Thursday, 5 March 2026

 Sonja TERPSTRA (North-Eastern Metropolitan) (16:21): I move:

That until the end of the session, unless otherwise ordered by the Council, the following sessional order be adopted, to come into operation at the end of the sitting week:

X. Variation of scope of orders for the production of documents

After Standing Order 10.01 insert:

(1) The Secretary, Department of Premier and Cabinet, may write to the Clerk at any time up to and including the seventh day prior to the date for the return of documents and request that the scope of an order be varied.

(2) A request to vary the scope of an order for the production of documents must include reasons why the scope of the order should be varied, which may include but are not limited to –

(a)   why the timeframe for the production of the documents cannot be met; and/or

(b)   why the terms of the order are likely to result in the production of a large number of documents reasonably believed to be irrelevant to the intent of the order for documents.

(3) The Clerk will provide the request and any accompanying documents to the President and the member who moved the original order for documents. The Clerk will advise all members and publish notification that a request has been received.

(4) When a request under this Sessional Order is received –

(a)   the original order and the date for return of documents is suspended; and

(b)   if –

(i)   the request is rejected, the original order stands and the documents ordered are to be produced to the House by the original due date, or if that date has passed, within a further seven calendar days, and the Clerk will advise all members and publish any correspondence received relating to the rejection;

(ii)   agreement is not reached within 14 calendar days, the original order stands and the documents ordered are to be produced to the House by the original due date, or if that date has passed, within a further seven calendar days, and the Clerk will advise all members and publish notification that the request has lapsed;

(iii)   an agreement is reached between the member and the Secretary, Department of Premier and Cabinet, and is certified by the President, the Clerk will advise all members and publish the terms of the agreement, the President’s certification, and any correspondence received relating to the agreement.

(5) On the next sitting day, at the start of formal business, the President will report the agreement to the House and table all relevant documents.

(6) The President will then propose the question to the House “That the varied terms of the order be agreed to”. This question may not be amended or debated except for the member who moved the original order and a Minister may make a statement of up to 5 minutes each.

(7) If the question is resolved in the negative, the original order remains in force.

I rise to make a contribution on motion 1239 in Lizzie Blandthorn’s name. It is on the notice paper, and it relates to our government motion in regard to variation of the scope of documents motions. Members in this chamber would be aware that on numerous occasions we regularly come together to debate documents motions in the house, and there has for some time now been some conjecture about the scope of documents motions – the number of documents that are being sought. Members in this chamber would also be aware that it is the government’s position to not oppose documents motions. We never oppose those documents motions, but I think we can all agree on one thing: the way in which the current procedures for this chamber have been framed has not been satisfactory for not only the people who are moving those motions, whether it is crossbenchers or those opposite, but also those on the government benches. We have routinely said in this chamber that there are difficulties with complying with those documents motions because, given sometimes the scope of those motions can be quite broad and quite wide, we just do not know how many documents might be captured by that, so that then creates a problem in terms of compliance.

Just for those who might be playing along at home and those who might need a bit of reminding in this chamber, this house did refer it to the Procedure Committee – Mr Davis, I know you were a member of that at the time – for the Procedure Committee to inquire into and report back to the Parliament about what other jurisdictions might do in terms of their documents motions. I am also a member of the Procedure Committee, and as part of the work of that committee we did in fact take a deep dive into all things procedural in other jurisdictions. I found it quite interesting, personally; I learned a lot about procedure. I want to thank the boffins in New South Wales and certainly our own boffins here in Victoria for making sure we were across all of the detail, because it is something that is quite detailed in terms of its application. There are certain nuances that are existent in New South Wales that are not the same for us here in Victoria, so it was quite illuminating to get reports from different jurisdictions on what they are doing.

What I can say is that the motion that is before the house right now, motion 1239, is a lengthy motion. If you read it, it is very lengthy. But cutting to the chase of what it does, effectively it allows the government to basically engage with the mover of the motion to say, ‘Look, we understand this is the motion, but could we propose something that might narrow the scope?’ For example, the scope of a documents motion could be quite wide; there could be thousands and thousands of documents, some of them quite irrelevant. If someone were to reply to an email just saying ‘Noted’, for example, or had a line that pertained to the subject that the person was after, that could be captured. I know that there is scepticism that exists within this chamber about the way that governments deal with these things, but at a practical level somebody somewhere has to physically go through mountains of documents, and that takes time. The reality is that there are a number of documents motions that are coming out of this chamber on a very frequent basis and quite regularly. Again, somebody somewhere in some department has to take the time to gather those documents. It might depend on whether documents are kept onsite or not onsite. There might be a time when they have to retrieve documents, so that can take time as well. Then there is advice that we seek from the government solicitor about whether certain documents are in scope or out of scope, whether there are cabinet-in-confidence documents and the like. I know there is scepticism about that, but there are a range of moving parts to those things. It is not a matter of someone just clicking their fingers and saying, ‘Right, let’s get 30,000 documents delivered on the day.’

As I was saying, the motion before the chamber today is indeed lengthy, but the mechanism of it is quite straightforward. The change simply allows for the government to propose to vary the scope of the documents order. As I said, this might occur in instances where the mover of the documents order has drafted language to their motion to be quite broad, which might then inadvertently capture many, many documents that are really not relevant – potentially thousands of irrelevant documents. I talked about emails and the like. If it is just someone saying ‘Noted’, it is not really relevant. No-one cares about someone saying ‘Noted’. It is great they have acknowledged your email, but it is not really what you are looking for in this chamber. As I said, it causes significant strain on government resources to get that together. I have worked as a solicitor, and I have also ordered documents and tried to get discovery and things like that. It does take time, and the documents can be voluminous. Someone has to go through that and read that. Then the person who proposed the motion has got to go through when they receive those documents and determine whether they are happy with the result.

The current standing orders in the chamber make no provision for the government to amend the scope of orders once they have actually gone through this chamber. The effect of the motion that is before us today will allow an interactive practice between the government and the mover of the motion to talk about what the person is actually after. Again, I will go to the mechanics of the motion in a minute. I think it is reasonable – and of course this is what the key result of the Procedure Committee was – to actually come up with this motion based on the information that we were provided. I am pleased to say that everyone who was on the Procedure Committee was unanimous in our position on this, so it should come as no surprise. I know Mr Davis might grumble along the way, but you were there and you agreed too. I am just saying we all reached a unanimous position, which is a good thing as well.

Ultimately, as I said, there is really no scope for the government once the documents motion has been passed in here to work with the mover to try and amend that and to say, ‘Rather than seeking truckloads, you might only want one box. Is this really what you want?’ The nature of the scope can be varied to such an extent that it is more useful to the mover, but there is no other practice or opportunity for those discussions to take place. In the event that the government wants to offer a varied scope of documents to the mover, it is a two-way street. The government can offer that, but the mover, if they are not interested, does not have to take up that opportunity. If the mover of the documents motion is not interested or does not agree with the government’s proposed middle ground, they are well within their rights to refuse the request, in which case the original order remains in force and nothing changes. I think it is always useful and helpful where there can be an opportunity for conversations to happen so that we can both agree on what is actually being sought. The situation that we have actually got now in the chamber is not satisfactory to everyone, so there is genuine desire I think on the government’s part to try and make this more workable for everybody.

