Thursday, 13 November 2025

 Rachel PAYNE (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (10:46): I move:

That this house notes that:

(1)   the Allan Labor government has a policy of never supporting private members bills;

(2)   this policy undermines democratic parliamentary processes and prevents non-government members from fulfilling their essential duties;

(3)   where they support the principle of private members bill, the government will often introduce an identical bill in their own name months later, wasting Parliament’s time and resources;

(4)   some of the most important pieces of legislation in Australia were the result of private members bills, including marriage equality and compulsory voting;

(5)   no other jurisdiction in Australia shares this policy, by comparison, in New South Wales there have been 35 private members bills passed between 2001 and 2022;

and calls on the Victorian government to end their policy of not supporting private members bills.

Private members bills give non-government members and backbenchers the opportunity to put forward proposals to change the law to be considered by the government. In an ideal world, where these bills would improve the lives of Victorians, the government would offer their support for them to be passed. But in the last 40 years only two private members bills have passed the Victorian Parliament. The last time we passed a private members bill was all the way back in 2001. You will of course be asking yourself what the Bracks Labor government considered so important that it was willing to break with tradition and pass a private members bill. If you guessed a bill to provide for the pooled investment of trust funds for the benefit of Scotch College, to minimise administrative costs and increase investment income, you would be correct. This bill was introduced by the shadow health minister and former teacher at Scotch College Mr Robert Doyle. It passed the Assembly after being ruled a private bill but treated as a public bill, and the fee deposit was paid. My colleague Mr Davis and I were having discussions about private members bills compared to private bills yesterday, and in this instance, because this bill was treated as a public bill, we will discuss it more in the context of private members bills.

Interestingly, in Victoria’s Legislative Assembly the promoter of a private bill has to pay the Department of the Legislative Assembly a deposit, which at the moment is $1000, before the second reading. I did not know that fact either. Unlike the Legislative Council, the Legislative Assembly standing orders also require the promoter of a private bill to reimburse all expenses for preparing the bill, including drafting, printing, circulation and the costs of any select committee appointed to consider it.

Despite it being over 20 years since Mr Doyle’s successful private members bill, no other private members bill has passed in Victoria since. The Allan Labor government have explicitly stated that they have a policy of never supporting private members bills. As outlined in this motion, their policy comes with significant consequences. Not supporting private members bills undermines democratic parliamentary processes and prevents non-government members from fulfilling their essential duties. It also wastes Parliament’s time and resources, not just in the time and effort given to crafting bills that are inevitably set up to fail but also in the government’s tendency to introduce an identical bill in their own name months later if there is support for that bill. In August 2015 former member of this place Fiona Patten introduced the Public Health and Wellbeing Amendment (Safe Access) Bill 2015, and then in October 2015 the Labor government introduced a bill with the exact same name, which was later passed into law.

These bills were designed to create safe access of 150 metres around reproductive health clinics in order to protect the rights of people accessing a legal medical service to do so without fear of intimidation and harassment. The substance of these two bills was largely identical, but thanks to the government’s failure to even consider passing or amending Fiona Patten’s bill, the commencement date of these changes was delayed by several months. While laws were eventually passed to protect access to reproductive health services in Victoria, they did not need to be delayed simply because this government refused to support a private members bill.

New South Wales later passed very similar laws, and they used a private members bill to do so, allowing these changes to commence as soon as possible. Maybe Victoria should be more like New South Wales. There are real consequences to the Allan Labor government’s blanket ban on not supporting private members bills in all cases, but especially where bills are intended to address serious risks of people being harmed, like safe access zones for abortion services. It is shameful that the Victorian government’s pride would stand in the way of passing these laws as soon as possible.

In the time since we have been elected, Legalise Cannabis Victoria has introduced private members bills to allow medicinal cannabis patients to drive if not impaired, establish standalone industrial hemp legislation, expand vicarious liability laws to give victim-survivors of institutional child abuse better access to justice, decriminalise begging and of course regulate the adult personal use of cannabis. For many of these we had support from the government for the principle but never for passing of the bill. There is so much we miss out on because of this government’s stance.

Upon reflection, some of the most important pieces of legislation in Australia were the result of private members bills. The Marriage Amendment (Definition and Religious Freedoms) Bill 2017, the legislation that finally made marriage equality a reality for Australians, was a private members bill. If you want to look back even further, compulsory voting was the result of a private members bill. Introduced in 1924 by Senator Herbert Payne – one of mine – it responded to low election turnouts, which were threatening the ability of democracy to represent the interests of all Australians. This included a turnout rate of just under 46 per cent in Senator Payne’s home town of Tasmania. Once passed, the legislation had a profound effect, and by the next election in 1925 turnout was over 91 per cent. Our compulsory voting system is something Australians absolutely treasure. It has helped to protect our democracy and ensure that no voter is disenfranchised, and without it I doubt I would be standing before you today as an elected member of Legalise Cannabis Party.

