Tuesday, 7 February 2023
Business of the house
Sessional orders
Business of the house
Sessional orders
That the following sessional orders be adopted, to come into operation with effect from the next sitting day:
1 Days and times of meeting
Unless otherwise ordered, the House will meet each Tuesday at 12.00 pm, and each Wednesday and Thursday at 9.30 am.
2 Interruption of business for adjournment
Standing Order 32 be suspended and the following to apply:
(1) Subject to paragraphs (2) and (3), the Speaker will interrupt the business before the House at:
(a) 7.00 pm each sitting Tuesday and Wednesday;
(b) 5.00 pm on any other sitting day.
(2) If a division is taking place when the time for the interruption arises, the division will be completed and the result announced. If the division is on a closure motion, and the motion is agreed to, the question or questions then required to be put to close the issue before the House will also be dealt with. The Speaker will then interrupt business.
(3) If the time for the interruption arises:
(a) at the same time as the completion time set by the government business program; or
(b) after the interruption for the completion time of the government business program, but before all business on the program has been dealt with –
all business on the government business program will be completed first. The Speaker will then interrupt business for the adjournment.
(4) After the interruption:
(a) before a motion for the adjournment is proposed by the Speaker, a minister may move that the sitting be continued. That motion must be put immediately without amendment or debate. If it is agreed to, the House will resume debate at the point at which it had been interrupted; or
(b) if a motion is not moved, the Speaker will immediately propose the question ‘That the House now adjourns’. Any business under discussion and any other business not concluded at the time of the adjournment will be listed on the notice paper for the next sitting day. Any member speaking at the time of the interruption may, when debate resumes, continue his or her speech.
3 Order of business
(1) So much of Standing Orders 36, 38, 39, 41 and 55 be suspended so as to enable the following order of business on:
Tuesdays
Formal business
Statements by members
Government business
Question time (2.00 pm)
Government business continued
General business
Wednesdays
Formal business
Disallowance motions
Statements by members
Statements on parliamentary committee reports
Government business
Question time (2.00 pm)
Government business continued
Matter of public importance or grievance debate (4.00 pm)
Government business continued
General business
(2) So much of Standing Orders 38 and 39 be suspended so as to enable:
(a) at 4.00 pm on Wednesday, unless a division is taking place, the Chair interrupts the business before the House and the bells are then rung for one minute;
(b) if a division is taking place at 4.00 pm:
(i) it will be completed without interruption and result announced;
(ii) if the division is on a closure motion, and the motion is agreed to, the question or questions then required to be put to close the issue before the House will also be dealt with;
(iii) business is then interrupted following the procedure in sub-paragraph (a);
(c) the Chair announces the grievance debate or matter of public importance, whichever the case may be;
(d) any business under discussion and not completed at the interruption will be resumed immediately at the end of the grievance debate or matter of public importance, whichever the case may be, and any member speaking at the time of the interruption may then continue his or her speech.
(3) In Standing Order 39(9) for ‘statements on parliamentary committee reports under SO 41’ read ‘government business’.
4 Answers to questions on notice
A reply to a question on notice delivered to the Clerk under Standing Order 54(3) must be submitted within 30 days.
5 Who may ask oral questions without notice
Only non-government members may ask questions without notice under Standing Order 55.
6 Supplementary questions without notice
(1) At the conclusion of each answer to an oral question without notice, the questioning member may ask the responding minister a supplementary question to elucidate or clarify the answer.
(2) Supplementary questions must actually and accurately relate to the original question, must relate to or arise from the answer and must not be a separate question on the same topic.
7 Ministers’ statements
After each oral question without notice and any related supplementary questions, any minister may seek the call to make a statement of up to two minutes.
8 Constituency questions
(1) At the conclusion of oral questions without notice and ministers’ statements, five government members and five non-government members may ask one oral question each to ministers relating to constituency matters.
(2) Replies to constituency questions must be given in writing within 30 days by delivering a reply to the Clerk. The Clerk must give the response to the member who asked the question and electronically publish the response.
9 Duration of question time
Standing Order 55(2) is suspended and the following to apply:
Question time will last until five oral questions and related supplementary questions have been answered, up to five ministers’ statements have been made and up to ten constituency questions have been asked and where a question is ruled out of order it is, for the purposes of this sessional order, deemed to have been answered.
10 Time limits on answers and questions
(1) The time limit for each oral question, supplementary question and constituency question is one minute.
(2) The time limit for the answer to each oral question is three minutes, and for the answer to each supplementary question is one minute.
11 Content of answers
Standing Order 58(1)(a) is suspended and all answers to questions must be direct, factual, succinct and relevant.
12 Chair ordering member to withdraw – application during oral questions without notice and ministers’ statements
Where:
a member is ordered to withdraw from the House under Standing Order 124 during oral questions without notice or ministers’ statements; and
the time for oral questions without notice and ministers’ statements ends before the end of the suspension period –
the member may return to the Chamber after the time for oral questions without notice and ministers’ statements but must serve the remainder of their suspension during the next question time, subject to Standing Order 124(2).
13 Time limit for lead speakers
For the purposes of Standing Order 131, and subject to any agreement to the contrary, additional time provided for the lead speaker of any other party does not apply where such a party has advised the Speaker that it is in a coalition arrangement with another party.