I want to just remind everybody in the chamber of the journey that we have all been on with this thing. The government have spoken previously in this chamber about the difficulties that we are experiencing in complying with documents motions. We did previously propose these sorts of changes, but they were not really met with much interest. But we initially did propose this change publicly, and we had read it into the notice paper and allowed members time to consider it as well. A motion was moved, referring it back to the Procedure Committee to interrogate and report back, as I outlined earlier, so we did that work as the Procedure Committee, and the Procedure Committee, as I said, did achieve a unanimous decision in regard to that. So now, after receiving the committee’s endorsement, we are proceeding with this motion today.

I just want to remind those in the chamber, though, it has taken a bit of a long time, and maybe that might suit some people’s purposes over on the opposition benches. But Mr Davis, when this original sessional order establishing short-form documents motions was originally done, did not support that concept. We did try and have a conversation around this and allude to the problems that might be associated with the approach that Mr Davis was pursuing, and I understand that there were discussions with the crossbench that there was really nothing to see here and that we could just follow what New South Wales did to the letter. But again what was missed in that position was that there are differences in New South Wales. They do have some differences, and we could not just have adopted theirs because it would not have worked for us here in Victoria. So we have got to the situation where there is probably a bit of a record that has been set for the number of times that the sessional orders discussion has returned to the chamber to be debated and amended – maybe three, four times; I do not know. But we have tried in genuine good faith to alert the chamber and Mr Davis to the fact that what was going to be created would also not be workable.

The other problem was that we had to do it the hard way after rejecting the government’s request to have this go before the Procedure Committee. We did eventually get there because the sessional order effectively gutted their own general business day, so then we had crossbenchers, if they were unlucky, drawing the short straw and getting the third slot in general business, which meant they got crunched at the end of the day. So that was pretty unfortunate. They then risked being gagged by the very sessional order that they had been convinced to support by Mr Davis – so perhaps a bit of sleight of hand there with the crossbench and maybe not such transparency there. But again we tried to say to Mr Davis at that time and explain to the crossbench that there were these problems and there would be unintended consequences from the approach that was being put forward by Mr Davis.

Anyway, here we are, and again I know that often the government members on this side, when we try and explain things in good faith, are viewed with scepticism. I think that is sad, because this situation that we are dealing with now demonstrates the fact that if people listened in good faith and actually saw what we were talking about and that it was not a sleight-of-hand situation – again, we are just trying to be of assistance to the chamber. As I said, our position on documents motions is that we do not oppose them. We let them go by and we try and comply with them, but the sheer volume of documents is the problem. In any event, our response as I said to documents motions is that we consistently uphold our obligations to the Parliament to provide responses to motions whenever they are passed. I note that the standing orders in the Parliament have also been changed, which means the government only gets a very short amount of time to respond to documents motions. I know that is the want of the chamber, but I still think it is an unfair situation to the government to not be able to respond to those things in a reasonable amount of time. Five minutes is not a lot of time to be able to respond to those things. It is actually quite challenging to be able to cover all of the ground that you might like to cover in a 5-minute period. Again, that is the will of the chamber, but I can see that some people actually like the fact that they might get to bully and kick the government around when they get an opportunity, and I think this is one of those circumstances. Again, we should be trying to work in a much more collaborative fashion rather than scoring cheap points, but that is where we are.

Nevertheless the sessional order changes that were implemented by Mr Davis – again there is a turbocharging of the amount of documents orders. Now we see there are two per sitting week in an effort to bog down departments and the Victorian Government Solicitor’s Office. If you are getting two documents motions a week, bureaucrats somewhere in a government department, as I said, have to order these documents. If they are not held onsite, they might be in offsite storage somewhere. That costs money as well. If you have to get your document storage people to go and retrieve something from a long way away, that is money and resources that the government is being forced to expend. These things take time. Not only does someone have to go through and see whether each document complies with the terms sought – the net that has been cast, if you like, by the mover of the motion – but then on whether some of the information contained in that should be redacted or not, somebody has to apply consistently the tests that go along with production of documents.

There could be documents that will not be disclosed due to executive privilege or the like. I know Mr Davis hates that term, but it is definitely a thing. We get advice from the government solicitor on those matters. The government solicitor is also a very busy public service entity, and it does take time for those things to be done. It is an accepted principle that in some circumstances, as I said, the government may withhold documents when disclosure would be contrary to the public interest, and the basis for withholding that is called executive privilege. I know Mr Davis does not like that. But in any event, the government receives legal advice, including from the Victorian Government Solicitor’s Office, to inform its decisions to claim executive privilege. Like I said, these things all take time. I understand it can be frustrating for those people who are in fact waiting for those documents to be produced, but it takes time. Someone somewhere has to do it, and that takes time. Tying up finite government department resources is frustrating for everyone. These are some of the things the government might consider as to whether things should be in or out: matters like whether things would reveal, directly or indirectly, the deliberative processes of cabinet – so cabinet-in-confidence documents are out – or reveal high-level, confidential deliberative processes of the executive government or otherwise genuinely jeopardise the necessary relationships of trust and confidence between a minister and public officials. Somebody has to go through and consistently apply these tests. There are quite a number of points that go into these matters. Someone somewhere has to sit there and apply these tests.

Also what would be excluded is where there is information revealed that might have been obtained by the executive government on the basis that it would be kept confidential, including because the documents are subject to statutory confidentiality provisions that apply to the Parliament, and also where the documents might reveal confidential legal advice to the executive government, because government does seek legal advice on a whole range of matters. So those matters are provided to the government, which would be the client, on a confidential basis. Especially if something is prepared for the purpose of legal proceedings, for example, that is definitely something that would be confidential between the parties. Other documents might otherwise jeopardise the public interest on an established basis, in particular where disclosure would prejudice national security or public safety, prejudice law enforcement investigations or materially damage the state’s financial or commercial interests, such as ongoing tender processes or changes in taxation policy, and also whether it would prejudice intergovernmental and diplomatic relations or prejudice legal proceedings. Those things make sense to me. They do not seem controversial, and I do not think the government should be viewed with scepticism when we are saying that if a document might enliven some of these objections, it should not be provided. These are principles that are well founded, well tested and have been stable principles really for quite some period of time. It is not appropriate to comment on the merits of individual government decisions to claim executive privilege in respect of particular documents either.

What the motion does is propose that a mechanism be inserted into the standing orders. As I said, it is a very long and lengthy motion. What it provides for is the following thing: once the mover of the motion has got their motion together and is seeking documents, the proposal is to insert after standing order 10.01:

(1)   The Secretary, Department of Premier and Cabinet, may write to the Clerk at any time up to and including the seventh day prior to the date for the return of documents and request that the scope of an order be varied.

I am going to go through the technical stuff in here in terms of the mechanisms that are proposed to be inserted. Secondly:

(2)   A request to vary the scope of an order for the production of documents must include reasons why the scope of the order should be varied, which may include but are not limited to –

(a) why the timeframe for the production of the documents cannot be met; and/or

(b) why the terms of the order are likely to result in the production of a large number of documents reasonably believed to be irrelevant to the intent of the order for documents.

(3)   The Clerk will provide the request and any accompanying documents to the President and the member who moved the original order for documents. The Clerk will advise all members and publish notification that a request has been received.

So there is that iterative process where people are actually talking to each other about what is required.

