a debate to this chamber about education, because they do not want to have a discussion about the $35 billion of additional investment that this government has made to education since being elected. They do not want to have a debate about the remarkable funding agreement that this state Labor government has signed with the federal Labor government to, for the first time, fully fund public schools in Victoria, the largest single investment in public education made by the Commonwealth ever, made by the Albanese Labor government in partnership with the Allan Labor government here in Victoria. They do not want to talk about that. They have not brought a motion to this chamber to debate school funding. They do not want to talk about the record investment that we as a Labor government are making in Victoria’s public schools. In the last five years one half of all of the new government schools opened in this state were built right here in Victoria.

There is no motion being brought to the chamber to debate that, because they do not want to have a debate about the measures that the Allan Labor government is taking to deliver cost-of-living relief to Victorian households – the $400 school saving bonus, free registration for apprentices, free TAFE, free kinder, free dental check-ups, free glasses at schools and the school breakfast club program. They are not interested in a debate about the cost-of-living support that the Allan Labor government is providing to Victorians. They are not interested in a debate about our plans to make sure that young Victorians can buy a home in the suburbs that their families live in, in the suburbs that they grew up in. They are not interested in a debate about that. They are not interested in a debate about our education system. They are not interested in a debate about the additional investments we are making in education. They are not interested in a debate about the new way that we are teaching Victorian kids how to read and write. Because if they were interested in any of those topics – what the interjections from the backbench of the Liberal Party might describe as the more serious topics that they would prefer to be debating and not, as the Liberal backbench has decried the motion today, a waste of time – then we would want to be talking about those things.

Renee Heath: On a point of order, President, the member is verballing me, and I would ask you to bring him back to the motion.

The PRESIDENT: There is no point of order, but I will call the member back to the motion.

Ryan BATCHELOR: The Liberal Party made a decision in their strategy and tactics that the first thing they wanted to talk about today was the mistake they made about the sessional orders in the last sitting week. Mr Davis said that it was just a loophole, and the last time we were here he said that this would never happen. But it has and we are here. You cannot believe a word they say. This is their choice about what we are debating here today. We would much prefer to be debating matters that are relevant to Victorians, but instead we are debating the mistakes of the Liberal Party once again.

Business interrupted pursuant to sessional orders.