Tuesday, 18 November 2025

 Wendy LOVELL (Northern Victoria) (12:59): Pursuant to standing order 23.22, I table a report of the inquiry into the variation of scope of orders for the production of documents, including an appendix, from the Procedure Committee. I move:

That the report be published.

Motion agreed to.

 David DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan) (13:00): I move:

That the Council take note of the report.

This is an important report from the Procedure Committee. This was done at the request of the Leader of the Government that we examine matters around the issues of documents and the government’s provision or non-provision of documents. The government has argued that some document orders are a little too wide. We are prepared to indicate that the report shows that the Procedure Committee looked at these matters. We took evidence from interstate, specifically the New South Wales Legislative Council, and from all sides of politics and from the officers of the New South Wales Legislative Council. Given that the documents order provisions here were modelled directly on the New South Wales documents order provisions, it was appropriate to pay attention to those.

Importantly, the recommendation is that a mechanism be set up that enables a new point to be put into the documents order process so that where the government believes that the document order may be too broad or there is some other issue the government can convey that to the mover of the motion and make suggestions as to how that can be improved. The mover of the motion will have the option, as in New South Wales, of accepting or rejecting that in a very short procedure in the house.

I draw these documents into two categories. I am not saying that there has never been an occasion where a member has put too broad an order in; that can certainly occur. In that sense, if it improves the process, we are happy to accept the advice of the New South Wales officials. I do indicate that there are many other documents which the government is slow or reluctant to provide for a range of other reasons that have nothing to do with the shape of the documents order or the size of the documents order but have more to do with the government’s sensitivity to such matters.

In good faith, I think all of the members, and I may be speaking too broadly here, of the Procedure Committee were quite prepared to look at this constructively, to accept a set of recommendations from New South Wales and to see those implemented, I think with general support, in the sessional orders at this point. I do put on record that this might be removing one excuse that the government might from time to time wish to raise about documents orders, and the government may then be in a position to move swiftly with a whole range of outstanding documents that are well tabulated in a list of documents that are in a notice of motion that has been put onto the notice paper and well could be updated to bring that to the latest moment.

I want to thank the staff for the work that they have done on this. I think Keir, Richard Willis and others enjoyed engaging with the New South Wales officials. We are always happy to learn from our interstate colleagues, especially when it comes to these matters of the powers of the chamber, which were tested in Australia directly out of a series of documents motions in the New South Wales Legislative Council. The case that went there – the Sydney Water case and so forth – made it very clear that the powers of the chamber are clear, the powers to order documents are clear. The Bret Walker opinion that this chamber has on hand, for those who would wish to read it, and I would commend it to those who have not read it, makes very clear the origin of those powers and the extent of them.

 Sonja TERPSTRA (North-Eastern Metropolitan) (13:04): I might just make some short remarks also on the report that has just been tabled by Ms Lovell in regard to documents procedures. I do not necessarily agree with some of the remarks that Mr Davis made about the government being slow or sensitive and those sorts of things. There are tests that determine whether documents are produced or not. There are some slight differences with the Victorian regime versus the New South Wales regime, but I guess what came out of all of that was that the new sessional order that can be adopted by the chamber will encourage parties to have a conversation about what it is that they are actually after. That is really the important part of this, rather than perhaps somebody making a very wide order, which puts the government in a position where it cannot comply with it, which has been the case a lot.

There have been a lot of times when there have been thousands of documents, but what it allows for is for the mover of the motion seeking documents to have a conversation with the government and articulate in particular what it is that they are actually seeking and then give the government an opportunity to respond. But as Mr Davis correctly said, the mover of that documents motion does not have to agree. If there is no agreement reached about any narrowing of the scope of an order, then the mover of the original motion is quite within their rights to maintain their original position. I would just like to thank everyone who worked on that committee, and of course thanks to the New South Wales officials who gave us information and reported to us about what they had been through and their experience with these things. I would also just like to thank the committee staff. I think we have landed in a really good position where people can have conversations about what they are actually after, and I would just encourage the chamber to make full use of this new procedure.

 Sarah MANSFIELD (Western Victoria) (13:06): I too want to thank the staff and fellow committee members for all of the work put into this report and commend the report and the recommendations to the chamber. This is dealing with an issue that I think everyone here is quite familiar with and we have come up against time and time again with arguments about production of documents. One of the clear bits of feedback we have had from the government in every instance is that it is difficult to comply with some of the documents orders because of the scope or the timing or there is some other issue with the request, and then there is no mechanism to modify that or have a negotiation around that. All this will do, if the chamber is willing to take on the recommendation from this inquiry, is effectively create a formal mechanism whereby a negotiation can happen around that documents order. As has been stated, if that is not accepted, it reverts to the original order, so that will still stand. We know that there are a number of other issues with the documents process in this chamber that mean that we may still not have the same process that is followed in New South Wales, despite having essentially identical standing orders, give or take a word here or there. But I do hope that this leads to some more constructive discussions around it, the production of some more documents and the Parliament being able to exercise its role and its duty in serving the Victorian public when it comes to asking for documents that we believe are really important. For transparency reasons alone I think the government should be more forthcoming with a lot of documents. I hope that these changes lead to that, but time will tell.

The PRESIDENT: I echo my thanks to all the committee members, the staff and the witnesses.

Motion agreed to.