(4)   When a request under this Sessional Order is received –

(a) the original order and the date for return of documents is suspended; and

(b) if –

(i) the request is rejected, the original order stands and the documents ordered are to be produced to the House by the original due date, or if that date has passed, within a further seven calendar days, and the Clerk will advise all members and publish any correspondence received relating to the rejection …

So I think what is being proposed and what the committee landed on – and this is what was proposed by the committee – is a sensible approach where parties can actually discuss what is being sought and a mechanism whereby documents can be produced but, if the mover of the motion is not satisfied with what the government is proposing in terms of an amendment, that can be rejected by the mover of the motion. I think that is sensible, and the timeframes involved in this, as I have just read out, are reasonable as well. It is definitely not a motion that seeks to delay matters. If documents are to be produced to the house and the original due date has gone by, there will be only a further seven calendar days and members will be advised and any correspondence received relating to the rejection will be published. It is a reasonable timeframe for all parties to deal with this in a sensible and comprehensive way, and you can see the mechanisms that work there. The next part is if:

(ii) agreement is not reached within 14 calendar days, the original order stands and the documents ordered are to be produced to the House by the original due date, or if that date has passed, within a further seven calendar days, and the Clerk will advise all members and publish notification that the request has lapsed;

(iii) an agreement is reached between the member and the Secretary, Department of Premier and Cabinet, and is certified by the President, the Clerk will advise all members and publish the terms of the agreement, the President’s certification, and any correspondence received relating to the agreement.

There are a few other things there, but it shows that there is a genuine desire, and again the Procedure Committee landed on this. Members of the crossbench and members of the opposition were on that committee and reached an agreement. I think it is something that is reasonable in the circumstances. It will, as I said, allow everybody in here to have a discussion about what is actually being sought and then hopefully streamline the processes. It will alleviate that burden on our public servants and any government departments, where a lot of time and effort goes into these things, especially if there is a large volume of documents. You cannot tell at the time a motion lands here how many documents might actually be in scope. It is unknown at the time. Once an analysis of that is done by the relevant government departments, there might be boxes and boxes and boxes. And I do not think that is what members who move these documents motions want either. I do not think you want that. If you want to go through 30,000 pages, it might take you a little bit of time to actually get to what you want, so that is really not what you want. I know sometimes these things can be looked at as a little bit of a fishing exercise. I have been around long enough to have been involved with the production of documents in my lifetime in other iterations, so I know there are certain ways that people like to try and see what they can get: ‘Oh, look, a surprise. I wasn’t expecting that, but there’s something that’s interesting.’ It is a waste of government resources and it is a waste of government time. As I said, the government’s intention is that we do want to cooperate, but we need a proper process where we can have discussions and basically assist. I have lost count of the number of documents motions that have been approved by this chamber. Someone might somewhere have kept count. But for the purpose of speaking on this motion, I have not had the opportunity to keep a tally. Nevertheless there have been a lot. As I said earlier, there are at least two documents motions that are moved every Wednesday of every sitting week and possibly more, so there are a lot that get moved.

I will just talk about the record of those opposite for a moment. It is important to contrast this, because as I said, our position is we do not oppose documents motions. This government, here on these benches, does not oppose documents motions. In the 57th Parliament the Legislative Council passed six documents motions. The LNP government responded by providing documents in part for three of those motions – only three. The LNP government provided no documents for 50 per cent of those motions, and no documents at all were provided in response to requests by Labor seeking orders for documents on ambulance response times, the Patrick Stevedores relocation and the east–west link business case, for which just an executive summary was released.

Harriet Shing interjected.

Sonja TERPSTRA: It was a cracker. But again, those documents contained none of the details of the project. So it is a little bit rich for the government to be accused of things when we have just got to look at the record of those opposite. On questions without notice, in the 57th Parliament the LNP left 1174 questions without notice unanswered.

A member interjected.

Sonja TERPSTRA: Yes, let me repeat that: 1174 questions without notice unanswered. That is nearly double the amount of questions without notice unanswered by Labor in the 58th Parliament.

Members interjecting.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Jacinta Ermacora): Mr Davis, if you are going to interject, do so from your place, please.

David Davis interjected.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Jacinta Ermacora): That is not an appropriate excuse.

Sonja TERPSTRA: On a point of order, Acting President, Mr Davis should return to his place if he is going to interject. He is not in his place.

David Davis: I wasn’t interjecting. I was having a conversation.

Sonja TERPSTRA: Regardless, return to your place if you are going to interject or make some sort of interruption while the debate is ongoing. Acting President, there is a point of order there for you.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Jacinta Ermacora): I uphold that point of order and request that you continue your contribution uninterrupted.

Sonja TERPSTRA: Without assistance of course. Again, on the contrast of those opposite with this government, 3282 individual FOI requests were denied in full by the LNP government. There were repeatedly refused departmental briefings with Labor members on the FOI commissioner bill. It is important to remind people in this chamber about this, because history is important. It is good to contrast what our government is doing and the record of those opposite. They also underfunded and understaffed the FOI commissioner, refused to grant them powers needed to hold the government to account and then cut their budget by almost 25 per cent a year later. We know it is in their DNA to cut and we know that government departments would be stripped of important resources and funding that they would need to operate, and there is a perfect example of what I just mentioned about that. They also continued using advisers to oversee FOI processes and then deny access to information. That is not the role and approach of this government. We use government departments, not advisers, and we certainly use proper cabinet processes, and those processes are assessed by the government solicitor. Then, I can say, the coalition denied Labor leave to debate a bill that would require the quarterly release of hospital, paramedics and firefighters performance data. There was a deliberate attempt by those opposite when they were in government to restrict access to information and very important data about hospitals, paramedics and firefighters performance data, because they wanted to hide from public scrutiny. But here we are today debating something where they want access to information and data. I find it very, very interesting, to say the least. Of course David Davis was the health minister at the time, and at one point health performance data was held back for 18 months. I will say it again – 18 months.

There are some very interesting numbers in that latter part of my contribution on this motion. It is very interesting and revealing that those opposite now seek to have a rolled-gold process around this. But nevertheless I want to thank all the members who are on the Procedure Committee. We did an important piece of work on that Procedure Committee. I also want to thank the clerks of the New South Wales Parliament for taking time to speak to all of us and go through all of the nuances in regard to their situation in New South Wales, because it is quite different, so it was pretty clear we could not just adopt whatever they were doing. I think the position that the Procedure Committee has landed on, and the proposed amendment to standing order 10.01, is appropriate. I hope that all parties in this chamber, when these documents motions are debated, there can be a genuine engagement between parties, whether it is the crossbench or those opposite, about what is actually being sought, rather than seeking to embark on massive fishing expeditions for thousands and thousands of documents just to waste finite resources of government and the time of many, many a public servant. I think I will leave my contribution there with about 5 seconds to go on the clock, and I commend the motion.

 David DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan) (16:51): I am pleased to rise and make a brief contribution to motion 1239, after that extraordinary ramble that we just heard. But let us be clear here: this is a modest change to the standing orders. It is a change to the standing orders that the Procedure Committee has recommended. It is a change to the standing orders that, as far as I know, everyone agrees with, including the Liberals and Nationals. I also do want to say something about the broader context of document motions, and I will come to that in a moment. What this does is it makes some modest changes on the advice of officials and MPs in the New South Wales Parliament. To give people some history, our standing orders are modelled directly on the New South Wales Legislative Council ones. When we introduced those, they were shamelessly lifted to put the framework in place here for production of documents motions. These current standing orders came into effect in the Parliament beginning after the election in 2014. So I just want to be very clear to Ms Terpstra that these current standing orders were not in place prior to that point, so the codification of the standing orders did not occur until the 2014 period onwards, after the state election.

