Wednesday, 3 December 2025

 Aiv PUGLIELLI (North-Eastern Metropolitan) (12:11): (1167) My question is to the Minister for Corrections. Minister, last night in the debate on the police and other matters bill you assured the house twice that the Victorian Aboriginal Legal Service had been consulted on the protective services officer provisions. It is my understanding that the Aboriginal Justice Caucus was shown one PowerPoint slide at a working group meeting. The process was that they were told the bare minimum; they were not consulted in my view. In that meeting I understand they asked for more information or detail to understand the bullet points on the slide and none was provided. The requests to see a consultation draft of the bill were rejected. The strong response, I understand, in the room on that day was that this process was by no means and in no way to be considered consultation. Minister, when you told the house that the Victorian Aboriginal Legal Service had been consulted, is this the consultation you were referring to?

 Enver ERDOGAN (Northern Metropolitan – Minister for Casino, Gaming and Liquor Regulation, Minister for Corrections, Minister for Youth Justice) (12:12): I thank Mr Puglielli for his question. Mr Puglielli, you are firmly asking a question that should be directed to the Minister for Police in the other place. That consultation was led by his team and his department.

Aiv Puglielli: On a point of order, President, I am asking the minister about statements that he made to this chamber yesterday evening. It is firmly within his remit to respond.

The PRESIDENT: Ministers get assigned to take other ministers’ committee stages through our chamber. I think the minister is indicating that it does not fall within his remit. I am sure he or whoever else would be happy to pass it on to the Minister for Police.

Enver ERDOGAN: I am happy to take that on notice and ask the Minister for Police for an appropriate response in relation to that form of consultation.

 Aiv PUGLIELLI (North-Eastern Metropolitan) (12:13): It should seem obvious that I am deeply disappointed by that response, given these are comments made by this minister to this chamber within the last 24 hours – today, technically. My supplementary question is also in relation to comments made by this minister, but I will provide a preamble by referencing the Statewide Treaty Act 2025, looking specifically at the explainer from the First Peoples’ Assembly, which states:

Under Treaty, Government must speak with us when making laws, rules or policies about us.

In the act there are safeguard provisions that require not only that consultation occur but that any responses are considered in good faith and that there is a response by your government to any issues those bodies raise. Minister, did –

Ryan Batchelor: On a point of order, President, I did not quite hear Mr Puglielli’s supplementary at the start, but I am concerned he may be referring to a bill on the notice paper, and I question the anticipation rule.

The PRESIDENT: I will let Mr Puglielli finish his question. There might be a valid point of order, but I have got a feeling that the minister, given his substantive answer, will respond very similarly in his supplementary.

Aiv PUGLIELLI: I will continue with my question. Minister, again, it is in relation to comments you made in this chamber last night. Minister, did you engage VALS on the PSO provisions in a single dot point PowerPoint presentation and characterise it in this place as consultation or did you mislead the house?

 Enver ERDOGAN (Northern Metropolitan – Minister for Casino, Gaming and Liquor Regulation, Minister for Corrections, Minister for Youth Justice) (12:15): President, I seek your guidance and your wisdom. We represent other ministers in this place when there is legislation. During questions without notice, it would be better directed to the Minister for Police, who had carriage of that legislation.

The PRESIDENT: I think that has acquitted the response.

David Davis: On a point of order, President, ministers are able to be asked questions about their portfolio matters and matters with which they are connected. It is impossible to –

Members interjecting.

David Davis: Well, he is responsible for his own response, and if he has misled the house, it is only him who can correct it. It is an entirely legitimate question.

Aiv Puglielli: Further to the point of order, President, if ministers cannot be asked questions about statements that they themselves have made to this chamber, then that is a very dark reflection on democracy in this place.

Renee Heath: Further to the point of order, President, I do want to clarify in order to move forward, because often we are so unclear on who is responsible for what. You will not say you are responsible –

Members interjecting.

Renee Heath: I will wait till you have finished. Is the minister responsible for their own statements?

David Davis: Further to the point of order, President, it may clarify it to look at standing order 8.01, ‘Questions to ministers or other members’:

Questions may be put to –

Ministers relating to public affairs for which the Minister is directly connected …

An answer given by a minister in this chamber is something that they are directly connected with.

The PRESIDENT: I hate paraphrasing people, but the point of order that has been put to me is that ministers – and it does not matter which political party is in government – have a number of responsibilities to take different pieces of legislation from ministers from the other chamber, so they might have two or three ministers allocated to them; therefore they should answer questions for those four ministers in question time. I am not setting that precedent –

A member interjected.

The PRESIDENT: No, I am not setting that precedent.

Members interjecting.

The PRESIDENT: There is no point getting upset with me. We all own the standing orders, and it is pretty clear. I will be moving on.

 Aiv PUGLIELLI (North-Eastern Metropolitan) (12:18): I move:

That the minister’s response be taken into consideration on the next day of meeting.

Motion agreed to.

David Davis: On a point of order, President, I would ask that you reflect later in detail with the clerks on this particular matter, because it is not setting a precedent about answering questions on other ministers’ areas, it is setting a precedent on ruling out answering questions with which the minister is directly connected. It is a separate point.

The PRESIDENT: No.

David Davis: It actually is. They have said it.

The PRESIDENT: No. The original point of order, which you got up and said ‘further to the point of order’ about, was around exactly what I said – a minister taking a bill through committee on behalf of another minister in another chamber. If people want me to set that precedent and they ever aspire to be in government, they would be a bit silly to do that, I would have thought. So we will stick to the standing orders we have got and we will move on.