Wednesday, 13 August 2025

Production of documents

Production of documents

David DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan) (14:43): I will not say I am pleased, but it is my melancholy duty to rise and move motion 1028. I move:

That this house:

(1) notes the failure of the Leader of the Government to comply with 38 resolutions of the Council requiring the tabling of specified documents in the Legislative Council by particular dates;

(2) further notes that in:

(a) 21 cases no documents have been provided and no adequate excuse has been offered;

(b) 17 cases some documents have been provided but executive privilege has been claimed, and the government has failed to adhere to standing order 10.03 that allows for the adjudication by an independent arbiter to occur;

(3) further notes documents have not been provided and no adequate excuse offered for the following orders:

(a) Hydrogen Energy Supply Chain project, on the motion of Dr Mansfield on 22 March 2023 for which documents were due on 12 April 2023;

(b) Albury Wodonga Health, on the motion of Ms Lovell on 6 March 2024 for which documents were due on 27 March 2024;

(c) Victoria’s bus network plan review, on the motion of Mr Luu on 6 March 2024 for which documents were due on 27 March 2024;

(d) transition out of commercial native forest logging, on the motion of Dr Mansfield on 31 July 2024 for which documents were due on 21 August 2024;

(e) municipal population targets and activity centres, on the motion of Mr Davis on 16 October 2024 for which documents were due on 6 November 2024;

(f) road and rail bridge infrastructure, on the motion of Mrs Deeming on 30 October 2024 for which documents were due on 27 November 2024;

(g) unprotection of dingoes order in Council, on the motion of Ms Purcell on 13 November 2024 for which documents were due on 22 January 2025;

(h) land use in the Grampians and Arapiles region, on the motion of Mr Limbrick on 27 November 2024 for which documents were due on 20 January 2025;

(i) Plan Melbourne, on the motion of Mr Mulholland on 19 February 2025 for which documents were due on 12 March 2025;

(j) native bird hunting 2025 season, on the motion of Ms Purcell on 5 March 2025 for which documents were due on 2 April 2025;

(k) amendments to the Victoria Planning Provisions, on the motion of Mr Davis on 5 March 2025 for which documents were due on 26 March 2025;

(l) Suburban Rail Loop Authority, on the motion of Mr Mulholland on 19 March 2025 for which documents were due on 9 April 2025;

(m) water grid plan, on the motion of Dr Mansfield on 19 March 2025 for which documents were due on 9 April 2025;

(n) 2022 rollout of HEPA purifiers in government schools, on the motion of Mr Limbrick on 2 April 2025 for which documents were due on 30 June 2025;

(o) energy documents, on the motion of Mr Davis on 2 April 2025 for which documents were due on 23 April 2025;

(p) briefings provided to the Treasurer, on the motion of Mr Davis on 14 May 2025 for which documents were due on 4 June 2025;

(q) Upfield, Somerton and Wallan service enhancement planning feasibility study, on the motion of Ms Gray-Barberio on 14 May 2025 for which documents were due on 4 June 2025;

(r) Great Outdoors Taskforce, on the motion of Ms Purcell on 28 May 2025 for which documents were due on 9 July 2025;

(s) payroll tax for general practitioners and other health professionals, on the motion of Mr Davis on 28 May 2025 for which documents were due on 18 June 2025;

(t) planning scheme amendments, on the motion of Mr Davis on 18 June 2025 for which documents were due on 9 July 2025;

(u) early childhood education, on the motion of Ms Gray-Barberio on 18 June 2025 for which documents were due on 18 July 2025;

(4) further notes that documents have been identified, but have not been provided or have been partially provided with executive privilege claimed over certain documents that have been withheld, although the government has failed to comply with standing order 10.03 for the following orders:

(a) staff shortages in the public health system, on the motion of Ms Crozier on 8 February 2023, for which 11 documents were identified and only two documents in full and one in part were provided;

(b) Assistant Treasurer briefs on the banking and financial service contracts, on the motion of Ms Crozier on 8 March 2023, for which eight documents were identified and three documents in full and five documents in part were provided;

(c) seasonal changes to the 2023 duck hunting season, on the motion of Mr Bourman on 3 May 2023, for which 65 documents were identified and 54 documents in full and seven documents in part were provided;

(d) gas and electricity supplies, on the motion of Mr Davis on 15 November 2023, where 21 documents were identified and 12 documents provided;

(e) redevelopment of high-rise public housing sites, on the motion of Dr Ratnam on 15 November 2023, for which 158 documents were identified and only 12 documents were provided;

(f) kangaroo harvest management plan, on the motion of Ms Purcell on 29 November 2023, for which 254 were identified and 227 documents in full and three documents in part were provided;

(g) Commonwealth infrastructure review, on the motion of Mr Davis on 29 November 2023, for which 36 documents were identified and 11 documents in full and three documents in part were provided;

(h) Port of Hastings’ application for offshore wind turbine facilities, on the motion of Mr Davis on 7 February 2024, for which 37 documents were identified and 23 documents in full and two documents in part were provided;

(i) Better Regulation Victoria’s review of Victoria’s approach to illicit tobacco regulation, on the motion of Mr Limbrick on 7 February 2024, for which 139 documents were identified and 130 documents in full and one document in part were provided;

(j) medically supervised injecting room in Melbourne’s CBD, on the motion of Mr Ettershank on 21 February 2024, for which 18 documents were identified and four documents in full and three documents in part were provided;

(k) recreational native bird hunting arrangements, on the motion of Ms Purcell on 20 March 2024, for which 36 documents were identified and 21 documents were provided;

(l) 2026 Commonwealth Games bid, on the motion of Mr Limbrick on 1 May 2024, where 353 documents were identified and the government claimed executive privilege over 350 documents in full and three documents in part but failed to provide the three documents in part;

(m) ministerial advisory committee on infrastructure contributions, on the motion of Mr Davis on 15 May 2024, for which 11 documents were identified and nine documents were provided in full;