The point of this brief walk through history highlights that private members bills show you that when a government is a victim of cowardice, private members bills can be the mechanism for history-making legislation. They provide an arm’s length approach to lawmaking when the government does not have to stamp its name on that legislation. But here in Victoria we do not have that same opportunity. For whatever reason, this government has chosen to have a strict policy of never supporting private members bills and without exception. This policy is unique to Victoria. Nowhere else in this country will you find such a stubborn government that is so willing to waste Parliament’s resources and make sure that it gets to stamp its own name on every bill that passes through this place.

By comparison, in New South Wales there have been 35 private members bills passed between 2001 and 2022. Another walk through some historical highlights of private members bills in New South Wales will show you that these bills included decriminalising abortion, addressing modern slavery and the earlier mentioned bill to provide safe access zones around reproductive health clinics.

Earlier this month there was even talk of extending sitting days in the New South Wales Parliament to allow additional time to pass private members bills in an effort to woo the crossbenchers. Unfortunately, while our Legalise Cannabis colleague Jeremy Buckingham is getting wooed in New South Wales, we get the cold shoulder. The private members bills they are considering in New South Wales are diverse, reflecting the diversity of Parliament and a willingness to engage in good working relationships across the political spectrum.

Across all jurisdictions, political parties, majority and minority governments we are consistently seeing a willingness to consider passing private members bills, except here in Victoria. We have run the numbers and, on average, just over 10 per cent of private members bills outside of Victoria are supported in all other Australian states and territories. By doing so, these governments get a more representative and vibrant democracy that deals with issues that have otherwise been put in the all-too-hard basket. Between Legalise Cannabis Victoria, the opposition, the Animal Justice Party, the Greens, One Nation, the Libertarian Party and the Shooters, Fishers and Farmers – imagine the vibrant and wideranging legislation that could pass given the chance. That is why my colleagues and I are calling on the Allan Labor government to end their policy of not supporting private members bills.

 Sheena WATT (Northern Metropolitan) (10:56): I will start my remarks this morning by acknowledging that every member who steps into this chamber does so because they care deeply about the people they represent. We may come from different parties, different perspectives and different life experiences, but we are united by a shared commitment to improving the lives of Victorians. This motion raises an important question about how ideas from non-government members are handled in this Parliament. It invites us to reflect on how we can balance the responsibilities of governance with the opportunity for all members to contribute to public policy.

There are a range of issues that constituents bring to my attention. However, I must say that the question of private members bills is something that has not come up often. If I am reflecting just on the last couple of weeks and conversations I have had out and about in our community, folks are talking to me about their daily lives. They are talking about cost of living, they are talking about housing, health care, transport, jobs and education. I have got quite a few parents who have recently met with me and discussed challenges around getting the kids to school safely. We have got older residents talking to me about access to health care, and some of the young folk are talking to me about housing. To my mind, those conversations that I have had over the last couple of weeks are fairly reflective of the things that matter to Victorians, and those are the things that this government is in fact entirely focused on delivering.

It is important to remember that in our system governments are elected to govern. They introduce laws, they manage budgets and they deliver services. That responsibility carries with it obligations to make sure that every law passed by this Parliament is workable and in the public interest. The checks and balances of our laws make sure that when a law passes, it can be implemented in the real world and beyond just the debates here in the chamber. That is why, as I understand it, successive governments have reserved the formal introduction of legislation to the executive. It is not to exclude anyone, as I understand it. It is to make sure that every law has been properly tested and vetted to ensure that it is ready to serve the people of our great state.

That said, though, I will affirm that good ideas come from many, many different places, from our communities, from our experts, from our advocacy groups and peak bodies and from people working every day on the ground to deliver services. When a good idea comes forward, this government has shown time and time again that it will listen and develop it further so that it can be implemented in a way that is responsible and consistent.

It is entirely committed to that collaboration, and it is how the system should work.

Here in Victoria we hold ourselves to a very high standard of legislative quality. That is why our Parliament has been able to deliver some of the most significant and progressive reforms in Australia. As we heard this morning, we are the lead Parliament on a range of national bills, and that is for a reason. There are, of course, some reflections on some other pieces of legislation that have passed through here recently, including the establishment of treaty. There is massive transformation of our education system; investments into infrastructure; reforms in renewable energy, which I spoke about a moment ago; equality; education. These changes have been built upon with careful consultation, strong evidence and a strong sense of purpose, and that is what good governance looks like.

I want to take the moment, if I can, to acknowledge that members across the chamber have contributed thoughtfully to the development of legislation through their advocacy, committee work and engagement with the issues that matter to Victorians and that this Parliament functions best when debate is genuine, respectful and focused on the shared goal of improving the lives of our communities. The motion before us suggests that allowing more private members bills would strengthen democracy. I would say that democracy is more than the number of bills introduced; it is about the quality of the debate, the integrity of the process and the respect that we all show each other in our roles. There are many, many ways for non-government members to put ideas on the record: there are motions, adjournment debates, constituency questions and parliamentary inquiries, and it is worth noting that many of these processes can lead to real change. I am thinking of the many inquiries and committee reports that have shaped government policy, sometimes quietly but with genuine impact. These outcomes remind us that collaboration often achieves more, and sometimes it is not put in the spotlight but nonetheless is worth celebrating.