14 Notices of motion
Standing Orders 140(1) and 141 are suspended and the following to apply:
A member may only move a motion to discuss a subject if he or she has given notice of that motion on a previous sitting day.
Copies of all verbal notices must be provided to the Clerks at the table before notices are called on by the Speaker.
Copies of all written notices must be provided to the Clerks at the table before the conclusion of formal business.
All notices given by ministers must be verbal.
Verbal notices must be read to the House. They can only be given before the House proceeds to the business of the day as set out in the notice paper.
All notices, except notices given under paragraph (7) given by members who are not ministers, must be given in writing. Members may give notice by lodging a copy with the Clerks in accordance with paragraph (3).
A motion by a member expressing no confidence in the Premier and ministers, in the terms set out in s 8A of the Constitution Act 1975, may only be given verbally.
The Clerk must notify the Speaker of a notice of a motion by a member to disallow a statutory rule to which Standing Order 151 applies, and the Speaker will report details to the House at the first convenient opportunity.
15 Procedure for a division
Standing Order 164(1) is suspended and the following to apply:
When a division is requested, the Clerk will ring the bells for four minutes as indicated by the timer.
16 Redactions
The Standing Orders Committee (the Committee) is empowered to authorise redactions from a document published by the House, Assembly Hansard, official broadcast footage of the Assembly Chamber or an Assembly Committee, a petition, or a document tabled under Standing Order 171 on safety or security grounds using the following process:
(1) A person, including a member of Parliament, may write to the Clerk and request the redaction including details of the nature of the safety or security risk and how redaction would reduce or remove this risk. The Clerk will then forward that request to the Committee as soon as practicable.
(2) If the Committee is satisfied there is a safety or security risk and the redaction is warranted, the Committee may approve the request. All members present at the meeting must unanimously agree for the Committee’s decision to be effective.
(3) The Clerk will inform the person who made the request of the Committee’s decision. Where the Committee unanimously approves the redaction, the Clerk must take all necessary steps to give effect to the Committee’s decision.
(4) A redaction does not affect the protections provided by ss 73, 74 or 74AA of the Constitution Act 1975.
(5) The Clerk must include a statement of the number of redactions made and the type of document they were redacted from, excluding any identifying information, in the annual report of the Department of the Legislative Assembly.
(6) The Committee may issue guidelines on the operation of this sessional order.
17 Electronic petitions
(1) A person (the sponsoring petitioner) may lodge a request to start an electronic petition (e‑petition) with the Clerk for publication on the Parliament’s website.
(2) Standing Orders 45 to 52 apply except in relation to the requirement for a petitioner’s signature.
(3) The sponsoring petitioner must provide the following information to the Clerk:
(a) the issue (maximum 200 words) and action requested (maximum 120 words);
(b) their full name and address; and
(c) the name of the member sponsoring the e‑petition.
(4) Before the e‑petition is published, the Clerk will review the wording of the e‑petition to ensure it conforms with standing orders and confirm that the sponsoring member has agreed to sponsor the e‑petition.
(5) The sponsoring member must nominate a period (the posted period) that the e‑petition will be available to sign on the Parliament’s website and:
(a) the posted period must be a minimum of one week and a maximum of six months from the date of publication;
(b) if the Assembly is due to expire under s 28(2) of the Constitution Act 1975 within six months from the date of publication of an e‑petition, the Clerk will determine the maximum posted period;
(c) the sponsoring member may request the Clerk to change the posted period before it ends, provided the maximum period is not exceeded.
(6) A member must not sign an e‑petition they have sponsored.
(7) Once published, an e‑petition cannot be altered but the sponsoring member may request the Clerk withdraw it.
(8) Residents of Victoria may become signatories to an e‑petition by electronically providing their name, address and signifying their intention to join the e‑petition.
(9) The Clerk will table the e‑petition on the next sitting day after the posted period has ended.
(10) E‑petitions about the same issue and requesting the same action are not allowed simultaneously. However, once an e‑petition has been tabled, a new e‑petition can be started.
18 Motion to disallow a pandemic order and requirement for a joint sitting
(1) After a member has given notice of a motion to disallow in whole or in part a pandemic order or instrument in accordance with s 165AU of the Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008, a minister must move a motion to hold a joint sitting to consider the disallowance motion. The minister must move the motion by the end of the next sitting day after notice of the disallowance motion is given.
(2) A motion to hold a joint sitting can be moved without notice or leave at any break in business.
(3) Debate on a motion to hold a joint sitting will last for a maximum of 30 minutes or until six members have spoken, whichever is the shorter.
The proposal before the house is that we agree to extend the existing sessional orders and that they be applied to this Parliament at this time. But as I have already indicated this morning in a separate motion, we will refer the sessional orders to the Standing Orders Committee in order for that committee to consider what of those sessional orders should be incorporated into standing orders. We do that on the basis that the sessional orders that have been in place have served us well for the last two Parliaments. I recognise of course that there are members in the chamber who have other ideas on ways in which the sessional orders could be more reflective perhaps of a modern Parliament, and I think that the Standing Orders Committee is the appropriate group or body to which to refer those matters for consideration. I did just want to be quite clear about that at the outset – that with the passing of that motion this afternoon that is the process that will happen.