(n) government agreements with Elbit Systems and the Israeli Ministry of Defense, on the motion of Dr Mansfield on 15 May 2024, for which only one document in part was provided out of the three documents identified;

(o) amalgamations of Victoria’s health services, on the motion of Ms Crozier on 29 May 2024, for which 26 documents were identified and one document in full and one document in part were provided;

(p) funding Victoria’s health services, on the motion of Ms Crozier on 14 August 2024, for which production was due on 28 August 2024 and 83 documents were identified but none were provided;

(q) review of the Wildlife Act 1975, on the motion of Dr Mansfield on 5 March 2025, for which production was due on 2 April 2025 and two documents were identified but none were provided;

(5) 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;

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

(7) requires the Leader of the Government to table in the Council, by 12:00 noon on 26 August 2025, the documents ordered by the Council in the motions identified in paragraphs (3)(a) to (u);

(8) demands the Leader of the Government provide to the Clerk, by 12:00 noon on 26 August 2025, all documents for which executive privilege has been claimed so that these can be assessed according to standing orders and any involvement of an independent legal arbiter, to be appointed by the President, can be determined; and

(9) 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 (3) and (4) within the timeframe specified in paragraphs (7) and (8), the Council will, at the conclusion of formal business on Tuesday 26 August 2025 (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 notes that in 21 cases no documents have been provided and with no legitimate or even reasonable excuse, and in 17 cases some documents have been provided but executive privilege has been claimed and the government has failed to adhere to standing order 10.03, which allows for adjudication by an independent arbiter. That is modelled on New South Wales, as we know, where independent arbiters are routinely used. Retired Supreme Court judges, they are persons of eminence – persons who are trusted to independently and quietly, behind closed doors, look at the documents and make a fair and reasonable decision. The New South Wales Labor government and, prior to it, the New South Wales Liberal government were prepared to work with the chamber and the presence of arbiters, but this government refuses to allow the appointment of an arbiter to look at these documents. I think we should go ahead and appoint an arbiter on a speccy rate so that they would be there as required at relatively short notice. That would lower again the excuse that the government might have.

These documents are in two large tranches, and I am not going to detail them all because it is obviously a huge task. Paragraphs (3) and (4) in the motion, on pages 3 and 4 of the notice paper, lay out in great detail the dates, the source of the motion and the numbers of documents. The motion then moves on to affirm the right of the Council to require the production of documents, and that is a right that derives from 1856. The House of Commons presented to the chamber the powers of the House of Commons, in 1856, to call for people and documents, and the Bret Walker legal opinion backs that up, as does the Sydney Water case that went to the High Court from the New South Wales Legislative Council. The powers are there.

The motion requires the Leader of the Government to table in the Council by 12 noon on 26 August 2025 the documents ordered by the Council as identified in those various paragraphs. I am going to presage that Ms Lovell will move an amendment to make a later date for the provision. Some have said to us that the date is too soon, and we have listened to that. That is a fair point. We understand that the government ought to have provided those documents as time went by, one by one, item by item, but they have not.

Sonja Terpstra: Because we can’t.

David DAVIS: Of course you can.

Sonja Terpstra: Says you. How many documents motions did you actually acquit?

David DAVIS: Many.

Members interjecting.

David DAVIS: We did. All bar one actually were acquitted properly – all of them. They were. By the way, there was no sessional or standing order of this nature at the time. I was here; I know. I went through, and I was assiduous about it. In cases where we could not provide something for a very good reason, we actually communicated that to the chamber in thoughtful letters. You can go back and read them if you wish. But in this case the date can legitimately be adjusted, and we have no quibble about those points.

We are also aware that the issue of executive privilege has got to be dealt with at some point here, and I note the government has decided to move tomorrow a motion to ask the Procedure Committee to look at some of these matters. What they have not got on that list is the issue about the arbiter, and I will indicate that we intend to seek to amend the government’s points on those matters to add a number of additional items. We think that if we are looking at documents motions, we should look at it more comprehensively. I am not opposed to some of the points that the government is proposing. If the government believes that it is impossible to satisfy one particular motion, sure – communicate that back to the chamber and engage in dialogue. I am completely open on that. But in some cases, with some of these documents, it has taken years, and it might be one or two documents. Even with the most recent ones that were provided to the chamber on my motion in February 2024, the documents on Hastings and the wind facilities down there, it took until just very recently for those documents to come through, and none of those documents that I could see ought to have been cabinet in confidence. Some have been claimed –

Sonja Terpstra: Based on what expertise that you have? None.

David DAVIS: I have been a minister. I have actually been on the exact committee that looks at these things inside government. I was on the Parliament and legislative committee of the government between 2010 and 2014 that looked at exactly these points.

Sonja Terpstra: Things have changed since then.

David DAVIS: Well, there is a new standing order, for example, and the lack of transparency is extraordinary. However, I am trying to be deeply reasonable here to say we will support the referral tomorrow. We are going to seek to modify that and add one or two items. That is entirely reasonable in my humble view.

In terms of the eighth point in our motion here, this sets up an arrangement whereby the deadline is there. If the government has not provided the documents by a deadline, it will trigger a debate. We think that is important, so we will keep that in there. The question is: what should the words in the debate be? We are again open to discussion on that point. So we will adjourn this motion after about an hour’s debate, and we will have further discussion.

Michael Galea interjected.

David DAVIS: We are actually quite serious. Perhaps with Dr Mansfield’s say-so I might just put on the record one suggestion, which I think is a reasonable suggestion that has been made by some, that we could look at an alternate rather than throwing the Leader of the Government out for a day or two or three. We could look at some alternate mechanisms limiting some of the actions of the minister in the chamber until the documents are provided. We are open to that discussion, and we will have that further discussion in the coming days. So we will adjourn this when there has been sufficient debate.