I also want to say something about the input of the New South Wales officials and the New South Wales MPs of a number of political parties. That was very helpful. We were impressed, and what it gives us is a modest, iterative process, modelled on New South Wales, that enables the refining of requests for documents with input from the head of the Department of Premier and Cabinet. We have no objection to that concept. We have no objection to the proposed mechanism. As I say, the standing orders are modelled on the New South Wales Legislative Council, but since the time that they were put into our standing orders here in that period, from December 2014 onwards, New South Wales has changed its standing orders and has had learnings and different approaches. That is all good.

I will summarise the method, or the mechanism – perhaps a little more succinctly than Ms Terpstra did. A motion is passed and then an iterative process can commence, and that is formalised and structured. If the secretary of DPC is able to convince the mover of the motion that it can be refined in a sensible way, that can be done straightforwardly, and I think that makes absolute sense. As I say, New South Wales has adopted this approach, and so should we.

Michael Galea: Why didn’t you fix it properly in the first place? Why didn’t you use the Procedure Committee?

David DAVIS: We are relaxed about the way it has occurred. We are relaxed about the input. We are relaxed about the points that occurred from New South Wales, the material presented by the –

Michael Galea interjected.

David DAVIS: We are very calm about the way the new changes have been made. But what I would say is that we are not calm and we are not relaxed about the government’s routine non-provision of documents. So this should be seen as one side. Ms Terpstra said there could be thousands of documents, but on some occasions somebody has moved a motion and sought a single document – one, just one document. And then the government goes up hill, down dale and around and all of that to try and prevent the release of a single document, and it delays and obfuscates – everything that you can imagine under the sun, every excuse known to man, things that would make Sir Humphrey proud of the approach adopted. But of course we do know what is going on here. The state government have become masters at blocking the release of documents, and the only reason they can do that of course is that the chamber is yet to take a firm view with them. And if we take a firm view with them, there will be a consequence of some type for those who are responsible for providing the documents but have not provided them.

I do want to say the powers of the chamber are very clear – the powers of the House of Commons in 1856, the power to call for people and documents. If Ms Terpstra wants to go and read the Constitution of Victoria book, she will get a sense of it. Or she could just walk to the papers office and get a copy of the legal opinion – actually, two legal opinions – obtained by the chamber from Bret Walker. Bret Walker is the foremost constitutional lawyer in this area, the one who ran the Sydney Water case that went to the High Court, and the High Court has given very clear enunciation of the powers of Legislative Council chambers around the country. Arguably, Victoria’s are slightly sharper than New South Wales’s, but I will leave that to the constitutional boffins to argue. It is clear that we have the ability to call for documents and people. The government does have certain prerogatives. I accept this completely, and I have been in the same position that the Leader of the Government is in, having been on the relevant committee, considering documents motions coming from this chamber and dealing with that. I also understand the challenges that she faces when it comes to the approach and attitudes of lower house ministers, who tend to have a lower understanding of what occurs in our chamber and the importance of it for our democracy more broadly. I say that very clearly. I understand that, and I do not diminish the challenge that she faces in any regard either.

There is a huge list of documents that are outstanding currently, and this is separate from the mild and sensible iterative process that we are establishing through this motion. It is a separate matter that the government has not provided documents when it should have. It could have and it should have, and it has chosen not to. I can go back to the period through the last Parliament, when the most extraordinary resistance was encountered when we tried to seek COVID documents, and this government or its predecessor was determined not to provide those. Many of those are still not in the public domain. Many are there because of long FOI processes, some that we have run. One went to the Court of Appeal, and in that case the documents were ordered released by the Court of Appeal of Victoria. But those documents were not provided to the chamber. They could have been provided to the chamber. The government was able to find the documents for FOI. There was a defined list of documents. All of those things eventually, when they get to the Court of Appeal, are ordered to be provided. They could have been provided to this chamber and should have been provided to this chamber concurrently with the public health orders that were being made at the time through that period of COVID. I am a former health minister. I was not against the exercising of the public health powers by the chief health officer in a proper way, but I always believed that there should have been proper exposition of the decisions. There should have been proper information about the decisions. The reasons for the decisions ought to have always been in the public domain because that would have meant the quality of the decision-making improved, and that is part of what we are trying to do here. We are trying to actually get better quality government decisions by the scrutiny of them and by the accountability that comes from providing that overlay of scrutiny that this chamber does successfully provide and ought to continue to provide.

To the extent that these new orders refine that process in light of New South Wales’s experience, I support that. Let me just point to one thing here. There is one glaring difference. In New South Wales they have an arbiter, so where a dispute occurs and a claim of executive privilege is made by a minister there is an ability to have the arbiter come in – an independent person, usually a former Supreme Court judge, a person of impeccable quality, impeccable legal training and impeccable independence, jointly chosen by the chamber. However, we have never been able to have the arbiter work here. I am going to call it for what it is: the Andrews Labor government and the Allan Labor government have never allowed the arbiter to act or be involved. It is in there; people can read it in the standing orders, and this, again, is copied directly from New South Wales. In chapter 10, on page 39, it lays out the process by which an arbiter can be called, the report of an independent arbiter and the appointment of an independent arbiter. Appointed by the President, they must be a Queen’s Counsel – we probably should change that to ‘King’s Counsel’ now – a Senior Counsel or a retired Supreme Court judge. These are persons of impeccable quality and impeccable independence. Why will the government not allow its claims of executive privilege to be tested by an independent arbiter? It is an absolute outrage.

Ms Terpstra said, ‘There are a lot of documents. There are too many documents’ – blah, blah, blah. This is well after that. Of the Commonwealth Games documents that Mr Limbrick moved by motion with the support of the Commonwealth Games committee – 153 I think was the number of documents – three were provided, 150 were not, and executive privilege was claimed over the lot of them. We asked for the arbiter to be appointed. They just would not do it. No-one would do it. The government would not allow an arbiter to be appointed, in direct defiance –

Sonja Terpstra: It doesn’t work.

David DAVIS: Well, it was not about finding the documents. It was not that they were voluminous. They had been found, they had been listed and executive privilege had been claimed. Nobody believed that these documents were all executively privileged. No-one believed that. No sane person believed that. People believed that maybe a few of them genuinely had executive privilege, but people wanted it tested by the arbiter. Why wouldn’t we?

Sonja Terpstra interjected.

David DAVIS: I beg your pardon?

The ACTING PRESIDENT (John Berger): Order! Mr Davis to continue.

David DAVIS: I am being provoked here, Acting President. Just let me also be quite clear here: New South Wales has made some changes to its standing orders; we are now copying those standing order changes in large measure. In large measure we are, and that is a good thing. It sets up a way forward and it makes sure that we can actually test some of these things in a reasonable way. My challenge to the government now is that we will in good faith pass these changes, and there will then be an iterative process to check and test some of those points. However, I say to the government: get a move on, provide that big backlog of documents and allow an arbiter to be appointed so that there can be a testing of these matters where there is a dispute. I think that is a very reasonable demand and a very reasonable request. I do want to say something about the opportunities for improvement of the process here. I am keen to see the arbiter appointed, I am keen to see this improved and I am keen to see some penalties for ministers who do not work in good faith on this matter. There has to be some clear indication that the minister is not doing the right thing. It might be that the minister is no longer allowed to give ministerial statements in this chamber. It might be that the minister has other certain privileges withdrawn in the chamber so that we make sure the minister who is responsible, whoever that might be in a particular documents motion, is incentivised to begin providing the documents that are in the public interest. It is in the public interest that that scrutiny and oversight is there.