When I think about what brings people to support us to come into this place and their expectation of us, I am reminded that it is to deliver practical outcomes – and I go back to those conversations that really have shaped my thinking over the last couple of weeks. I again thank those members of the community that want to see improvements and upgrades to our hospitals. They want to see more schools for our growing, thriving communities. They do want to see more secure jobs and more safe jobs, and they want to see opportunities for their kids. They want to know that their government is focused on the delivery of all of that, and that is why our energy as a government remains focused on delivering for Victorians through our investments in health, education, transport and housing. And there has been, to that end, enormous investment.

In Northern Metropolitan Region, if I am just to pick my particular region, I will say that we have the Metro Tunnel opening ahead of schedule. We have got upgrades and improvements to hospitals right across the region, including the new virtual ED services happening that were recently announced. There is some cost-of-living support aimed at addressing the needs of households across the state. These have all happened because of really disciplined planning and a clear line to the priorities of our state. We are also able to do that because we have a very structured, coordinated approach to legislation, one that ensures that every law we pass is sound and it is sustainable. I believe that the current approach strikes the right balance between inclusion and responsibility, and it allows every member to raise ideas but also ensures that the government can deliver them effectively. The balance really is at the very heart of responsible government, and that is why so many Victorians have such esteem and confidence in the institutions of our state.

Of course I want to take a moment to conclude my remarks by thanking and acknowledging Ms Payne for bringing this motion forward, knowing that with it comes an important opportunity to prompt discussion and have some time to reflect on how we serve the people of this state here as members of the Legislative Council, and reaffirming that at the end of the day we are all here to serve our communities. For those of us here on the government side, we are very firm on what those priorities are, and they are those that I have already listed.

But I can say it again: it is getting our kids a quality education, affordable energy, a transport system that serves the needs of our community, as well as a real focus on getting the job done. That is where our focus will remain. We will continue to listen to really good ideas, to work respectfully with all members of this chamber and to keep delivering the services and infrastructure that matter most. And that is the kind of Parliament that Victorians expect: one that works together, stays grounded in the community and keeps people at the centre of everything that we do. I look forward to actually following more of this motion as it passes its way through our chamber today. I will just conclude my remarks by thanking Ms Payne for bringing this to me. It is an opportunity to reflect again on the good functioning of our chamber.

 Renee HEATH (Eastern Victoria) (11:06): I thank Ms Payne for bringing this important motion to the house, one that we will certainly be supporting. I understand that every government has its own agenda, and you can rest assured that when we turf these guys out of government, we will come with our own agenda. And it should be a strong agenda; it should be a vision for the state. But I really agree with Ms Payne in that the government’s bizarre policy to never accept bills that are non-government ones is, I think, an undermining of the democratic processes. We have crossbench members here and we have an opposition here who also have been democratically elected with a job to do, and it is upsetting that rather than looking at every bill on its merit, it is a straight-out no when the person that is presenting the bill does not have the title of Labor MP. The reality is that even when a private members bill is carried in this place, as soon as it goes to the lower house here it is struck off before even the first reading, and that is a reality. Even when it is carried in here, it will not be debated in there. We were standing out in the hallway just a few minutes ago, talking about when the last time a private members bill was in fact debated in the lower house in Victoria, and we think it was around 2001. So the fact that as soon as a private members bill gets over to the lower house and is struck out, that actually makes the lower house in Victoria the most restrictive chamber in Australia – let that sink in. That is unbelievable.

There are a few things that I wanted to highlight just in the short time that I have, something that is mentioned here in point (3). It says:

(3)   where they support the principle of private member bill, the government will often introduce an identical bill in their own name months later, wasting Parliament’s time and resources …

The first time that I saw this happen was in May 2023, when the coalition brought forward the Corrections Amendment (Parole) Bill 2023. That was a bill designed to ensure that serial killer Paul Denyer would never see the light of day again. He was a murderer that hated women and had three victims: Elizabeth Stevens, Debbie Fream and Natalie Russell. I remember that day so clearly, because I remember looking up and just above the clock there was seated one of the victim’s sons, and he never really got to know his mother because of this violent killer. I remember thinking the arguments were so good from both sides, the speeches were so good. And I just remember looking up at him as a division was called, and then the people that wanted this law passed stood in their places. All of a sudden, ‘Oh it’s a violation of human rights. It’s this. It’s that.’ came from the government side as they stood in their places. Seeing that kid burst into tears and walk out broke my heart.

But what was, in my opinion, not only extremely heartless and hypocritical was in November 2023, just about six months later, when the government brought in their own identical bill called the Corrections Amendment (Parole Reform) Act 2023. Then it was like it was flipped.

We supported that bill because it is on principle and merit. But of course all these speeches were completely flipped, and all of a sudden the government completely supported it. I just think that that is worth pointing out because it is absolutely correct, in my opinion, that bills in this place should be debated on merit and not just on deals and then coming back later and pretending that you were the architect of this fantastic idea and realising that people have been hurt in the meantime.