Sonja Terpstra: Is that a bit of a late development there, Mr Davis?

David DAVIS: Well, no, we are actually listening to people. I do not understand why you think that is a problem.

Members interjecting.

David DAVIS: Well, I think that actually it has moved the Leader of the Government forward on some of these matters. The government has decided that they will have a discussion on this, and we have always been prepared to have a discussion. So what I would say here is I am going to pick a couple of examples.

Members interjecting.

Georgie Crozier: On a point of order, Acting President, members on the back bench are very exercised over there. They are just really, you know, cracking on.

David Davis interjected.

Georgie Crozier: They are fractious. They understand that this is an excellent motion that needs to be highlighted. I would ask you to ask them to quieten down a bit.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (John Berger): There is no point of order.

David DAVIS: I am trying to lay out a reasonable set of steps to go forward to deal with these issues. The fact is the government has not provided so many of the documents, and I am going to pick on the Commonwealth Games documents as the most obvious. Mr Limbrick and the committee requested a set of documents through the chamber. 353 documents were identified; for 350 documents executive privilege was claimed in full; then for three documents privilege was claimed in part. But do you know what? In that case, even for the three documents where they said, ‘We can give you part of it,’ they could not be bothered giving a part of those three documents to the chamber. I wonder why. And when was that? That was back in May 2024. So we are looking at these huge lengths of time. And the failure to provide documents – even if you accepted their claims about executive privilege, what about those other three? Why did they not provide them?

Sonja Terpstra: You don’t want them. This is a fishing expedition.

David DAVIS: Well, no, no, no. And the Hastings documents – I have looked at those very carefully in detail recently, and it is clear that some of the background work that has been done is not cabinet work. It is not material that has been decided on by cabinet; it is background work being done by departments. So in my humble view, an arbiter, an independent legal person or an eminent legal person would look at this and go, no, that is not a cabinet document. I would be prepared to have that tested, but the government is not prepared to have that tested. Why?

Sonja Terpstra: Put in an FOI.

David DAVIS: We may well do that. The member on the other side brings up the matter of FOI. We see in FOI the deterioration in the performance of the government, and if anyone doubts that, go and read the Office of the Victorian Information Commissioner report on their website that looks at the deterioration in FOI performance over this government’s time. That report is damning about FOI and the failure of the government to provide documents. I have quite extensive experience on FOI with this particular government. Recently we had a case that went to the Court of Appeal. The government appealed all the way to the Court of Appeal to block one document. My goodness, it would have cost tens of thousands of dollars of public money to block access to a document that ought properly to have been in the public domain. They went on seven grounds. The three judges of the Court of Appeal, the highest court in Victoria, decided 7–0, 7–0, 7–0 that the appeal should be dismissed. So you had a Supreme Court judge hear the VCAT case –

Members interjecting.

David DAVIS: You want to bring up FOI; I could go for quite a while. But my point is, at a deeper level, this is a secretive government. It is a government that is blocking access to documents, and it is doing this on a legendary scale. People should just read the pages of documents that have been blocked: page after page after page of documents blocked by a secretive government. It is trying to cover up. It is trying to cover up its mistakes, it is trying to cover up its decision-making processes and it is trying to prevent Victorians knowing what they properly ought to know.

This chamber’s job is scrutiny. This chamber’s job is to hold the government to account. That is what we are seeking to do, and that is what we will continue to seek to do. I think most of the crossbench have quite a strong view on this. They really do believe that the government ought to be more transparent and the government ought to cooperate more here. We have tried to work our way through, to find a way that we can both send a very clear signal to the government that they are doing the wrong thing here and provide a remedy for that so that there is a clear solution. But we will continue to talk to the crossbench in coming days to make sure that we find a way through on this. We will join in the Procedure Committee activity to have a discussion. We are not opposed, as I said, to engagement with the Department of Premier and Cabinet on these matters. But the government’s bad faith on these matters is absolutely clear and the government’s failure to submit material to the arbiter is absolutely clear, and the government’s motion does not deal with any of that. So we are, fairly, looking for a solution and trying to hold the government to account. That is our job on behalf of Victorians.

Sarah MANSFIELD (Western Victoria) (14:57): I rise to speak on this motion put forward by the Liberals. At the outset can I say that the Greens share the concerns highlighted in it. I think I can speak for all non-government members in this place in saying that we have some really serious concerns about how documents are handled by this place. We have been here before and we are back again, just as I predicted we would be if nothing changed or improved with respect to documents requests. I looked up Hansard to see what I have said about this before, partly because I did not want to plagiarise myself –

Members interjecting.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (John Berger): Dr Mansfield, could you just cease for a minute. Excuse me, I can hardly hear Dr Mansfield for all the side conversations going on, so either take them outside or just cease them while Dr Mansfield is speaking.

Sarah MANSFIELD: It turns out I have spoken about failure to produce documents or failure to follow the standing orders with respect to executive privilege 11 times so far this term. Back in May last year, following an identical argument to the one we are having now – the only difference being that the list of documents has grown, and at that time, it was resolved after the government committed to introducing new sessional orders – I said:

Should the government continue to ignore the will of the Parliament, should they engage in bad faith when it comes to introducing these new sessional orders, should they choose to simply ignore the sessional orders, we will have no qualms about reigniting this matter, including looking at sanctions or other levers we have as a Parliament.

Over a year on we still do not have these new sessional orders, and we continue to see the government fail to produce documents and ignore standing orders with respect to executive privilege. So it is no wonder that we are here again. Can I once again emphasise how serious this matter is and our disappointment that there has not been more progress towards improved transparency. When the Parliament resolves to make a request of the government, that should be complied with. Our whole democratic process relies on the will of the Parliament being respected. Just because one party is in government, the make-up of this Parliament means that they should not have free rein just to do as they please. Yet that is what we see all too often in this place. The Legislative Council is treated like a nuisance and ignored rather than as legitimate representatives of the Victorian community.