Those of us that were around after the 2014 election, and indeed those on this side of the house who were in opposition, were doing some thinking about what sessional orders might look like should we have the good fortune of forming government at the 2014 election, which of course as we all know we did, and chief amongst our concerns as a Labor Party working to win government was to ensure that we have in this place sessional orders that support a workplace that enables the participation of a more diverse group of parliamentarians. Of course that includes parliamentarians with small children, and I am delighted that we have so many of them. It is so wonderful. I think about all the babies that have been born in the time that I have been a member of Parliament. The member for Mordialloc over there and I are locking eyes because we all remember when little Paisley was born. Then most recently we have had the Minister for Mental Health and Minister for Ambulance Services give birth to little Ruairi, not only during Parliament but during an election campaign as a sitting member. I am sure everyone in this house takes the opportunity to wish all of our new parents the best. I might point out that the member for Melbourne is sitting up there as well. The member for Melbourne has had two babies –
Mary-Anne THOMAS: Three! In the time that she has been a member in this place she has had three. The member for Melbourne has had three babies in the time that she has been a member of this place. That is wonderful news, and we congratulate you, of course, with all of our best wishes.
But we want to ensure this for family members, people with parental responsibilities and indeed others. I am beyond having parental responsibilities, but I still have a family, and I still have a family that I like to see and connect with from time to time. As a regional member of Parliament, and I know regional members on the other side of the house will agree that a 10 pm finishing time – well, firstly, we generally have to stay in town anyway, but nonetheless you can still have time after Parliament to connect with either friends or colleagues or to do something that at least gives you a break from this place before you reappear the next day. I think it is no secret that sessional orders that saw a 10 pm adjournment really saw very little productive work occur in the evenings.
A member: A bit of social work.
Mary-Anne THOMAS: Yes, quite a lot of socialising, but the debates were perhaps not as thoughtful as they could have been. I do not want to speak for anyone, and indeed I was not a member of the house at that time, so let me be clear about that.
It is all about having a modern Parliament and sessional orders that really let the people of Victoria know that we strive to be a sensible and inclusive workplace. As I have already said, we will refer to the Standing Orders Committee the existing sessional orders – elements of those – to be incorporated into the standing orders. But in the interim I do propose that we adopt in their entirety the sessional orders that have served us so well over the last two parliaments until such time as the Standing Orders Committee has had an opportunity to make some deliberations on what might serve us well into the future.
I have talked a little bit about family-friendly working hours, but I think it is also important to understand the importance of the adjournment on Thursdays at 5 pm. I think I will have agreement from the regional members opposite on this one, that for most members – but not all; it is a long way to Mildura – it does enable many regional members to get back home on Thursday night. I recognise that for many it can be a long drive, but nonetheless it is still an opportunity to get home, ready to serve our communities in our electorates from Friday. So these are sensible sessional orders.
The sessional orders include a number of clauses that assist with the sensible running of the Parliament. I believe the Manager of Opposition Business and I agree, and indeed I suggest that the spokesperson for the Greens would agree, that time limits on questions and answers can be a good thing. We are very happy to support that we do have time limits on questions and answers, and indeed in question time itself the sessional orders actually give the opposition more opportunities to ask questions of the government, because not only do we have question time but there is the inclusion of constituency questions. So our government in negotiating the existing sessional orders has worked to also make sure that the opposition has plenty of opportunity to scrutinise the government.
We also know, and I think this was an excellent move – Speaker, I am sure you will agree – that members who refuse to behave appropriately in the house – and of course we would never condone that – will be removed from the house and they will have to serve their entire time. It flows over into the next day. If you are suspended for an hour and you have only got 15 minutes left of question time, you will serve the next 45 minutes of your suspension the following day. That is a good move that really serves to nudge members to behave appropriately during question time.
The bells ring for an extra minute, recognising that there is now a very beautiful members wing at the back of the Parliament. I know that Labor members of the house, myself included, were very pleased to move out of the chook house and into the new parliamentary wing, but we have extended that time to 4 minutes in order to enable plenty of time for people to come to the chamber for divisions.
The other points that I wish to raise, which are to further enable the smoother running of the Parliament, include sessional orders facilitating the tabling of e-petitions. Who would have thought that in 2023 we could do e-petitions here. This is excellent news. It is good to move with the times, again seeking to be a modern Parliament. The sessional orders also allow for the Standing Orders Committee to authorise redactions when necessary.
I have taken the time today to talk through what I see as some of the most important reasons why I suggest that the house today agree to allow sessional orders from the 58th and 59th Parliament to continue into the 60th Parliament. I expect that other members will agree that those sessional orders do provide for a much better functioning Parliament.
I am going to give the Manager of Opposition Business the opportunity to make a contribution shortly. I am very conscious, I might say, that because we are operating currently under standing orders, we had a longer than expected question time, which has pushed out our preferred timing for today. I am very conscious that we have a number of members that will be making their first speeches, and I know that they will have family and friends coming in to see them. I certainly do not want to throw the timing out for those.