The second thing I want to raise that relates exactly to this private members bill is the fact that the coalition brought bills forward here in this place four times to ban machetes, and the government’s speaking points every time were completely about how stupid we were and how the coalition just does not get it – you know, their same talking points. We hear them for hours and hours every second week. But then seeing Premier Jacinta Allan come out and say ‘We’re banning machetes’ and saying all the things that just a few weeks before in the four times they rejected these bills they did not believe in I think was entirely wrong.

We saw it last week where we were trying to use a private members bill to ban face masks at marches. It was staggering to me because I had the December 2024 media release up where Jacinta Allan promised to ban face masks at protests. I was literally looking at this and looking up and hearing all the guys on this bench saying how wrong it is, how disrespectful it is, how unfair it is and how it is a breach of human rights to ban face masks at protests. Fine. If that is what you are really believe, argue it. But we know the fact is that in order to fulfil that promise, those same people that said that are going to be standing up to support the banning of face masks at protests very soon. You know, sometimes these are uncomfortable realities, but this is the reality of a Labor government. I could go on about many more, but time does not permit that because there are a few other things I want to talk about.

Of course we cannot avoid the whole bail question, can we? In the last two years bail has been changed. And I laughed. I wrote down actually, when Ms Watt was speaking, something that she said. She said why they could not take the bills of lowly crossbenchers or opposition members was because ‘we hold ourselves to a very high standard of legislative quality’. That is a direct quote. Well, then explain why bail has had to be amended four times in this place in the last two years. If the legislative quality is held to such a high standard that only government members can possibly get it right, because none of us possibly could know or have any good ideas, why then have you had to amend it four times in the last two years? And it has been more than that – we were trying to figure it out – in this sitting of Parliament. Regardless, it is one of the facts that Labor’s policy to never support a private members bill, a bill that does not come from their government, has caused us to have some very tough conversations with grieving parents. For instance, I have spoken many times in this place about Celeste Manno’s mum. Celeste was a beautiful young girl stalked relentlessly and stabbed to death. The Victorian Law Reform Commission did a huge inquiry into it and gave 45 recommendations that had to be done in order to strengthen stalking laws in this state. At the time Premier Daniel Andrews stood out on the steps of Parliament and he said that the laws would change, that this would happen. The then Attorney-General said the same thing – all false promises, all given to a grieving mother Aggie. Well, that report was tabled on 23 September 2022. We have consistently called for those 45 recommendations to be enacted, but absolutely nothing has been done.

In fact to the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee the then Attorney-General Minister Symes said, ‘We have no requirement to respond to this.’

The other time that this happened is when you would have seen Bianca and Boyd come in here, because we all sat here for that debate where they were essentially asking that violent and high-risk offenders not be eligible for emergency management days that take them below their non-parole period. Here is a family who had a sister and a daughter bashed to death with a barbell, but because the murderer – who has shown no remorse, who has not shown good behaviour in the prison system – was locked up during COVID, he has had 427 days taken off his sentence as a discount because he was inconvenienced. When you stand there with those families who have lived through hell and they say, ‘Well, what are our options?’ the only option that you can tell them is to turf this government out, because the government will not pass a private members bill – they will not accept anything that comes from this side or from there. That is a pretty heartbreaking thing. Thank you for bringing this motion to the house, and I will certainly be supporting it.

 Sarah MANSFIELD (Western Victoria) (11:16): At the outset I would like to thank my colleague Ms Payne for bringing this important motion to the chamber for debate and shining a light on this critical integrity issue in this Parliament. Nowhere in Australia will you find a government so fundamentally averse to collaborative governance as here in Victoria. Over the years private members bills have brought some of Australia’s most important legislative reforms into the Parliament. If we look at our federal Parliament – marriage equality. In 2005 the Same-Sex Marriage Bill was first introduced in Tasmania by then Tasmanian Greens MP – current Senator Nick McKim. It went on to pass the lower house in 2012. Adam Bandt’s first piece of legislation was for the presumptive compensation rights of firefighters, which passed with support from Liberal and Labor MPs. Non-government MPs have introduced bills that have gone on to pass federally and create important changes in this country.

But in Victoria it is a different situation, because since the time of the Bracks government in 1999 they have had a formal policy to be blockers of all non-government legislation. As Ms Payne has highlighted, there have been some really important private members bills from a range of different parties. I want to touch on just a few of the bills first introduced by the Victorian Greens which were pre-emptively rejected by a petty state Labor government – not on their merits but based on this mindless policy. This is despite the fact that time and time again, as Ms Payne has said, state Labor has had to eat its words, backflip on its opposition and blocking and adopt Greens policy and legislation, often many years later, with the delays often resulting in dire consequences for Victorians.

Voluntary assisted dying, for example, began as a private members bill introduced by Victorian Greens MP Colleen Hartland in 2008. It took another nine years for the government to get on with the job and get that legislation passed. I introduced my own private members bill to improve these laws earlier this year. I am really glad the government has adopted many of these reforms with the bill that we are currently debating. In 2019 the Greens joined with the Animal Justice Party and Legalise Cannabis Victoria – and I would have to say this is an instructive example of cross-party collaboration – to introduce the Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Amendment (Pill Testing Pilot for Drug Harm Reduction) Bill 2019. Tragically, at least four additional coronial recommendations were made in the time between that bill first being introduced and state Labor reversing its opposition to pill testing and introducing similar legislation. Even Greens legislation for the most logical and popular policies has been rejected by Labor on multiple occasions, seemingly out of spite than any actual logical reason. We first introduced container deposit legislation in 2009, but Labor did not concede we were right on this policy for another 11 years, leaving Victorians as losers, compared to every other state, for over a decade.