The government’s response to the childcare documents demonstrates perfectly the cultural problem that has developed regarding documents in Victoria. We have essentially the same standing orders as the New South Wales Parliament. An almost identical motion was passed for childcare documents here to one in New South Wales; in fact, if anything, ours was narrower in scope. The New South Wales government complied with the documents order, including appointing an independent legal arbiter to examine documents where claims of executive privilege arose. I know this matter is ongoing, but so far in Victoria, in response to our request, we are told that there are over a million documents that have been identified, and we have not seen a single one to date. Based on our experience of many other documents requests in this place, it would amaze me if executive privilege does not get claimed over most of them, if not all of them – and that is if they are ever produced at all. Unlike in New South Wales, we know that this government will not abide by the standing orders to provide the documents to the mover of the motion as required under section 10.03 of our standing orders and they will not allow for the appointment of an independent arbiter if there is a dispute over these claims, because they never have – not once – and they have said that they never intend to.

It should be noted that in recent weeks the government have indicated that they are open to discussions about addressing the issues they have highlighted around the scope and timing of documents requests. It is disappointing that it has taken this long and it has taken pressure from public scrutiny over the failure to produce the childcare documents to get some movement on resolving these issues, but we welcome the shift, and we are willing to engage in good faith to keep things moving. In particular I note and welcome the motion tabled today, intended for referral to the Procedure Committee, regarding the scope and timing of documents requests, and I sincerely hope this item is brought on as soon as possible for debate.

The government has told us that in some instances the way departments interpret our documents requests has produced a massive volume of documents that are not even necessarily what we are even seeking. We acknowledge that it is in no-one’s interest to waste time poring over thousands or even a million irrelevant emails or notes or little tidbits of information, so if a formalised process to enable sensible negotiation over the scope is required, we accept that. Likewise we understand that sometimes additional time is required to fully comply with the documents requests. Again, if we need specific sessional or standing orders to allow some flexibility here, then so be it. That said, numerous documents requests are relatively simple. Some are just a single document, including several of the ones that have been listed out today. We know they exist, and some of them are years old. They have been sitting around. They are a single document. So this argument that it is too wide a scope or it is too short a timeframe – I do not buy that that is always the critical barrier.

Further, the issues around executive privilege claims remain unresolved, as Mr Davis has highlighted, and the government have shown no indication of changing their tune on this. I am as frustrated and disappointed about this as anyone, and I share the desire to see change here. The challenge for us currently, short of threatening sanctions like the one proposed, is that we have not got a lot of other options to get the government to follow the rules. It is not a sustainable approach to continue to threaten to expel the Leader of the Government or government members in order to get documents provided, but we do not have many other alternatives if the government continues to treat this Parliament with such contempt. Some integrity and ethics experts have suggested that we stop passing bills in protest if this behaviour continues. Like many others in this place, I am here to get things done, as the Victorian public rightly expects, but these are the sorts of things we are being forced to consider when the government do not do their part and follow the rules of the Parliament. We do not want to end up there – no-one does, I do not think – but the government is not giving us much choice right now.

Of course what we ultimately want to see is these documents produced. There is a lot more at stake here than the documents themselves. The fact that there is not any way for us to force the government to follow the standing orders or that there are not any explicit penalties for failing to do so is really telling. In itself this is rooted in democratic principles. It highlights that for our democratic system to function as it is supposed to it depends on a high degree of mutual cooperation. We might all vehemently disagree on issues of policy or ideology, but for all this to work we have to agree on a set of rules about how we are going to resolve these differences and abide by those rules. Right now in this place that mutual cooperation does not exist, and it is to the detriment of this Parliament and the Victorian public. We do not accept that this is good enough, and it is time the government did better. We are willing to come to the table in the spirit of mutual cooperation. The ball is now in the government’s court.

Michael GALEA (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (15:05): Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak on the motion brought forward to us today by the melancholic Mr Davis, notice of motion 1028. I am always sad to hear that you are melancholic, Mr Davis. This place is always more entertaining when you are up and vigorous and having a good old frolic with us.

I do wish to go to a few points. This is a serious topic, but the way in which Mr Davis has approached it is anything but serious. This is perhaps one of the longest documents motions this Council has ever had before it – and I would be happy to be corrected – but Mr Davis has set a timeline of two weeks. He has said that Ms Lovell might be swooping in to fix his latest mistake, and we will see what gets tabled by Mr Davis, but this is an extraordinarily extensive laundry list of grievances which he has put forward today. I am just really staggered, Mr Davis, because the Treasurer, the Leader of the Government in the house, has been painfully clear that she is open to having reasonable conversations with you, with members of the crossbench and with all members of this chamber about resolving it. In fact, when it comes to this very issue of varying the scope, I note that the Deputy Leader of the Government in this place has a notice of motion which has been on this notice paper since May of last year, notice of motion 449, about varying the scope of these requests.

Despite that – and I am happy for you to correct me, Mr Davis – I do not think that you have once approached the Leader of the Government in the house to actually discuss this or to discuss a reasonable way forward. You have not done that. You are not interested in doing that work because, despite all the bluster you have put into this chamber today, all you are really interested in is the very last point, point (8) of this motion, and that is getting a cheap political score by trying to suspend the Leader of the Government for a few days. This is despite the fact that the Treasurer has been very forthcoming in saying that she is prepared to have a reasonable conversation with all members of this house about resolving this. I hope that we will still be able to do that, and I hope that we will be able to do so in a government motion tomorrow. But the proposal put forward today by Mr Davis does not seek to address any of that. All it seeks to do is air the same grievances without having gone to any modicum of effort to actually have a conversation.