On that note, I look forward to these sessional orders being adopted by the chamber so that they can come into force from the next sitting day – tomorrow – and we can, dependent upon the outcome, look forward to a question time with the opposition having the opportunity to ask the ministers substantive questions and then supplementary questions and for ministers statements to return. Ministers statements have time limits on them, and that enforces some discipline on all of us. I am sure they will be a welcome return should these sessional orders be adopted today. I commend them to the house.
The SPEAKER: Order! Before I call the Manager of Opposition Business, I just want to make a statement on this. The Leader of the House has moved this motion, but I want to make a statement about how the debate on the sessional orders will be conducted. Because the motion is a long one and there may be amendments to it, I have decided that, in accordance with past practice, we will treat the debate like a bill being considered in detail. If members wish to move amendments, I ask members to announce them and request that they be circulated now that the Leader of the House has moved and spoken to her motion, as is the case for circulating amendments during a second-reading debate. Members with amendments will then need to formally move the amendments when speaking to the motion, but all members may speak to the motion and amendments once circulated.
After the general debate has been concluded, the house will deal with each proposed sessional order as each is called on. I will put the question for any relevant amendment moved to the motion. I will then put the question for each of the sessional orders moved by the Leader of the House. When all of the orders have been called, considered and dealt with, I will put the appropriate question that the motion be agreed to or that the motion as amended be agreed to. If there are any members who wish to circulate amendments, I ask that they do so now.
James NEWBURY (Brighton) (16:32): I will seek to move two amendments to the sessional orders in my name. Can they be circulated please.
Amendments circulated under standing orders.
Ellen SANDELL (Melbourne) (16:33): I ask that the amendments in my name also be circulated.
Amendments circulated under standing orders.
James NEWBURY (Brighton) (16:33): I move:
That the sessional orders motion be amended as follows:
Sessional Order 3
1 After ‘General business’ where second occurring insert the following new paragraph:
‘Regional sitting days
Question time
Formal business
Statements by members
Government business
General business’
Sessional Order 11
2 Before ‘Standing’ insert ‘(1)’.
3 After ‘relevant.’ insert the following new paragraphs:
‘(2) The Speaker may determine that an answer to an oral question without notice or supplementary oral question is not responsive to the question, and may accordingly direct the minister to provide a written response to the question and lodge it with the Speaker by 2.00 pm the next sitting day. The Speaker will forward the written response to the member who asked the question and the Clerk must electronically publish the response.
(3) The Speaker will determine the adequacy of a written response to a question provided under this sessional order. The Speaker may determine that a written response does not appropriately answer the question and may direct that the minister provide another written response by 2.00 pm the next sitting day. The Speaker will forward the written response to the member who asked the question and the Clerk must electronically publish the response.’.
I would like to start my contribution by noting that there will be inaugural speeches shortly so we will be reasonable in the time we spend speaking to these issues.
I would like to start on a principle often leaned on by the clerks in the federal Parliament in Canberra, and that is that changes to the operation of the Parliament go to enlivening the debate of the chamber. It is a concept that is integral to the way the chamber operates, and improvements are often brought in to the federal Parliament with an eye to improving and enlivening debate in the chamber. I think this debate today is an opportunity to look to what this Parliament can do to enliven the debate of this chamber. Before coming to this place I worked in the federal Parliament and had the honour of managing the parliamentary business of the Liberal Party in Canberra. In that role I spent some time working on standing order changes to the federal Parliament’s lower house in 2010 and then again before leaving in 2013. Throughout that process, with a Labor government and then a Liberal government, both governments recognised the need for the standing orders and the operation of the house to enable the contribution of the then 150 members of that place, and it struck me that it was at the core of the operation of that chamber. I refer the house to a statement given by the now Prime Minister, who was Leader of the House in 2010, after all parties and independents developed a substantive reform to the standing orders of the house then. He said:
This package of amendments seeks to make the parliament more accessible to all 150 members of the House of Representatives. It represents a transfer of power and influence in this place from a concentration in the executive, to bring a focus on the contribution that the 150 members of the House of Representatives can make.
That spirit was one that we saw not just in 2010 – and some might argue that it was independents and a minority government that led to those changes – but also in 2013, which was furthered in the operation of the place and the operation of question time to enable all of the members, and we have seen that more recently in the federal Parliament through some work done by the independent members. As I started with, those changes were about empowering all members but also enlivening the debate.
What struck me in first coming to this place and looking at the standing orders of this chamber was how tightly controlled they are in a way that all non-government members have referred to repeatedly over the years – the lack of capacity of a non-government member to fully represent their communities and put the views of their constituents to the Parliament, which is incredibly striking, the idea that not every member can move a motion. It is not uncommon in the federal Parliament for a suspension of standing orders to be moved on Thursday; in fact it is probably every second week we see it. In those instances those suspensions are discussions of matters of public importance, essentially.