 Sarah MANSFIELD (Western Victoria) (17:06): I rise to speak on this motion and welcome it finally coming to the chamber. We are very much in support of this motion. I appreciate the process that we went through to get to this point via the Procedure Committee. As Ms Terpstra outlined, I think there was broad agreement about the changes that have been outlined here. They are, as Mr Davis said, fairly modest changes. By way of context, we have had disputes about documents since I first came to this place. While at some level I find the fact that I have got to stand up and speak on this again incredibly tedious, it is actually vitally important, this issue, and it is something that we still have not completely resolved. But I think hopefully today there is a small step in the right direction.

Every time we have a dispute about documents the standard response from the government is that there has not been enough time allowed to produce the document, and then we are told that sometimes the scope is too wide, even though, as has been identified, quite a number of the requests are for a single document – a single report that we know exists. So some of those excuses around why it cannot be provided around timing or scope do not entirely add up. But we accept that in some instances perhaps that has been an issue, and, as written, the standing orders do not allow for any kind of sensible discussion or rescoping of the request between the government and other parties. This sessional order change will allow for that discussion to take place. The mover of the motion is well within their rights to refuse whatever terms the government is offering. I think it is a very reasonable compromise. It is based on a process they went through in New South Wales. We had the opportunity, via the Procedure Committee, to speak to a number of people, who have either been MPs or clerks in New South Wales, who were able to attest to how the process there has been beneficial and been used by all parties to find a way through where there is a bit of disagreement about the scope and timing of documents.

Putting that aside, I think there are some ongoing concerns about what happens with these documents disputes. Mr Davis has already touched on it and has spoken about the need to have access to an arbiter. But before we even get to the point of having an arbiter – and this was with reference to the issue of executive privilege. I might go back a step. The issue of executive privilege was not something we looked at in the Procedure Committee, and that was quite deliberate, because we already have standing orders in this Parliament that are perfectly adequate. They are well written. They are essentially identical to New South Wales’s. They outline a process when a claim is made around executive privilege. I am pretty sure it is standing order 10.03. We have talked about it that many times, I think I remember the standing order. I do not have a great memory for numbers, but I think it is 10.03. It is well outlined, the process for what should happen when a claim of executive privilege is made.

There is nothing wrong with our standing orders. The problem is that the government refuses to follow the standing orders when it comes to a claim of executive privilege. So what will happen if we ever do get a documents request replied to? The vast majority of documents have claims of executive privilege made over them. Whenever we bring this issue up, we hear from the government ‘We have a right to claim executive privilege’ and we get lectures about the history of executive privilege and cabinet in confidence and all sorts of things. No-one here has ever disputed the government’s right to claim executive privilege. The government has a right to claim executive privilege. However, the Parliament has a right to challenge that claim, and that is what that standing order 10.03 process is about. It is about allowing the Parliament, the mover of that motion, to challenge that claim.

Before we even get to the point of an arbiter coming into any kind of dispute, there is a step before that that has meant we have never even been able to make a challenge, because the step before that never occurs. The step before that is for the government to provide the documents to the mover of the motion. Where privilege is claimed, the mover of the motion can request the documents to see whether they believe that claim of privilege is reasonable. That is done in confidence. It obviously requires a level of trust and respect that clearly the government does not hold for the rest of the Parliament, but that is what is meant to occur. If the mover of the motion agrees with the claim of privilege, end of story. If the mover of the motion does not believe that privilege is appropriate, at that point they can raise a dispute and an arbiter can be appointed. But the government does not even engage with the process; they do not follow the standing orders at all. I do wonder: if the government does not agree with that, then maybe they should be pushing to abolish that part of the standing orders. But they are the rules of the Parliament that this Parliament has agreed upon, and they should be followed.

David Davis interjected.

Sarah MANSFIELD: It is what happens in New South Wales. Yes, it took a court case to force that process, but we should be able to look at that process and go, ‘It works there. We can do that here.’ As we have said, this is a vitally important issue when it comes to transparency. These discussions in any of these debates can sometimes feel a lot like inside baseball. No-one is really paying attention to the detail of a lot of these discussions unless they have got a keen interest in integrity and parliamentary process. But when I explain what this actually means in practical terms to members of the public who have an interest in some of the documents we are trying to acquire, they are outraged. They cannot believe what occurs with this government when it comes to the production of documents – or the lack thereof – with their outrageous claims of privilege and the total lack of respect for the Parliament. They cannot believe it. They are outraged. They wonder what they can do about it and how on earth the government gets away with it.

We have tried very hard to be reasonable about these things as a Parliament and have held off on any kind of serious sanctions for members of the government. But the reality is, aside from kicking someone out, there are not a lot of options we have got to create some kind of consequence for this behaviour. Whenever this issue comes up and we float the idea that there has to be a consequence it is turned around on us and it is made out as though we are the problem and we are the ones behaving badly when it is actually the government who are not following the rules of the Parliament. They are not showing respect to the Parliament, and in doing so, they are not showing respect for the Victorian people. I really, really hope that through agreeing to this change in the sessional orders, through the approach we have taken to work collaboratively and constructively – to go down this path, not go down the path of kicking people out – we will see an improvement in the government’s attitude towards these documents requests. We have a right to request these documents. The government has a right to claim privilege. We have a right to challenge that if we so wish.

I feel like this really should not be so hard. I would love to think I will never have to get up and speak on this issue ever again. I am so sick of speaking about this issue in this chamber. I fear that it may not be the last time I get up and speak about it, but let us see how we go. I really look forward to having some good discussions with the government – sensible, genuinely good faith discussions – around things like scope and timing. Hopefully it makes their job a little bit easier, and we will start to see some documents being produced, as has been requested. For those reasons I commend the motion. We will be supporting it strongly, but I think there is still a fair way to go before I have full faith that we have addressed the problem of production of documents in this Parliament.

 Ryan BATCHELOR (Southern Metropolitan) (17:15): I am very pleased to rise to make a brief contribution today. Obviously we make contributions most weeks on short-form documents motions, which as a feature of our standing orders have certainly increased quite considerably the number of motions passed by this chamber seeking documents out of the government, given we now basically have two short debates every sitting week which present motions that often are quite expansive and quite detailed in the breadth and depth of documents that are being sought. We have articulated in the chamber previously that sometimes the scope of or the net that is cast by those documents motions is exceptionally wide. Given the state and nature of contemporary communications within government, when things like ‘all correspondence’ are put into a request for documents, dutifully in response the public service is required then to go through every single email that a public servant may have sent on a particular topic. The volume of material that is created in today’s public service far exceeds the historical practice that may have seen short briefing files that may have occurred in the past.

One of the really important things that this motion is seeking to do today is to vary the scope of the documents orders to take account of the way that modern information is generated inside government. I think it is a good thing that this chamber is adapting its procedures to reflect the realities of modern communication. Hopefully it will result in better motions that are more targeted, and hopefully it will result in a process that allows, when wide nets are cast, for the scope to be narrowed to the things that people actually care about. That is what this motion seeks to do. There has been a pretty wideranging debate on other things people find infuriating about the documents process, which stem fundamentally back to questions about whether the executive and the Crown have a right to exert privilege –

Members interjecting.