There are many things that this chamber is valuable for debating, but as members will know, there are many productive conversations that can be had in offices to get things working and to have those conversations. The Treasurer has repeatedly offered in this chamber – I have heard it repeatedly in this chamber – for those conversations to take place. That has not happened. What we have here today is a motion that is apparently so serious that it warrants suspending a member of this place but not so serious that it warrants giving it a full 90 minutes of debate. I do not know how seriously you are taking this, Mr Davis. Clearly you are not, because you are saying you are now going to adjourn it off. Why are you adjourning it off?

David Davis interjected.

Michael GALEA: He said, ‘To have discussions.’ What a what a wonderful thing, Mr Davis, it could have been if you had done that in the first place. Maybe then you could have used this time with one of your slots –

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Gaelle Broad): I just remind members to go via the Chair.

Michael GALEA: Thank you, Acting President; you are quite right. Mr Davis could have used the slot – I do not know how it came to be in his possession anyway – that the Liberals had for debate this week for something that is in the interests of Victorians. Instead he is he is taking up this chamber’s time with something that he could very clearly have had a conversation about in any of the preceding 17 months since notice of that motion was put into this place by Minister Blandthorn. It is all the more staggering that you will not do that. You will come into this place and grandstand, with all your bluff and bluster, but you will not actually have a conversation to resolve it.

I note as well, Mr Davis, that you did make reference to parts of the constitution which refer to House of Commons practice in the United Kingdom in 1856, a part of the constitution that you and I both know well. But as you also know well –

Sonja Terpstra: You’re a nerd, Michael.

Michael GALEA: I will take that interjection, Ms Terpstra, and I will accept that. What you perhaps inadvertently – or not so inadvertently – glossed over is that the standing practices in the House of Commons in 1856, which I have had the benefit of learning as a result of being a member of this chamber, specifically state that Crown privilege is a matter to be determined by the Crown. Crown privilege of course is the former term for what we now refer to as executive privilege. That is the exact same thing that you were referring to, Mr Davis – the constitutional basis. That is why we have this conflict with the standing orders, which are in direct conflict with the constitution of this state. Yet you continue to gloss over that as if there is nothing at all to be seen there. It is a disingenuous argument, which you know all too well.

The simple fact is, when it comes to short-form documents motions – the way in which they are done and looking at variations of scope or anything else to do with them – this is something that is appropriate for the Procedure Committee to look at. In fact that is what we originally said – members of the backbench on this side of this place, and the front bench – when Mr Davis’s initial motion to introduce the short-form documents debate into general business days, on Wednesdays, first came into this place. Members on this side warned of the unforeseen outcomes and said this should go to the Procedure Committee. Mr Davis said, ‘Nothing to worry about, nothing to see here.’

What happened? Suddenly the third general business slot of the day was routinely being cut short because the short-form documents motions were taking up that time. He completely mucked it up. As a result, he then had to go back and fix it, but his fix was no fix at all because he inadvertently allowed all members of this place to lodge those short-form documents motions. He then had to take even more time – up to 3 hours of this chamber’s time – to fix his previous mistakes because he did not heed the advice to go to the Procedure Committee in the first place, like, I hate to say it, those of us on the backbench that make Ms Crozier so irate warned him about. We warned those opposite that this could lead to unexpected outcomes. And what did it do? It led to unforeseen outcomes. That is exactly why it should have gone to the Procedure Committee in the first place. It should have gone to the Procedure Committee the first time he cocked it up, it should have gone to the Procedure Committee the second time he cocked it up and it should go to the Procedure Committee now.

I am very much looking forward to the debate, which I expect we will be having tomorrow, that is based on the motion that the Leader of the Government in this place put on the notice paper this morning. As I said at the outset, this is actually an important issue and an important, serious discussion that we should be having, but it is not served in any way by the sort of bombastic lunacy that we are seeing from Mr Davis, throwing yet more excrement at the wall in order to try and get some kind of political outcome that suits his current state of mind. That is all this motion today is. Coming from a man who served in a government where more than 3200 FOI requests were completely denied, who himself, as health minister in the previous government, withheld health performance data for months and months and months on end, it is quite rich. You did have a brainwave – because you clearly mucked things up so much that you knew you were going to lose that election – that you then helped to implement this standing order, but once again you failed to account for the constitutional basis of executive privilege in this state. Again you have failed to do so; you have consistently failed to do so.

Much as I admire your valiance, Mr Davis, in finding new and creative ways to throw everything, including the kitchen sink, at this government – I do appreciate, admire and respect your vigour – once again we are not seeing the attention to detail or the accuracy live up to that. This is not even to go into the very real consideration that has been repeatedly raised by the government as to the volume of these requests. It is on a scale that has not been seen in previous parliaments, so it is unreasonable to hold those standards against us, notwithstanding the fact that even with a much lower volume, the government that Mr Davis served in struggled to meet barely half this number of requests.

There is more important work to be done and not enough time for me to go into further detail, but I very much look forward to hopefully a more productive debate tomorrow, and we will see what Mr Davis decides to do this afternoon.

Georgie CROZIER (Southern Metropolitan) (15:15): I rise to speak to Mr Davis’s motion 1028, and it is an important motion. I have just been listening to Mr Galea and the interjections from members of the government on the backbench through Mr Davis’s contribution, where he highlighted exactly what members of the opposition and other members on the crossbench are asking the government to provide. These are documents in relation to very important issues, and I want to highlight some of those that certainly I have been interested in and the government has failed to provide. I think it goes to the heart of good government and good governance in relation to what the people expect. They do expect transparency, accountability and responsibility, and they do expect a government to be truthful and to be providing information when they can do so.