One of the big changes where there is a difference between the Victorian Parliament and the federal Parliament is the amount of time that non-government members have to debate. Federally they have done that through a federation chamber. I know that this place, through committee work, has looked at the idea of a federation chamber or a second chamber, and what that chamber federally enables is non-controversial business to be considered in a second place which has equal standing but allows members more time for a members statement or to debate motions of importance to their local communities or to debate a petition of importance. These are not controversial things, but it enables that additional time to consider non-government business. I would hope that the government could take in good spirit as part of the review of the standing orders – which we obviously welcomed and supported – a consideration of how non-government business is dealt with and the time that non-government members are provided in this chamber. The review is an opportunity to do that. One way to do that is through a second chamber, and it is not too much and it is not too radical to consider the idea of a second chamber. I think a second chamber is one idea that we need to look at. It could run concurrently to the main chamber to enable members – I know that there are a lot of backbench Labor members listening on. They are just keeling over with enthusiasm for the time to go into a second chamber and debate issues of importance to their local community. I am being overwhelmed with interest, I must say, Leader of the House, from your side of the chamber, and I know we have –
The SPEAKER: Order! Through the Chair.
James NEWBURY: it on our side of the chamber too.
I did mention earlier that the opposition would move two amendments to the sessional orders. The first is the incorporation of the concept of regional sittings into the standing orders. Of course, in the last term we had great challenges with COVID and the operation of the Parliament, but, frankly speaking, we can do better at the Parliament sitting regionally. We can do better, whether that is once in a term, because I know – and from discussion with the clerks – there is a lot of work involved and a lot of expense, but in weighing that up we do need to understand the importance of doing so, moving the Parliament for a time to another area of Victoria to allow the community to become involved in what we do. I think it is so essentially important, and that is why I would say to the Leader of the House and the government, through the Speaker of course, that that amendment is not a controversial amendment. It is a simple amendment, and I would hope that the government in good spirit would consider that amendment.
The second amendment proposed relates to the concept of relevance. I think any fair-minded person in this place would see that the responses in question time, frankly, no matter who is in government, stretch the concept of relevance now to the ridiculous. If you say the word ‘health’ in a question, that is about as close as you are going to get in your answer. So the second amendment being proposed is an adoption of, I understand, a practice that was originally in this place – it is still in the Council – whereby the Speaker has the capacity to direct a minister where they have not answered a question to within a sitting day provide a response to that in writing. I know, in speaking to people in the other place, that power – for want of a better term – is used reasonably regularly by the President in an impartial way. I think it is an important opportunity to provide the house with additional information and remove some of the politics from the question and the answer. We saw today – and I do not want to reflect on the member – a very important question on a very difficult issue, and there were comments in the response that were perhaps not direct in relation to the issue. A written response is not onerous, and it would provide the house with additional information on important topics. So those are the two amendments that the opposition will be moving.
In relation to the sessional orders more broadly, we certainly will not be opposing the adoption of the sessional orders. There are a number of things in the sessional orders that are important and that we support. I know the Leader of the House has spoken about the time constraints – the day and ensuring that we have family-friendly arrangements. Just before question time we saw one of the ministers walk in with her new baby, and it was beautiful to see. I think we all love seeing those things and ensuring that our Parliament encourages people to balance their lives. It is good for the community and it is also good for, frankly, the mental health of members. But there are other issues in the standing orders obviously that we support. Questions on notice – the sessional orders do in theory bring a time limit to questions on notice being answered. Sadly, I have a question on notice that I asked in the last Parliament that was two years out of date before the election. It is sad to say the former Minister for Planning, and he is not here to hear it, never responded. The new Minister for Planning, sadly, has had the issue raised with them, and I have not even received an acknowledgement from the current Minister for Planning. So I think even acknowledgement of genuine constituent questions is not unreasonable, and to know that the sessional orders will enable that is a good thing.
The Leader of the House mentioned the time limit for questions and answers. We saw today the worst offender for the day – I am keeping a tally – was the Leader of the House. I do not mean to name and shame the Leader of the House, but it was 9 minutes. I have seen worse: Kevin Rudd once did 13 minutes, and gee, that was a diatribe. But 9 minutes was not a lot better, to be frank, and on the first day we saw the Treasurer with a 9-minute response as well. So I would hope and plead, I think on behalf of every member both government and otherwise – opposition, independent et cetera – that we do not see questions and answers being without limit. There is only so much patience that we all have, and clearly there is no direction in the response provided.
But the other point the Leader of the House made in relation to petitions is important. I think further work can be done on petitions, not just in relation to the standing orders. The committee can look at areas in the standing orders that petitions can be enhanced with, whether or not potentially there is some formal process initiated in relation to petitions received so that the community know that when they are raising something they get a response – whether it be debate, whether it be executive response. All of those issues I think are ones that can be part of that review.
So the opposition, other than two slight amendments we are moving initially, will not oppose the adoption of the sessional orders. In fact in many ways we support them – in many ways. But if I can go back to the point that I commenced with – that is, everything we do in the operation of this Parliament should go to, as the clerks of the federal Parliament would say, enlivening the debate. I think that this place can do better at bringing in rules and procedures that bring in the community, that respond to the community’s views and wishes that are put to us as members, and I look forward to being part of the process to enable that to occur.
Will FOWLES (Ringwood) (16:48): It is my great delight to make my first contribution to the 60th Parliament. I concluded my contribution to the 59th in song; members will be relieved to know that I am not going to commence my contribution to the 60th in song. The member for Brighton did refer to a speech of Kevin Rudd’s as a 13-minute diatribe, and I would simply note that the member for Brighton’s speech was about 13 minutes.