Ryan BATCHELOR: If you would let me finish before interjecting, Mr Davis, you might understand the point I am trying to make. People are suggesting that claims of executive privilege are unreasonably being used to withhold documents, and what it comes down to I think is a disagreement between the Parliament and the executive about who makes determinations about whether executive privilege applies. That goes back to the way that interpretations are made about the way this power descended from the House of Commons. The problem is – as Dr Mansfield walks out, not willing to listen to this debate –

David Davis interjected.

Ryan BATCHELOR: It is not nonsense, because it goes to a question about who determines whether documents have executive privilege. It strikes me as passing strange that the way you determine that is by the way the Parliament suggests or the way people advocate, which is that you would seek to go through a process that in effect, it could be argued, abrogates the privilege by engaging in the process. I think that is what people are concerned about here, and it has been articulated again and again and again. I think that it is quite clear that the executive believes that determinations of executive privilege are matters that should be determined by the executive, and that is consistent with historical practice and procedure and process. Just because something is done in New South Wales does not necessarily mean the same applies here. I have got very good friends in the New South Wales Parliament; I have got people very dear to me who have distinguished records serving in the New South Wales Legislative Council. I do not think they are in any way, shape or form always the oracle on all issues. I think it is perfectly legitimate for us here in Victoria to have a view about these matters. I think it is perfectly legitimate for this Council to have a view about this matter, and it is perfectly legitimate for the executive to have a view about the extent and scope and determinations of privilege. That is not what this motion is about.

I think the motion before us today is a very good addition to the processes that exist to ensure that the requests that are made are made in a way that can be efficiently resolved and wide nets that are cast can be narrowed in scope to get to the heart of what people are wanting to do. Hopefully we can improve the way these processes work so that people do not feel like they are exasperated because their version of the system does not exist.

 Evan MULHOLLAND (Northern Metropolitan) (17:21): I am very pleased to speak on notice of motion 1239, and I am looking forward to hearing Minister Blandthorn’s extensive views on the topic as well. This came from a Procedure Committee inquiry, which I was a part of. I did very much enjoy taking part in this Procedure Committee inquiry looking into the standing orders and how documents motions work. For a bit of that inquiry I was on paternity leave, but still I was able to Zoom in and take part. I really enjoyed hearing from all sorts of experts on this and people with lived experience, including the now senator David Shoebridge, who was a member of the New South Wales upper house, and also Damien Tudehope, a former Leader of the Government in the New South Wales Legislative Assembly and now Leader of the Opposition, and his staff, all of whom have extensive experience in how the situation works up there.

I think, to be frank, the current system here is not working, and too many of us have had documents that have had executive privilege claimed. Too many of us have been waiting for documents for years. We are coming up to the second birthday of Ms Crozier’s Albury–Wodonga documents motion. The same documents were achieved through a documents motion in New South Wales; they were provided, but here we cannot get access to the same documents about the same hospital. I think something is not quite right there. We do, as has been discussed in conversation in this chamber, have a process whereby an arbiter can be appointed to decide if executive privilege is correct. Under it, the mover of the documents motion should be able to see those documents and decide for themselves whether executive privilege can be claimed and is correct, and if they have a different view, then they should be able to initiate that process. But as my colleague Dr Mansfield has said, the government has never allowed that process to occur, and it should happen. We have seen a lot of attempts by the government to stymie the release of documents. I would say the king of FOIs and VCAT is of course my colleague Mr Davis, but I am learning quickly.

I had an interesting case last week where I was – as I have tried to do in documents motions – trying to get the legal fees from the government that the Victorian Managed Insurance Authority spent trying to stop young families from getting their deposits back. It was a pretty simple thing and something that other departments have been able to provide me: what they have spent on legal fees. In this particular case I thought it was quite egregious because they were going after young families with top-tier law firms, people that were paying basically two mortgages because one of their home builders collapsed. The government and VCAT kept extending it and extending it and extending it. They then said, as another move to try to extend it, that the IP for those documents no longer sat with the VMIA, it was with the Building and Plumbing Commission. And so the VMIA, in another extension tactic, withdrew from the case. The problem was the Building and Plumbing Commission tried to join the case 24 hours after the VMIA withdrew, so according to VCAT the case was withdrawn. There was no-one attached to the case, so the government was actually forced to give me those documents. But it was not forced to give me those documents because it wanted to, it was forced to give me those documents because it is incompetent.

There are many other documents motions that we still have not seen. I commend my colleague Ms Gray-Barberio, who moved a motion last year calling on the government to release its business case for the Upfield, Somerton and Wallan service enhancement and planning feasibility study, which was a 2017–18 study. I thought it was quite important, because the federal government at the election announced about $6 million to go to the state government to do the very same study, but the government has already done one – so what I want to see is those documents. Yet we keep getting letter after letter after letter saying the government needs more time to be able to provide us with those documents, even though the federal government, as recently as last year, announced money for the state government to do the very same review. A feasibility study is something that government often announces when it does not actually want to commit to something, and this is something that is really important to public transport in my community in the northern suburbs. The Upfield and Craigieburn lines and up to Wallan extend through my entire electorate, so this is a very important issue and we should be able to know why the government has not released that planning feasibility study when it has accepted money from the federal government, about $6 million, to do the very same study it already has done. Instead, we are spending $34 billion – let us face it, $50 billion – on a rail line from Cheltenham to Box Hill when people in Beveridge and Wallan and Kalkallo would rather like electrified trains. Similar to people in Tarneit and Wyndham Vale, they are pretty sick of getting on a very packed V/Line service. I will tell you what, everyone from Brunswick on the Upfield line and from Gowrie all the way to Wallan is very interested in seeing that planning feasibility study – interested in seeing what it says and interested in how much it will cost. And yet last year the federal government announced money for the state government for the very same document.

We heard wideranging comments from those opposite about where to draw the line between a disagreement between the executive and the Parliament over privilege. Well, let us put in place an actual process. We have one – it is in the standing orders. If there is a disagreement between the executive and the Parliament, we have an arbiter process – let us actually use it. We heard all these complaints about document searches and the public service being overloaded and that the public service might need to travel to some far-flung suburb to find documents. This Parliament, which is elected by the people of Victoria to represent our communities in this place, has those powers to order document release, and yet we have the executive just deciding that it does not have to listen to the Parliament and it does not have to release those documents. And yes, some people have been pretty cautious about the only option we have, which is to suspend the Leader of the Government. I think that is something we should consider. Something other crossbench colleagues should also consider is, when the government comes to them on another piece of legislation, refusing to support it until the government provides certain documents. Instead of asking for something else in a piece of legislation, my colleagues on the crossbench could also say, ‘I’m happy to support it if I get my documents,’ and then watch how quickly the government finds out it has these documents – watch how quickly they run. We have seen documents motion after documents motion refused under claims of executive privilege, only for the government to wash their hands.

We are in a time period when the public are fed up with politicians. The public are fed up with elected representatives making excuse after excuse. I truly believe that more transparency on government and what government does is important – it is why we have committed to a charter of budget honesty; it is why we have committed to a real-time tracker of public finances – and we should be looking at new ways we can use new technologies to open up government and be even more transparent than we are. I think that is really important and a good accountability measure. At a time when our trust in politics has never been so low, we need to be looking at ways we can show the public as a Parliament that we are an open Parliament and an open and transparent government that does not hide things away under the carpet but actually comes forward and says, ‘Yes, here are the documents. Here’s what was done.’ It is important to make those kinds of things public. I think their success rate for these documents motions is getting very low – it is getting extremely low – and I know that both the opposition and my friends on the crossbench are getting quite frustrated with this, because it was an important moment of unity for most of us to actually put in place the non-government business day documents motion procedure in the standing orders. It took a couple of goes, but we got there. I think that is really important. We do have a process in place that this Parliament has agreed to, and it should work for everyone. We do not just put through documents motions to have a 20-minute discussion about them, we put them through to actually get the documents.