Mr Galea made the point that there are pages of this motion from Mr Davis, and that is quite right, because there are just dozens of these documents that have not been provided by the government. I look at one such area I have been requesting. I know that Ms Lovell actually moved this in my name because I unfortunately had to be away in March 2024 around the Albury Wodonga Health clinical services plan and master plan. What I was asking for, or what Ms Lovell did – and she is very interested in this because it is in her region too and she is very familiar with the issues for Albury Wodonga Health – were the documents relating to the clinical service and master planning of Albury Wodonga Health Albury and Wodonga campuses in the redevelopment of the Albury hospital. It related to a number of documents. I make this point because in 2023 the New South Wales government released service planning in the 2021 master plan recommending a greenfield single-site hospital. To go to Mr Davis’s point, New South Wales do have standards that this government does not even come close to. They do release documents under their provisions, whereas this government claims executive privilege or just completely refuses to do so. As I said, we are still waiting for those documents to be released.

There are many motions in here on many issues that members from the crossbench and from the opposition have an interest in on behalf of their constituents and on behalf of the people of Victoria. They should be respected, rather than what we just heard from members of the government in their quite pathetic contributions in relation to the reasons why they do not believe this is a worthy motion for us to be debating today.

One of the things that I have asked for is about the amalgamations of Victoria’s health services on 29 May 2024. There were 26 documents that were identified, and one document in full and one document in part were provided. That just shows you the extent of what we are getting here. I note when I looked at that response that it was just ‘Executive privilege, executive privilege, executive privilege’ claimed over these. That is a very easy excuse for the government to provide to the house, but I do not think it is a valid excuse for the people of Victoria, especially those affected communities, around the documents that I am referring to about the amalgamation of health services in rural and regional areas in particular.

I think we do need to see greater transparency from government. I think this government has been shocking, like the last few governments. We know what happened in COVID. It is all now fact that decisions that we were told were based on health advice actually were not. They were provided by just the Premier and probably one or two close to him. The Victorian public were told a lie. They were told lies time and time and time again – the most shameful period in this state’s history. That is why we demand greater transparency and greater accountability, because trust must come back into good government. The trust is broken with the people when the people cannot get or have sight of what the government are planning to do or what they have in many instances demanded on the cost overruns or just the cover-ups that have gone on. We see it time and time again, and there are multiple examples in health that I could speak of. I think it is terribly important that we do have proper processes in place and that we do have a government that is willing to provide the truth and to provide information to the Victorian public through the Parliament, through this very process.

As Mr Davis said, if we need to amend the date of this, that is not a big deal. That is fine. That is up for discussion, and it is absolutely fine to be able to do that so that we can have some action from the government and so that they take notice of what we and the crossbench want to have provided. That is not a problem. The government amend bills all the time – they make mistakes and they have to bring in house amendments. That is nothing when you are looking at a date or changing a particular component of what this motion goes to. But the fact is that the number of documents that have not been provided and the excuses the government have provided I think say an enormous amount about this government. It is a government that is shrouded in secrecy. It is a government that is not transparent. It is a government that is not truthful to the Victorian public. On too many occasions they have not been truthful. If we need to bring back trust and we need to bring people with us in relation to the decisions that government are making, then it is incredibly important to have that degree of transparency and openness.

As I said, there are so many issues, whether it is the payroll tax for general practitioners and other health professionals, who I have been advocating for for information from the State Revenue Office or the Treasurer’s office, or indeed all of the other issues, or the planning provisions, an issue that is affecting many, many parts of my community in Southern Metro – and Mr Davis knows this only too well. The energy documents – we have just been discussing energy in a previous motion, but Mr Davis has got that FOI and those briefs, and they actually say that there are concerns about how people will be able to pay these increases in prices. Here you have information, but when we ask for it I think it is up to the government to provide that in a responsible way and to be accountable. But all we are seeing is deflection and, I have got to say, the most extraordinary degree of arrogance, which is quite disgraceful.

I will end my contribution there. I know that we are adjourning this off, but I hope we do not forget when we come back to this motion about the importance of this and why members should be supporting this motion so that we can get these important documents.

David ETTERSHANK (Western Metropolitan) (15:23): I am just going to make a very brief contribution, but I would first of all like to thank Mr Davis for moving this motion and I would basically commend the very erudite comments from Dr Mansfield on this question. I think she very accurately reflected and provided a perspective on the sheer frustration that is felt by many of us on the crossbench and obviously in the opposition. This is not a laughing matter. This is a contemptuous approach to the Parliament, and it is a contemptuous approach to the public of Victoria. It was noted that Mr Davis’s resolution is longer than the response we get from the government on our documents requests. That is at one level really funny, but at another level the opposite of comedy is tragedy, and it is tragic that the contributions we get from the government are so lacking in merit.

It is not just that this is a procedural question. If I could perhaps reflect on one of the documents motions, which struck to public housing – when it was put forward that we wanted documents on public housing, we got nothing. The government claimed executive privilege over the whole lot, and what we were seeking were very basic documents. Not a huge amount – we were looking for things like renovation plans, we were looking for business cases and we were looking for some basic understandings that the government had really seriously looked at this question before they announced that they were going to displace 10,000 public housing residents. The government claimed executive privilege, commercial in confidence, cabinet in confidence and released nothing. I think we might have got one document, which was heavily redacted. But I think where it starts to move from farcical into sinister is that whilst the government claimed privilege over all the documents, when this matter went before the courts, with the action carried by Inner Melbourne Community Legal centre, the government got up and said there were no business cases. So on the one hand they were claiming privilege, that they could not release it, and then when it went to court, they were saying, ‘There’s actually nothing for us to hand over. We’re not going to allow for this discovery. There are no business cases.’

I do not want to get into the realm of potential defamation, but I think it does raise questions that are deeply disturbing about who is being told the truth.

Sonja Terpstra interjected.

David ETTERSHANK: I am not selectively quoting. I am talking directly from history and am more than happy for the public to look into this, or for you, Ms Terpstra, to tell us that it is different.

Sonja Terpstra: On a point of order, Acting President, I would ask that Mr Ettershank direct his questions or comments through the Chair, and I would also ask that he stop misleading Parliament and selectively quoting from things that are factually incorrect when he refers to a court decision. When he refers to the court decision, it is incorrect for him to say what he said because the court did uphold the government’s position on executive privilege.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Gaelle Broad): On the first point of order I will just remind members, as I have this afternoon, because we have had it happen several times, to talk through the Chair. The second point of order is more just a point of debate.