We are dealing today with sessional orders, and those of us who were part of the class of 2018 find ourselves arguing vigorously for a status quo in circumstances where we have known no different. That is of course because these sessional orders were first adopted prior to the 59th Parliament and have been in operation, for a range of very good reasons, since indeed not long after the Andrews government came into being, and they are very, very good rules, most particularly to the extent that they adopt some core principles around family-friendly hours and making sure that, from the charade of Dorothy Dixers – much as I may well have enjoyed some of the Dixers, oddly, from both sides of the chamber today – we move to, yes, having ministerial statements but not needing to go through this Dorothy Dixer process.
But what I will say to those opposite is I find myself in the invidious position of advising them that the government will not be supporting these amendments today, and the reason for that is not one of substance. It is not one of any in-principle objection to what is being put; by the same token it is not in-principle support either. It is merely this: we have a Standing Orders Committee. This chamber is not a great place to crunch the nuance on things like sessional and standing orders, in my submission, and I think it is appropriate therefore that we let the Standing Orders Committee do its work. I am sure that committee will adequately enfranchise the views of members of the Greens, members of the Nationals, members of the Liberal Party – there are no independents left, of course, having all been vanquished by the Nats – but that everyone will have –
Will FOWLES: Well, you only got your old seats back, Walshy. That is the reality. Anyway, the opportunity will exist for all members to participate directly or indirectly in the Standing Orders Committee process, and it is for that reason that the government will not be taking up these amendments today, as will become apparent when we divide on this motion shortly.
Can I say that there are any number of matters that might very well be considered by the Standing Orders Committee. It does not just go to the matter of opposition business – or non-government business more properly titled – as the member for Melbourne has put her amendment to this motion, and it does not just go to determining whether answers to oral questions are insufficiently responsive and require a written answer be substituted therein. There are plenty of other matters that will be dealt with I am sure by the Standing Orders Committee.
It is no surprise to this chamber that we have seen reforms in many Westminster parliaments around the globe on a whole range of matters. I do not propose to litigate those today, because I am making the point, I hope clearly, that this is not the chamber or the time for that debate. It does not matter whether you are talking about prayers or acknowledgement of country or references to the Crown or all sorts of things, many, many matters are ultimately covered by standing and sessional orders. Many matters are the sorts of things that people in this place might very well have a stake in, and in one sense we all have a stake in, but there will be the opportunity to deal with and to address the concerns our constituents might have on some of these matters, because the symbolism of some of what goes on in here is important. I think the Standing Orders Committee will be able to function like any other committee in this place. They will be able to interrogate these matters. They will be able to take evidence on these matters. They will be able to explore these issues more fully and fulsomely than we could possibly do in the context of a debate in this chamber. We are effectively dealing with amendments without notice.
On that point, I conclude my remarks. I am sure that the Standing Orders Committee will do a terrific job when they receive the brief on this, and I look forward to their fine work.
The SPEAKER: Before I call the member for Melbourne, I ask members to refer to other members by their correct titles and to direct their comments through the Chair.
Ellen SANDELL (Melbourne) (16:53): I just want to make a few short comments. Before I do so, I would like to move the amendments that were previously circulated in my name. I move:
That the sessional orders motion be amended as follows:
Sessional Order 3
In paragraph (1) omit ‘(1)’
In paragraph (1) under Wednesdays, omit ‘Matter of public importance or grievance debate (4.00 pm)’ and insert ‘Non-government business (4.00 pm)’.
Omit paragraphs (2) and (3).
New sessional orders
Insert the following new sessional orders –
‘19 Non-government business
In addition to the items set out in SO 34(2), government business also does not take precedence in relation to non-government business under this sessional order.
Standing Orders 34(2)(d), (e) and (f), 37, 38 and 39 are suspended and the following applies:
(1) Non-government business includes notices of motion and orders of the day moved by members who are not members of the party or coalition in government.
(2) Subject to paragraph (3), every sitting Wednesday, the Chair will interrupt the House at 4.00 pm and the House will consider non-government business for two hours.
(3) If a division is taking place when the time for the interruption arises, the division will be completed and the result announced. If the division is on a closure motion, and the motion is agreed to, the question or questions then required to be put to close the issue before the House will also be dealt with. The Chair will then interrupt business.
(4) Any business under discussion and not completed at the interruption will be resumed immediately at the end of the two hours, and any member speaking at the time of the interruption may then continue their speech.
20 Order of consideration of non-government business
(1) On the sitting day immediately prior to each sitting Wednesday, a member who is not a member of the party or coalition in government may move, without notice or leave, a motion specifying items of non-government business to have precedence on the next sitting day.
(2) Over the course of a parliament, the specified items proposed by each non-government party and independent member must be proportional to the number of independent members and members representing non-government parties in the House.
(3) The debate will last for 30 minutes or until six members have spoken, whichever is the shorter.
(4) If a motion is not moved or agreed to, the House will consider non-government business in the order it is set down on the notice paper under general business.