Our legislation for a parliamentary integrity commissioner to improve politicians’ behaviour, in 2018 and 2022, was vociferously rejected by state Labor in this place as not needed, until all of a sudden it became urgent after one government MP scandal too many.

Our 2022 integrity bill proposed mandatory diary disclosures of ministers, which was finally adopted, while our bill to give IBAC real teeth to fight political corruption was summarily prevented from being introduced into the lower house despite receiving rare unanimous support of all non-government members when passing through this place. We have also introduced the most important but difficult legislation that the government has been too timid to touch. In 2021 the Greens introduced an incredibly important evidence-based bail reform bill, the Bail Amendment (Reducing Pre-trial Imprisonment of Women, Aboriginal and Vulnerable Persons) Bill 2021, which preceded by years the government’s own legislation aiming to reduce Aboriginal deaths in custody and the overincarceration of women. Of course this was before the government backflipped, yet again, on bail to its current populist position.

The Greens’ Children, Youth and Families Amendment (Raise the Age) Bill 2022 set the agenda on raising the age, pressuring Labor to introduce its own weakened version of the legislation, once again after changing its position on the reform several times. Importantly the Greens’ bill also sought to ban the solitary confinement of children in youth detention – clauses that were subsequently adopted word for word by the government years later in its Youth Justice Bill 2024. I raise this non-exhaustive list to illustrate the incredible, disproportionate contribution the Victorian Greens have made to legislative reform in Victoria, time and time again setting the agenda and leading the state on the most difficult but important reforms that are then blocked and delayed by the state Labor due to its policy of blocking all non-government legislation.

I could compare Victorian Labor’s policy of blocking legislation with the less petty New South Wales Labor, who worked across party lines to pass, for example, Greens MP Amanda Cohn’s abortion bill earlier this year. The Victorian Greens have our own important abortion legislation that we have introduced to this place to protect the rights of women in this state, but because Victorian state Labor are unique in Australia in being blockers, who knows how long it will be before we see that kind of reform happen here. We are the lucky ones in this place, because we have general business time. In the Legislative Assembly, which has been dubbed the least democratic parliament in Australia by the Centre for Public Integrity, they do not get non-government business time at all. You cannot even get to a second reading of a piece of legislation. You are lucky if you can even first-read it.

Private members bills are such an important and collaborative part of our parliamentary systems across Australia, but this government’s policy over the last 25 years not to support them, despite the merits or legislative value, puts us to shame. This government’s policy is petty and the antithesis of a healthy parliamentary system. It undermines the Parliament’s ability to serve its representative function. 201 private members bills were introduced to this place between 2003 and early 2024, and not one has been allowed to pass into law. In New South Wales, by contrast, from 2004 to 2024, 35 have passed. South Australia has passed over 80 since 1992, and the ACT has passed over 179 since 1993. New Zealand, our cousins across the aisle, have passed 80 members bills since 1999, all of which have been drawn for debate in their ballot system – out of a biscuit tin by a member of the public. In this place, however, where almost two-thirds of the chamber are not government members, not a single private members bill gets to pass.

Over two-thirds of us are non-government members. We have a right to be here. We have a right to contribute and bring our ideas into a merit-based debate. Collaborative governance is the essence of democracy. At the end of the day it is the people who benefit. I urge this government to rethink their policy on private members bills, because they have so much value to add to Victoria’s legislative landscape. I commend this motion to the house.

 Evan MULHOLLAND (Northern Metropolitan) (11:24): I rise to speak on Ms Payne’s motion regarding the government’s policy on private members bills, and I thank her for moving this motion because it speaks directly to the heart of democratic accountability. It should not be controversial, but the motion asks for the house to note that the Allan Labor government has a policy of never supporting private members bills. This statement alone ought to shock all Victorians. The government refuses to even consider legislation brought forward by a democratically elected member of Parliament – non-government members – and has lost sight of what Parliament exists for.

It is a government that treats the chamber not as a forum for debate and scrutiny, but as an inconvenience to be managed. Dr Mansfield was speaking about the Legislative Assembly being the least democratic – that is most certainly true. And the changes we saw come into place this term makes it an even worse, undemocratic chamber of Parliament. Again, that place over there is a massive inconvenience, and there is nothing the government hates more than having to deal with pesky crossbenchers and the opposition regarding private members bills, regarding getting through amendments, clauses. There have been some amendments – I think it has only happened once or twice – that I have added to government bills that have been accepted. But even in the case of amendments for government bills, the government’s preference – and we saw it last night – is to have an almost identical amendment to what a democratically elected member is putting so that it is the government that does it. Instead of, in the spirit of collaboration, having a tack-on amendment from a Greens member or Legalise Cannabis member or an Animal Justice member, they refuse and just put their own house amendments up that are almost exactly the same, and they do of course the same with private members bills.