David ETTERSHANK: No doubt Ms Terpstra will, if I do not talk to her, hopefully not continue to badger from the sidelines.

We have a situation where there is, it would seem, in government a collective myopia about how serious this matter is, and that really disturbs me. If the government cannot see the seriousness of this matter and how it strikes to accountability in government, I think that is really depressing.

I would like to just talk about process, in conclusion. Mr Davis has been very open and has been very good to work with on this question. Clearly we do share the same frustrations, but we did put to Mr Davis our concern that the clause (5) provision, which gave the government a very short period of time to produce an enormous amount of documents, was too short, and he amended the motion to reflect a longer window. We also indicated to Mr Davis that we felt that the proposed punishment, for want of a better word, in terms of expelling the Leader of the Government from the house, was actually not a very effective form of punishment, because I suspect that the Treasurer would be delighted to have a couple of days off to be able to get stuck into her ministerial functions, and that I suspect within Labor ranks being thrown out of the Legislative Council on a procedural matter like this is probably a badge of honour.

We actually were the people, if I may speak inclusively for Dr Mansfield and myself, that asked Mr Davis to adjourn this off. It is in the context specifically of welcoming this proposal from the government to enter into discussions around appropriate process, and we think that is a step forward. We would be keen to get into that in a positive and open-minded manner, and hopefully we can resolve these issues in, dare I say it, a grown-up manner. On that basis, whilst we commend this motion, we are happy that it is being adjourned off, and we look forward to exploring it on a good-faith basis with the government, recognising that if that is not forthcoming then we will look forward to this matter being brought back on before the house again.

Sonja TERPSTRA (North-Eastern Metropolitan) (15:30): I also rise to make a contribution on this motion in Mr Davis’s name. I was just having a look at the current standing orders and also the text provided by Mr Davis in his motion. I note that the beginning of the motion says that the government has, according to Mr Davis, failed to comply with 38 resolutions of the Council requiring the tabling of specified documents in the Legislative Council by particular dates, and it goes on to list a range of documents and the like. I think part of the reason why this is such a disappointing debate in the contributions that have been made so far by those on the opposition benches and certainly on the crossbench is that the levels of frustration that the crossbenchers are expressing are misguided. If you actually take a careful look at what the standing orders say in regard to the production of documents, which are standing orders 10.01, 10.02 and – of relevance to the government – 10.03, whilst the Council can order production of documents, it is not an absolute right. It is actually subject to 10.03, where executive privilege can be claimed. I am not sure, but I think I can guess, why there might be increasing levels of frustration. Perhaps what the crossbench fail to understand, which might actually assist them to take account of this more properly and in a more fulsome way, is that the government can claim executive privilege – whether you like it or not, that exists – and we do.

Let me tell you, the level of frivolity and just lack of understanding of government processes is really, really disappointing from the crossbench. Again there is a lack of willingness from them to actually read anything and try and understand anything, because they are not interested. What this actually tells us is that this is nothing more than a stunt, and this is why it is so disappointing. If they actually cared about what was in the documents and actually cared about the Victorian people, they would not waste finite government resources on this absolutely ridiculous fishing expedition where there are thousands and thousands and thousands of documents that public servants are required to go through to have a look at whether they actually meet the test or not. For example, the process that the government goes through is that we get legal advice. We ask departments, and the government solicitor provides the government with advice about whether executive privilege can be claimed. Again, this is not something we made up. It is in the standing orders. This chamber, the Council, can make an order, but it is subject to that right. Why the crossbench think it is an absolute right and why Mr Davis has couched this as an absolute right speaks volumes about the fact of what a stunt this is, because there has been a release of documents.

I might say that when we have actually released documents, I do not think I can recollect Mr Davis ever referring to any of those documents in this chamber, and it speaks to the fact that this is nothing more than a stunt and a fishing expedition. In order for the government to claim executive privilege, we do so based on legal advice. This requires advice from the government solicitor. It requires legal advice from the Victorian Government Solicitor’s Office to inform us about its decision in terms of claiming executive privilege. What the crossbench and those opposite would be saying is that we should not take legal advice on any of this and in fact that we do not have the right to take legal advice on any of this, where we absolutely do, so what they are doing is besmirching the Victorian Government Solicitor’s Office, who provide advice to the government. But again the crossbench members, particularly the Greens, and those on the opposition benches do not care about the rights of others, because this is a stunt. It is nothing more than a stunt.

Let me refer back to last year. On 29 May 2024 Minister Blandthorn, on behalf of the leader of this chamber, moved a motion to have this matter referred to the Procedure Committee. There was a motion on the notice paper, and since then there has not been one member who has come to try and talk about that in any serious way, or any knocks on the door to say, ‘Yes, okay, let’s talk about it.’ Our government has consistently said in this chamber that we need to have a discussion around procedure and nobody has taken that up, and the reason is because those opposite do not really care about it; it is a stunt.

I go back to Mr Davis’s motion, which talks about 38 documents motions. It is absolutely ridiculous, the volume of documents that would need to be produced. It is just impossible for any government department to actually comply with it. The resources that go into this are voluminous. What those opposite want is for government departments to be tied up for infinite periods of time, wasting finite government resources, rather than getting on with the important job of government. The whole schtick around this is ‘Government can’t be trusted, government bad.’ Well, let me tell you, no-one is actually listening to that, because what they know is that is the worst opposition in history over there. The opposition benches are a joke if this is the only thing that they have got to try and tie up government with and say we are bad because we are not complying with things. We are actually getting legal advice on this and relying on that advice.