The main point that I want to make, and it is one that I have made many times in this house and also a cause that was taken up by the previous independent member for Shepparton, is that this house, the lower house of the Victorian Parliament, is in fact the only chamber in the entire Westminster system around the world that does not allow for non-government business time, and I think it is probably about time that changed. This is time when the crossbench, Greens, independents and even the opposition and government backbenchers – essentially anyone who is not a minister – can bring forward motions or bills for debate and vote. The reason we do not have it, I have been told – a bit of history – is a bit of sleight of hand by the Bracks government back in 1999 when they somehow tricked the independents into getting rid of it. I am not sure quite how that happened, but it is what I understand happened. Since then no government has wanted to reintroduce it. Governments have preferred to silence some of those voices and control the chamber, and I understand that, but every representative in this place is elected by their constituents to come here and represent their communities, and really they should be able, as they are able in every other Westminster Parliament, every other chamber in the Westminster system, to bring forward matters for debate to be voted on. So my amendment essentially says let us get rid of the matters of public importance and the grievance debates and use that slot for substantive debates.
I understand that these sessional orders will be sent to the Standing Orders Committee; I welcome that. Overall I do think that they are an improvement on the current standing orders, so we are supportive of them, but we are also supportive of the couple of amendments that have been put forward by the member for Brighton around regional sittings and around allowing some ways to perhaps get ministers to answer questions – be a little bit more responsive in their answers. We are supportive of those amendments. I hope that our amendment gets up, and I also note that we have requested a seat on the Standing Orders Committee and hope that we will be able to participate in that process to improve some things – not just things that are pertaining to my amendments around non-government business time but things like whether it is appropriate that we start the day with the Lord’s Prayer anymore in this day and age, a motion from 1928 that we are still relying on, or whether we want to replace that with something that is better reflective of the entire Victorian community. We will not be opposing the sessional orders, but we seek support for our amendment and we will be supporting the amendments from the opposition as well.
Tim RICHARDSON (Mordialloc) (16:55): It is a pleasure to rise and speak on the sessional orders motion and some of the amendments that have been put forward. We have seen across the 58th and 59th Parliaments a more contemporary Parliament in its sessional orders and support for members of Parliament in how they execute their duties. Indeed, being a more supportive place for families in this place has been a really important contribution. We have seen how question time, constituency questions and supplementary questions have added to the debate and discussion in this place, acknowledging that other Parliaments have a government question session, which can get a little tedious. We have ministers providing an update as well.
One of the most shocking elements of some of these amendments and discussions, and one that has filled me with a lot of joy today, is the member for Brighton asking for an additional chamber in this Parliament. There are about 19 members on that side, and if you go through you can actually search the members’ contributions in the 58th and 59th Parliaments. If you timed all of their contributions, all in one, they would not in one year across their eight years be enough to justify this chamber, let alone a second chamber. Some did not speak on a bill during their time for more than three years. The father of the house, the member for Rowville, at one stage was carrying the whole team. His back was so sore carrying the team, with 40 per cent of the bill contributions in this place for the first 18 months. It is an astonishing approach to say that we need a second chamber. Why don’t those opposite who have not made meaningful contributions – who have gone down dark roads in contributions that they have made, to the lowest end of the road in public debate – step up, like the Leader of the Opposition suggested, lift the standards, participate and front up on behalf of their communities and make meaningful contributions? Maybe then we will see an argument for a second chamber. I think maybe he is having a lend of us. I think he is having a laugh today, the member for Brighton. But we will see – I do not think that one is going to get up.
But importantly with members’ contributions I think constituency questions have been a great addition – to put more things on the record on behalf of our communities. The broadcast team at Parliament do a wonderful job in us being able to show the advocacy that we put forward as well. Those ministers statements have been really important, especially for issues of the day, for ministers to be able to stand up, if there is not an ability in the media, and share a perspective that might be in time. A number of the sessional orders that the Leader of the House has put forward have worked really well. The Standing Orders Committee will be an appropriate place to consider anything else into the future. It is important to reflect on how far this Parliament has come since the 58th, the 59th and into the 60th Parliament as well, and the next journey going forward.
But for the second house I think the member for Brighton might just need to cool his jets and see how we go, and maybe give a bit of a rev-up. He has been up and about – 13 interjections today on points of order. He is up and about. He has started off really keen and waffling away, but maybe he just needs to give an inspiring rev-up in the Liberal caucus room, in the Liberal party room, about maybe contributing to the Parliament first and fronting up and actually doing something meaningful on the bills, and then maybe we can consider something a little further into the future.
David SOUTHWICK (Caulfield) (16:59): I rise to support the member for Brighton’s sessional orders amendments to ensure we have more accountability and transparency in this Parliament. If you look at the website at ‘What is Parliament?’, it very clearly says that:
The Parliament of Victoria represents you when making decisions for our state. Its main roles are to debate, pass laws and hold the government to account.