I think this motion is a good one. It gives us at least a pathway, a path forward. It seems to be working in New South Wales. I am optimistic and pessimistic, because we do have standing orders that deal with these situations already. As I talked about with the arbiter process, we do have standing orders that deal with this already, but it would be very useful to have a process that provides even more clarity. But if past performance is an indicator of future performance, I am a little bit pessimistic about how we will go with this process. But at least the government is coming to the table with something, and so we are willing to give it a go. I would caution, however, that this process, which hopefully starts today, is not an excuse to keep delaying documents motions that we all have passed. If you think putting in place this motion, these changes, absolves responsibility for the countless other documents that the house has ordered, you are wrong, and we as a Parliament will continue to prosecute the case on why those documents should be released in the public interest.

 David LIMBRICK (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (17:35): I would also like to say a few words about this motion regarding documents orders from this Parliament. I share the frustrations of the opposition and crossbench on the current system and how this works. What normally happens when a documents motion gets passed in this Parliament? They routinely get passed. The government does not oppose them. A period of time later, you get a letter from the Attorney-General saying, ‘It’s taking too long to collect the documents,’ and then that is the last you ever hear of it. Nothing happens beyond that point. Another thing that can happen is rather more rare, although I forced it during the Commonwealth Games inquiry when we knew that there were documents that the government had claimed executive privilege on; therefore, they could not say that it was too hard to collect them, because they would have already identified them, classified them and determined privilege on them. What is meant to happen is to go through this process, which is already in the standing orders, as Dr Mansfield outlined, to hand the documents over to the mover of the motion in confidence. The mover of the motion can choose to challenge that claim of executive privilege or not. I think that the tensions in this process are very considered, because the mover of the motion, if they challenge the executive privilege and there is no basis for that claim, then when the arbiter decides that, the mover of the motion will look rather foolish if they challenge it with no basis. So I think that the tensions in that process are quite smart and intelligent. But it is rare that the government actually claims privilege because they usually just say, ‘Well, it’s too hard to get these documents and it’s going to take a while and you’ll have to wait.’

What the government does when it does claim executive privilege is, frankly, just ignore the standing orders of Parliament. Mr Batchelor said he thinks that the government should be the ones that decide whether or not we have executive privilege. Well, why doesn’t the government just move to abolish the arbiter process in the standing orders? If they do not think that it should ever be challenged, why don’t they just get rid of it? They are basically just ignoring it at the moment. As Mr Mulholland pointed out, there are limited sanctions that the Parliament can bring upon the government in order to provide some sort of penalty for disagreeing with this. I think, due to the history on this, suspending a member of Parliament is a very serious thing. You are taking away democratic representation for that person that has been elected. I would like to think that we think very, very seriously about that before suspending a member of Parliament, even if it is for something that is justified.

Basically there are two issues. There is one issue around privilege, which this motion today does not address. We already have a system for that that the government ignores. The other issue is around the scope. Now, I do accept that sometimes the scope on these motions may be excessive. I think that this process of allowing the government to negotiate with the mover of the motion, with the consent of the mover of the motion, to narrow the scope, is a sensible thing. But I do not accept that every time the government has claimed that there are too many documents that it is in fact true. In fact the last documents motion that I moved was asking for a single document. I intentionally asked for one document that we know exists, because it was reported on. I very specifically asked for one document, and then the government comes back with this nonsense that ‘It’s taking too long to collate the documents and process them’, which is obviously untrue. It is not true, because it is a single document. And I know that other members of this place have moved documents motions that were asking for a single document. Sometimes they ask for a document and all of the drafts of the document and all the email communications around the document, and I accept that maybe in some of these cases there are too many and the scope should be adjusted.

Nevertheless, I am pessimistic about whether this is going to fix anything, because the current standing orders the government is ignoring. I am not convinced that adding new standing orders will not just be more things that the government can ignore, and we will not end up in the same situation. I suspect the reason that the government comes back and we get these letters that say there are too many things and it is taking too long is because then they cannot be accused of ignoring the executive privilege dispute process. I think that that is actually what is going on here. Nevertheless we will find out soon enough, once this comes into effect and there are more documents orders. Frankly, if the government comes back and we get a letter from the Attorney-General saying there are too many and it is taking too long to do this, instead of actually starting and using this new negotiation process, then we can know that this was not actually done in good faith. I am hoping it is in good faith. I am hoping that the government does want to see this process work. As was stated by others in this debate, it is already operating in New South Wales. It is very similar. They have an arbiter process that they use in New South Wales, and it works quite well, on my understanding. If this process is engaged by the government, it can work well. I think it is well designed. But the government has to be willing to use it, and that has been the problem all along.

 Bev McARTHUR (Western Victoria) (17:41): I rise to speak on this motion. As others before me will have said, we are supporting this motion. This is a sort of last chance for the government in this place: you either make this system work so we get documents in a timely and productive fashion that gives us the information required or you do not, so you are on notice to make this system work. But it is not retrospective. There are a huge number of documents that have not been forthcoming from this government, because they are not the least bit interested in transparency or accountability. Obfuscation is the name of the game here with this government. It does bring back memories of the Coate inquiry: ‘As soon as possible,’ ‘I don’t recall’ and ‘I don’t know’ seem to be the usual excuses for why you cannot produce information that this Parliament has a right to ask you for.

I thought it was worth recalling some of the documents that you have failed to give us information on. On 6 March 2024 Wendy Lovell asked for the production of documents relating to Albury Wodonga Health. The due date was 27 March 2024, and ‘insufficient time’ was claimed – that was their reason for not producing them. That has not come forward. On 31 July 2024 Sarah Mansfield asked for the production of documents relating to the transition out of commercial native forest logging. That was due on 21 August 2024. Again, ‘insufficient time’ was claimed. I mean, how much time do you people need? On 30 October 2024 Moira Deeming asked for the production of documents relating to road and rail bridge infrastructure. That was due on 27 November 2024. Again, ‘insufficient time’ was claimed. The unprotection of dingoes order in council that Georgie Purcell asked for on 13 November 2024 was due on 22 January 2025 – again, ‘insufficient time’ was claimed. Then on 27 November 2024, land use in the Grampians and Arapiles region is what David Limbrick asked about. That was due on 20 January 2025 – again, ‘insufficient time’. On 5 March 2025 it was the native bird hunting 2025 season that Georgie Purcell asked about. That was due on 2 April 2025 – again, ‘insufficient time’. On 5 March 2025 David Davis asked about amendments to the Victoria Planning Provisions. That was due on 26 March 2025 – again, ‘insufficient time’. On 19 March 2025 Evan Mulholland asked for the production of documents relating to the Suburban Rail Loop Authority. That was due on 9 April, but ‘insufficient time’ was claimed. On 2 April 2025 it was the production of documents relating to the 2022 rollout of HEPA purifiers in government schools that David Limbrick asked for. That was due on 30 June 2025. Again, there was still not enough time.