Again, it is farcical for those opposite and the crossbench to cry foul on these particular sorts of matters, because government need to consider whether we include documents that would reveal, directly or indirectly, the deliberative processes of cabinet – the high-level confidential, deliberative processes of executive government or otherwise genuinely jeopardise necessary relationships of trust and confidence between a minister and public officials. But those opposite and the crossbench do not really care about that. Why – the crossbenchers have never been in government and never will, but those opposite have not been in government for some time. There are sensitive matters that are absolutely right to be considered and are matters of executive privilege, and we get legal advice on those and we rely on that information. These documents might also reveal information obtained by the executive government. They might reveal confidential legal advice to the executive government. It might jeopardise the public interest on an established basis, it might prejudice national security or public safety, it might prejudice law enforcement investigations or it might materially damage the state’s financial or commercial interests, such as ongoing tender processes or changes in taxation policy. It might prejudice intergovernmental and diplomatic relations or prejudice legal proceedings. But again, those opposite do not care about that, and the crossbench have no interest in that either, because this is a stunt.

I could go on, and I know I have got 2 minutes on the clock. I am not going to talk about Mr Davis and the Liberal–National record when they were in government, which was actually appalling. Our government, I note, whenever these documents motions are moved in this chamber, routinely do not oppose them, and where we can provide documents, we do. So the frame of this debate is actually wrong-footed, because the crossbench members need to understand that there is no absolute right; it is a right subject to a qualification, and it is in the standing orders. We have been saying since 29 May last year: if you really want to have a discussion about this, come and knock on the door. We said to you this should have been referred to the Procedure Committee, and you did not want to do it. So now you are about to adjourn off a motion that you said was very important, but all of a sudden you want to adjourn it off because you realise you do not have the numbers. Let us be real about that.

Members interjecting.

Sonja TERPSTRA: Despite the interjections and the rudeness of some on the crossbench down there, which just speaks volumes about the immaturity of some people on the crossbench, all I can say is that the government is entitled to rely on legal advice. It is in the standing orders: it is a right for you to request documents from the government, but it is not an absolute right; it is subject to a qualification which the government can rely on.

I will leave my contribution there. But I hope I have approached this debate in a bit more of an educated way than perhaps did Mr Ettershank, who is entirely the rudest person I have ever had the misfortune of meeting in this place.

Wendy LOVELL (Northern Victoria) (15:40): Wow. Just wow. I cannot believe the contribution –

Renee Heath: On a point of order, Acting President, I am just picking up on the language just used by Ms Terpstra in relation to another member. Now, she would know that you are allowed to reflect on a party, but you are not allowed to reflect on an individual and that was outside the standing orders.

David Ettershank: On the point of order, I would appreciate a retraction and an apology, Acting President.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Gaelle Broad): I ask Ms Terpstra to withdraw her remarks.

Sonja Terpstra: On a point of order, Acting President –

Wendy LOVELL: No, you were asked to withdraw.

Sonja Terpstra: I can raise a point of order, Ms Lovell, thank you. If you would direct your comments through the Chair. I think Mr Ettershank is entitled to ask for a withdrawal but not an apology, so I would like a clarification as to what Mr Ettershank is actually asking for.

David Ettershank: Parliamentary behaviour, Ms Terpstra.

Sonja Terpstra: I withdraw.

Wendy LOVELL: As I was saying, wow – just wow. I have never heard such a contribution in this house. This is a very serious motion. This goes to accountability, transparency and honesty in government. It goes to show just how far this government will go to cover their tracks and to not be accountable to the people of Victoria, when you hear a contribution like the one we heard before.

I am just going to talk about one particular documents motion that was in my name. As Ms Crozier said, she and I attended a forum up in Wodonga, and from that forum a motion was drafted. Ms Crozier was absent due to the death of her father when the motion came forward, and I carried that motion through this house. That motion was carried through this house on 6 March 2024. It was for the production of documents by 27 March 2024. Sometime in April 2024 we received a response from the government saying they had not had enough time. We then heard nothing more. Twelve months later, on 4 March 2025, I raised a constituency question asking about these documents, and we did get a response to that. The response was due on 18 March – of course that date came and went. But we did get a response on 29 April saying that the documentation that I had requested had been published by the New South Wales government and available via the access to information webpage for some time. Well, I have got news for the minister: there is no link. She did not provide any link to that document. There is no way to access it via that website. So this is again misleading the public into thinking that you can get it from a website. You cannot get it from a website. You have to make an appointment with the Legislative Council in New South Wales. You have to actually attend the Parliament yourself. They give you a box of documents. You can only book in for a 3-hour window. You have to take that box of documents, and you have to scan them yourself and email them to yourself. Bill Tilley’s office have had four 3-hour windows to get the documents from the first two tranches that have been released. Another tranche of documents has been released, but they have not had the time to go up and do this because they have to go all the way to Sydney. They have to do all this work themselves. It is not easy.

This government here has some of the same documents as New South Wales, but there would be other documents here, internal documents, minutes et cetera, that we requested which New South Wales do not have, and the minister should release those documents in the interests of accountability, transparency and honesty. But this government want to cover up every step that they make because they know that they are a tired government that have run out of ideas and that are just hanging on by their fingernails to power. It is hanging on for all effort just to maintain power. They do not treat the people of Victoria with respect, and we have just seen that they do not treat the members of this house with respect either.

Due to some negotiations with the crossbench, there has been an amendment that has been drafted that stands in my name. I move:

1. In paragraphs (7), (8) and (9), omit ‘26 August 2025’ and insert ‘14 October 2025’ in its place.

So we are giving the government now plenty of time. There is no excuse of ‘There’s not enough time; we can’t produce these by the end of August this year.’ We are now giving the government till October to produce the documents that they have known that they had to produce for a very long time. They will have had people who have already gone through these documents. They will be on file somewhere, and they should release those documents.

Lee TARLAMIS (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (15:46): I move:

That debate on this motion be adjourned until the next day of meeting.

Motion agreed to and debate adjourned until next day of meeting.