Let us be clear what this means. It means that no matter how sensible or necessary a proposal might be, the government will automatically reject it if it comes from the opposition or from the crossbench or from outside of its own ranks. It is a policy of arrogance, it is a policy of waste designed not to improve government, but to protect political pride. It is a government that has grown too comfortable in power and too contemptuous of the democratic institutions that give it legitimacy. The Allan Labor government treats the Parliament as a rubber stamp for its own agenda, and ignores the contributions of those, like in this chamber, who were elected by hundreds of thousands of Victorians to represent alternative voices. There is a reason why this crossbench looks like a Star Wars bar scene, because the people of Victoria made it so, and the government ought to reflect on why people have chosen to elect those members, and why the people have chosen not to give the government a majority.

The motion rightly points out this policy prevents non-government members from fulfilling their essential duties. Every member in this chamber, regardless of party, is elected to represent their constituents and to bring forward ideas, reforms and solutions to the challenges facing our state. When the government refuses to even engage in private members bills, it silences those voices and denies Victorians the benefit of diverse perspectives. We have seen this arrogance time and time again. The government’s approach is not one of collaboration or respect, but one of control. When a good idea emerges from outside the government’s ranks, Labor’s instinct is to consider it and copy it. The government waits, introduces an identical bill under its own name months later, then claims credit for it. This is a practice that is cynical and wasteful. It squanders parliamentary time, resources and money, and creates duplication for the sake of political ownership and pride. It is a policy that puts press releases over the good. This is not how a mature democracy should operate. Good ideas do not have party labels. No-one in this chamber is big enough to believe that only the government can come up with good ideas.

That is up to everyone. I have had several conversations with Mr Ettershank where we have both agreed on a whole bunch of issues. We also disagree on a whole bunch of issues. But where there are good ideas we should be able to debate them. We should be able to agree on them and agree to disagree on other issues. That is what a Parliament is for – to reflect the multitude of views out there in the community.

Again, the government’s policy is petty. It is completely out of step with the rest of the country, as the motion notes. New South Wales, Queensland, South Australia and Tasmania are all places where parliamentary private members bills have been considered and have been passed. The government is showing its contempt for Parliament. It has become a defining feature of its long decade in office. We see the way it rams through legislation with little or no consultation, and we only have to look at what has happened this week, where the government wants to brief us on two out of three bills with less than 12 hours notice. And of course in August this year the opposition moved to introduce in the lower house the Worker Screening Amendment (Safety of Children) Bill 2025, but because of arrogant policy Labor, including Premier Jacinta Allan, voted down this bill – when it included considerable improvements, almost identical improvements to those the government is making now –back then. It would have kept our children safe.

I actually, a long time ago, in 2023, introduced in this place a bill to ban machetes. Now, I know Mr Galea and others laughed at me and said that I was just after a 3AW interview or a Herald Sun headline, and the government refused time and time again to ban machetes. And then under a rush and political panic, like we have seen in the last 24 hours with their political panic about polling, they added what was almost identical to our bill to a terrorism bill. They had to seek to expand the scope of the bill in order to add a machete ban to a terrorism bill. But this is where the government fails to see the light.

Dr Mansfield spoke about an IBAC bill that the Greens passed. We also passed one, and I believe we both supported each other’s bills. Both went down to the lower house and could not even proceed from there, even though the entirety of this chamber supported it.

Whether it is the Suburban Rail Loop, whether it is the Commonwealth Games or whether it is the mountain of state debt, the government has one motto, which is to avoid accountability at all costs. Its refusal to support private members bills is an expression of that same arrogance, and we know all of the other states that support them – South Australia, New South Wales, Queensland. I think what this chamber and what the people of Victoria are starting to work out is Jacinta Allan is no Chris Minns, Jacinta Allan is no Peter Malinauskas. She is not a leader. This is a government defined by its arrogance. The government ought to consider private members bills put by the those in the chamber who the Victorian people have put in this chamber to make that very same contribution. The Liberals and Nationals have always believed in the principle of parliamentary accountability. We have supported private members bills in the past, including from the crossbench, when the ideas are sensible and in the public interest, and this motion should be supported.

 David ETTERSHANK (Western Metropolitan) (11:34): I rise to speak on the motion moved by my colleague Ms Payne. As the motion notes, this government has an aversion to supporting private members bills. In the last 20-odd years non-government members have introduced over 200 private members bills into the Victorian Parliament, and the government has supported exactly none. They are not averse, however, to opportunistically cannibalising private members bills when they see a good idea. They are happy enough to repackage and regurgitate other members’ work. Indeed, may I go so far as to say that, given the government’s new direction in waste management and the number of waste-to-energy incinerators they have approved, recycling private members bills might be the only recycling this government does. Unfortunately, it is the type of recycling that results in more, not less, waste, as it wastes the Parliament’s time and it wastes the Parliament’s resources. Victoria, as all speakers have noted, is the only jurisdiction that has an ironclad rule. Every other jurisdiction has passed private members bills except this one. In that same 20-odd years during which the Victorian government disdained to support any non-government members bills, New South Wales passed 35 private members bills, including the Reproductive Health Care Reform Bill 2019, which removed abortion from the Crimes Act 1900, and the Modern Slavery Bill 2018 to combat modern slavery and human trafficking.