On 2 April 2025 energy documents were required by David Davis. They were due on 23 April 2025 – again, insufficient time. On 14 May 2025 there were the briefings provided to the Treasurer David Davis asked for. They were due on 4 June 2025 – no, insufficient time. On 14 May 2025 there was an Upfield, Somerton and Wallan service enhancement planning feasibility study Anasina Gray-Barberio asked about. They were due on 4 June 2025 – no, insufficient time again. On 28 May 2025 there was the Great Outdoors Taskforce production of documents Georgie Purcell asked about. They were due on 9 July 2025. You claimed insufficient time. On 28 May 2025 there was the payroll tax for general practitioners and other health professionals David Davis asked about. It was due on 18 June 2025 – no time available. On 18 June 2025 there were the planning scheme amendments David Davis asked about. They were due on 9 July – insufficient time claimed. On 30 July 2025 there was the initial review of Victoria’s working with children scheme Rachel Payne asked about. That was due on 29 August 2025 – insufficient time. On 13 August 2025 there were the energy costs David Davis asked about. Due on 3 September 2025 – no time.

On 27 August 2025 there were the worker screening unit and working with children checks David Davis asked about. They were due on the 10th of the 9th 2025 – no time. On 27 August 2025 the there were the Suburban Rail Loop costings David Davis asked about. They were due on the 26th of the 9th 2025 – no time available. On the 10th of the 9th 2025 I asked for documents relating to the four-bin waste and recycling system. That information was due on the 8th of the 10th 2025 – still no time available. On 15 October 2025 there were the alternatives to the demolition of public housing sites Anasina Gray-Barberio asked about. That was due on the 15th of the 12th 2025 – insufficient time claimed. On 15 October corruption in the construction industry – who would have thought. David Davis asked for those documents, due on the 12th of the 11th 2025, but there was no time for that.

On 29 October 2025 there was the production of documents relating to the container deposit scheme I asked about. They were due on the 26th of the 11th 2025. You still have not had time to find that information. On the 29th of the 10th again David Ettershank asked about the production of documents relating to waste-to-energy cap licences. They were due on the 28th of the 11th 2025; no time was available for that. On the 13th of the 11th 2025 there was a Victorian roads production of documents Rikkie-Lee Tyrrell wanted to know about. They were due on the 13th of the 12th – no time available. On the 13th of the 11th State Electricity Commission meetings documents were asked for by David Davis. They were due on the 11th of the 12th 2025 – no time. On the 19th of the 11th 2025 the Department of Premier and Cabinet opinion polling documents were asked for by David Davis. They were due on the 17th of the 12th 2025 – no time for that.

On the 19th of the 11th again there was the proposed animal care and protection legislation Georgie Purcell wanted to know about. It was due on the 28th of the 1st – no time for that either. On the 3rd of the 12th 2025 there was the market research for the machete prohibition campaign – how about that? – David Limbrick asked about. It was due on the 26th of the 1st and is now redundant of course, I would have thought. Anyway, there was no time available for that. The production of documents relating to the CFA board management I asked about – they were due on the 25th of the 2nd. I have not even got a reply about that. On the 4th of the 2nd David Davis asked about the withdrawal of compressed natural gas. That was due on the 25th of the 2nd 2026. We do not even have an excuse for that.

On the 18th of the 2nd 2026, Sarah Mansfield asked for production of documents on the Greater Avalon employment precinct. That was due on 11 March. We have not heard an answer to that. On the 18th of the 2nd, production of documents was sought on the Geoffrey Watson SC report, which David Davis asked about. It was due on 11 March. We have not heard anything. I asked for the production of documents relating to the board statement of the CFA. That was due on the 25th of the 2nd. Insufficient time for that to be produced of course is your excuse. On the 4th of the 2nd 2026, the withdrawal of compressed natural gas – David Davis asked about that. That was due on 25 February. There was still insufficient time to find that information. On the 18th of the 2nd, again Sarah Mansfield asked about the Greater Avalon employment precinct. That is due on 11 March – insufficient time. On 4 March 2026 the production of documents relating to ISIS brides – Evan Mulholland asked about it – due on 25 March.

I just want to go to how ridiculous this nonsense is that you have not got enough time to find documents. I will just go to the Greens Avalon documents motion:

… that the Victorian Planning Authority (VPA) engaged Alluvium consultants to prepare a drainage and flood strategy for the proposed future development area known as the Greater Avalon employment precinct (GAEP), including undertaking a drainage and flood assessment for the proposed growth areas, and determining existing and future drainage and flooding issues and/or constraints affecting the site and surrounds;

(2)   further notes that apart from a brief memo by Alluvium published on the VPA project website titled ‘Greater Avalon employment precinct – existing conditions flood modelling report – technical memorandum – (Alluvium) May 2024’, none of the other reporting completed by Alluvium has been publicly released, including work that details potential future impacts of proposed developments in the precinct on the Ramsar wetland in the vicinity of the GAEP; and

(3)   in accordance with standing order 10.01, requires the Leader of the Government to table in the Council within three weeks of the house agreeing to this resolution, all reports prepared by Alluvium related to the GAEP.

Just one consultancy firm, just the final reports – that did not require decades of emails to be trawled or redacted, just a simple search for drainage and flood strategy reports. Quite a simple request, but you come back with ‘insufficient time’. This is complete obfuscation. This is a worked example of how you are totally disregarding the directions of this chamber, how you take no interest in what the public, through us, want to know about and have a right to know about. You disregard the democratic system; you disregard the Westminster system. The ministers are totally unaccountable. You hide behind this obfuscation. This is a process in this chamber that allows members of the opposition and the crossbench to get information that is absolutely relevant to the work we carry out on behalf of our constituents. It is total garbage that you cannot supply these documents. These are the ones in the backlog that you still have to supply the information for. I personally, and I am sure others, will put you on notice that if this information is not coming forward, then look for a censure motion, because that is what will happen. We support the motion that is trying to improve the system here and we will work to ensure that we do try to improve the release-of-documents system, but do not use it as an excuse not to fulfil your obligation to provide the existing material that is in a backlog going back to 2024. It is quite disgraceful.

 David ETTERSHANK (Western Metropolitan) (17:54): I would like to make a very brief contribution. Before getting into that, however, could I just thank Mrs McArthur for that walk down memory lane. My, doesn’t time fly when you are waiting for that document motion to be processed? Not at all. Legalise Cannabis welcome this proposition, and we are appreciative of the work that was put in by the Procedure Committee in bringing it before the chamber. Like I think everyone else from the opposition and the crossbench who has spoken on this debate, Legalise Cannabis has been profoundly – profoundly – frustrated at the results that have come from these very important democratic mechanisms that we call documents motions. We have consciously chosen to try and keep our requests very simple and the number of documents sought very limited, and we have always sought to provide plenty of time. And we have virtually nothing to show for it. I guess we therefore embrace this proposal with great expectations but very limited optimism. Dr Mansfield has eloquently I think described the confounder that I guess is the next layer on this cake, the use of executive privilege and commercial in confidence, so I will not go into that other than just to say that if we have got this new process and all we get is the next brick wall arising from those uses of privilege, it would be a pretty depressing test of the government’s bona fides and its commitment to transparency. We will of course support this motion. Let us suck it and see, and if it fails, as Mrs McArthur alluded to, we will no doubt look to what our other options are to try and pry open the apparent confidentiality of government on these very modest matters.

Motion agreed to.