Ms Payne spoke of some of the bills introduced into Victoria by non-government members that were then adopted as government policy and introduced as government bills – which, of course, entailed all the drafting, the printing and the circulation of substantially the same bill. Does the Parliament really have the resources and the time to waste on such an exercise? In that context, I think it is worth noting, in terms of potholes in the road to democracy and in terms of the roadblocks that we face, that we have a situation now where, if we want to put up one of those private members bills, we are being told that the earliest the OCPC, the Office of the Chief Parliamentary Counsel, can respond to that request is February of next year. If I may paraphrase an old saying, democracy that is delayed is democracy that is spoilt, and that is what we are facing at the moment.

Aside from undermining democratic parliamentary processes and preventing non-government members – who are, after all, representatives of their communities – from fulfilling their duties, it is staggeringly arrogant of any government to dismiss legislation simply because they did not think of it first. Wouldn’t it be so much more effective and efficient to support a bill and, if need be, move amendments to it? That is what the rest of us do. Why would you dismiss good ideas out of hand? It seems needlessly defensive to me. We are all here, after all, to get the best outcomes for the people who elected us. If members are passionate about a policy and do the necessary research, engagement and drafting to get a bill to Parliament, they deserve the consideration of the government. Imagine the range of legislation we could pass in this place – laws that would benefit our communities. Because that is why we are all here – to improve the lives of Victorians. The government needs to get over this frankly absurd and arrogant stance of ‘we do not support private members bills’. That is so black and white and so wrapped in hubris that it is depressing, to put it bluntly. It is outdated and it does not serve the best interests of the people of Victoria. They deserve better from this government.

 Georgie PURCELL (Northern Victoria) (11:38): I also rise to just very briefly associate myself with this motion and support the words of Ms Payne and my colleagues on the crossbench and also in the opposition about the deep, deep frustration that we all feel with the government refusing to support or even consider our private members bills a lot of the time. The government’s approach to private members bills reminds me of that meme of, ‘Hey, can I copy your homework?’ and it says, ‘Yeah, just change it up a little’, and it is two of the same picture. So many of us feel so full of obligation, knowing that we are only guaranteed four years in this place to do the things we set out to achieve. Particularly for us on the crossbench, our futures feel, obviously, even less certain. The work that goes into the consideration and the consultation and the drafting of private members bills is something that we do not do for fun. It is something that we do because we care about all of our many issues so, so deeply, and we want to see an outcome. We want to see that engagement. We want to put it on the government’s agenda.

Here in Victoria, knowing that we can spend sometimes, as Mr Ettershank said, up to a year doing that work before it actually reaches the Parliament only for it to be knocked back, it is disheartening not just for us but for the communities that we are trying to do this work on behalf of. Whether it be cannabis users, whether it be animals, whether it be the many different constituencies that we represent, they want to see us doing this work and getting those outcomes. I actually have my first private members bill being drafted at the moment, and it is a piece of work that we have spent years working with the government on, being given the run-around, being told they are going to do something, being told that they will explore the issue further and with the minister constantly changing. That is the other problem: you progress this work and then the minister changes. We are going to be introducing that private members bill at the start of next year, in an election year, knowing that the government is probably just going to say ‘No, thank you,’ after we have done 12 months of that hard work.

As part of a minor party – I am sure my colleagues can relate to this – I often have to deal with very frustrated party members comparing me to my colleagues in other states, who are passing private members bills when they go into work. It is very difficult to explain to the passionate members of the Animal Justice Party exactly why I cannot bring a private members bill to the Parliament and pass it, because the government is frankly not interested and will not even consider the merits of the proposal that we are putting forward or voting in support of it – even if they agree with it, even if it is their own policy, even if it is something that they have told us that they will do. They have to put it in their own name.

I would like to talk about my very, very impressive colleague Emma Hurst in New South Wales. Not only can they pass private members bills, they get eight-year terms in the upper house. She has been doing her job for seven years now, and in that time she has passed five private members bills. She has passed a private members bill that outlaws forced swim and smoking experiments on animals. That is something that I am working with the government on here, but it is moving very slowly because I cannot bring my own piece of legislation in order to outlaw it. They outlawed convenience killings in pounds. That is something that we have attempted to do here, but of course when we brought it to the chamber in the last term of Parliament the government put it through a taskforce, as is often the solution to these things – put it through consultation, put it through a taskforce, send it to a committee and then eventually we will get to it a few years later. She was able to do that in one day at work – the issue that we tried to solve for years. She has been able to give animals used in medical experimentation a right to be released. Again, that is a recommendation from the taskforce I spoke about, which we had to do here in Victoria in the last term of Parliament, which the government supported and said they will do but they have not done yet. She was again able to do that through a private members bill.

She has created tougher animal sexual abuse laws. Again, this is something that I have spoken about very, very regularly in this chamber. It is a fact that Victoria is lagging behind when it comes to our laws when it comes to animal sexual abuse. Again, this is an issue the government has agreed to work with me on. I could have brought my own private members bill. It is an urgent issue. It ties in with other forms of abuse in this state. If the government allowed me to do that work and pass these laws, they could already be in place by now. But again, we are waiting on them to do it themselves. It is very, very frustrating, particularly when you know at the other end of your work there is someone suffering or there is a victim and we could be solving that in the time that we have allocated to us. She has done all of this on top of the many other avenues that we have to pass legislation, such as introducing amendments or having inquiries.

I think something that my colleagues will be very familiar with is that when you do not have the ability to introduce or pass a private members bill here, even if you know the government is eventually going to do your thing, you have to get crafty and find new ways to do things. Another change that my colleague in New South Wales was able to do, despite me being the first member of Parliament in the country to raise the fact that it was illegal for animals to be buried with their owners due to an old religious law, she was able to fix that first. She picked it up from me. She fixed it first.

The only way which I could find to do that change, which of course I appreciated the chamber’s cooperation on, was to move an out-of-scope amendment which required me to suspend standing orders.

Of course those things are beneficial and useful pathways for us, but what would be the most beneficial and useful pathway to us is to trust us as members of Parliament to do our jobs. Our staff are working hard to try and solve our issues in the four years that we have here. We have one year left. There are so many things that we still want to achieve, and importantly there are still so many things that the government have said they would do in relation to all of our fields and portfolios of work and issues and areas of advocacy. We could take some of the work, we could shoulder some of the work, bring those issues to the chamber for debate and work with the government. Of course, as Mr Ettershank mentioned, the government would be welcome to amend our bills, just like we amend their bills to make this Parliament the most productive, collaborative place possible – the way that it was designed to be, particularly in this house.

So in closing I encourage the government to look to the parliaments in other states and to turn their minds to the many examples. Of course when we think about effective legislators on the crossbench I am sure many of us think of Fiona Patten. Before this debate, as I was listening to other contributions, I had a look at the number of private members bills that she introduced which ultimately did become law, but it took a long time. It took many of those pathways, consultations and inquiries only for the government to often introduce the same or a very, very similar piece of legislation. We could have saved a whole lot of time and kept on legislating in the other areas that we also need to focus on. So I encourage the government to consider what Ms Payne has put forward today, to change their policy on private members bills and to let this place function the way that it was meant to function and the way it was designed to be. I commend the motion to the house.

 Rachel PAYNE (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (11:47): I just want to thank everyone in the chamber today for your contributions. What has been evident throughout this debate is the sheer frustration of the lack of collaboration the government has with, as Dr Mansfield pointed out, the two-thirds of the chamber who are non-government members. We are all capable, we are all elected to be here and we have opportunity to put forward legislation that is just met with a blanket ban of no. How can we fulfil our duties and get the best outcomes for our communities that we represent if we cannot put forward private members bills? Ms Ward, in her contribution, outlined that we are all here to serve our communities. But I think what Victorians expect us to do in this place is to get on with our jobs. And when our jobs are incredibly limited, based on the fact that there are internal policies that have to be met, it is really hard to have those conversations with our constituents and for them to understand what we are trying to achieve in this place when it is met with processes.

Dr Heath, I appreciated your contributions in this space, and I think it is really telling when someone like Celeste’s mum Aggie is met with that frustration as well – putting forward a private members bill and explaining to someone like Aggie that unfortunately this will not be supported but this is a mechanism for us to try and push the government to act. It is really telling as to how we treat our constituents more broadly. Dr Mansfield indicated that this is a critical integrity issue, and I could not agree more. The government is very averse to collaborative governance. An example used there was the fact that the Legalise Cannabis Party, the Greens and the Animal Justice Party came together in a collaborative way to put forward a private members bill on pill testing. Now, eventually we saw the government act on that mechanism, but it took that collaboration and that push to make it happen. In the meantime, as the coroner’s reports identified, more and more lives were lost. We have not got time to waste here. Those people that we represent, our communities we represent, do not understand the mechanisms of this place. All they understand is that we are standing before them putting forward what they see as reform that they want to see in this place, and yet it is met time and time again with an obstructionist view of wanting to have complete control over what is coming through Parliament.

Mr Mulholland pointed out that it is about democratic accountability. Again, I could not agree more. We have lost sight of what Parliament is for if we are going to continue this policy. Mr Ettershank highlighted that time and resources are wasted. We all use the same drafters. The Office of the Chief Parliamentary Counsel does a fantastic job, and they should be commended for the work that they do. But when we are putting forward legislation and it is inevitable that it will be rejected based on the premise that it is a private members bill, I think is telling for how we treat the resources that are the Parliament and the processes that we all must go through. As Mr Ettershank pointed out, democracy delayed is democracy spoilt, and I could not agree more.

I want to thank Ms Purcell for her contribution. I also find that in this place, where we represent minor parties, we have colleagues in other states that tend to get more of a say in how they collaborate with government. It is really hard to tell your membership base, ‘We are putting forward this bill’ and they ask, ‘Well, will it come to a vote?’ What would be the point of us taking it to a vote? If it did even pass the upper house, it would not even be read in the lower house – how undemocratic. I will leave my comments there.

Motion agreed to.