We see a huge discrepancy between what happens in the Council and what happens in the Assembly. There are 48 days of sitting in our Parliament, and we have seen the hours of Parliament deteriorate in terms of being able to give the opportunity for debate time. We are all for family-friendly hours but we do want the ability to bring constituent matters into the Parliament, to raise those matters in an appropriate way. We have had the opportunity in the past, like they do in the upper house, to be able to challenge a question that has not been answered by the minister. This is really important because many of our constituents raise issues and certainly Victorians would expect the ministers to answer those questions. Today is an absolute example of that. The Minister for Energy and Resources was asked how much and by what date we would see energy prices come down. The minister could not answer that question. Not only did the Shadow Minister for Energy and Resources ask that question but we also saw the members for Laverton, Footscray and Monbulk ask questions about energy prices – when they would come down. The change to sessional orders that we had suggested by the Manager of Opposition Business would allow for those questions to be answered in written form when the minister clearly did not have an answer. So that is why we want to be able, as it says on the website everywhere in terms of what Parliament is for, to provide Victorians the ability to have those questions answered and to ultimately hold the government to account.
The final thing that I just want to raise in this contribution is about regional parliament. It is really important that this Parliament of Victoria is not the Parliament of Melbourne – that it does reach far and wide in every region and give constituents, locals in various regions, the opportunity to hear what Parliament does, to participate in the parliamentary process and for Parliament to actually do those tours. It happened in the last term of Parliament in the Legislative Council; it did not happen in the Assembly, and that is why I propose, as the member for Brighton rightly raised in these amendments, that this should be incorporated into the sessional orders.
Katie HALL (Footscray) (17:02): Thank you, Speaker, and congratulations on your election. I will be brief. I know that there are many families and friends waiting outside for inaugural speeches, and I am very much looking forward to those. I just wanted to make a brief contribution on the importance of having family-friendly hours in this place. I have heard many stories of the late sittings that used to happen in a bygone era for the Assembly, and it sounds like it was not a productive use of people’s time but also pretty detrimental to people with young children in particular, with families that they want to get home to, and of course our regional MPs.
When I was first elected four years ago I had Ned, who was 12 weeks old, and I know that it has been really beneficial for me to be able to go home at a reasonable hour to have a cuddle with the kids and read a book, especially on a Thursday.
Katie HALL: I think, to take up the member for Frankston’s interjection, we have enough toddlers in this place. We probably do not need Ned joining us when it can be avoided. But as a parliament we do need to walk the talk, and I know that I am very proud to be a member of a government that has many women in its ranks. We know that even though times have changed, women still bear the brunt of the parenting responsibilities often. I note the member for Melbourne and welcome her newest contribution. So it is really important that we evolve as a parliament and reflect the communities that we represent. I commend the continuation of these proposed sessional orders as they were in the last Parliament, and I believe that the Standing Orders Committee is the appropriate place to interrogate these matters further.
Danny O’BRIEN (Gippsland South) (17:04): I think the sessional orders as introduced in 2014 and proposed again to be introduced for this 60th Parliament have been an improvement on the standing orders, particularly things like supplementary questions during question time and the introduction of constituency questions. They have been good, and we certainly support that, but there is no question that we could do better. The fact that there is such little opportunity for non-government members, particularly the opposition, to raise issues, to have substantive debates about issues and particularly to introduce legislation is one of the failings that we have. Second is the fact that we rarely get the opportunity to go into consideration in detail; indeed in my time I have only had that opportunity once. I think we might have had two opportunities in the last term of Parliament, but that is a significant failing because often we are dealing with very complex legislation and we want to interrogate that legislation and ask the minister questions about it. The one time that we did get to do it, we got some answers that were useful for the community.
We all remember the former Leader of the House in the last term giving, whenever we asked just about every week, ‘Can we go into consideration in detail on this particular legislation?’, the same answer I give to my little girl when she wants a puppy: ‘We’ll see’. We always got ‘We’ll see’ but we never actually got to do it. I think a Standing Orders Committee review is the appropriate thing to do, because, as the member for Brighton has indicated, there are some opportunities for us to introduce things like non-government business and to have, potentially, a second chamber. These are all things we should be looking at.
A member: Buy her a puppy.
Danny O’BRIEN: She’s not getting a puppy. As a country MP, I remember coming into this place when family-friendly hours were introduced, and I did not really understand what it was all about, because for those of us from the country, we do not go home anyway. I do accept that it is –
Mary-Anne Thomas: It is not all about you.
Danny O’BRIEN: It is about you too, Leader of the House.
The SPEAKER: Order! Through the Chair.
Danny O’BRIEN: I think the amendments moved by the member for Brighton are very appropriate and should be pursued, and I will be strongly supporting those. We should be reviewing the standing orders and making sure that the Parliament operates more as a Parliament, not like an executive as it is run now by the Premier. That is important. The member for Mordialloc has come back. He had a bit of a critique of those of us on this side on bills. If we did not get 15 carbon-copy speeches on every bill, written by the Premier’s office, from those opposite, we would save a lot of time.
Paul HAMER (Box Hill) (17:07): I would like to make a short contribution on the proposed sessional orders. Many of our contributors on this side are similar to me in being in the class of 2018 and knowing only these sessional orders. They certainly were procedures and processes that did work well for someone like myself who is a metro MP and who lives quite close to the Parliament. It does mean that I am able to get home and see my children on Tuesday and Wednesday nights.
One thing I do want to reflect on is that the change to the hours does not make a big impact in terms of the total hours of debate. I remember having a discussion with the member for Mornington about his experience pre 2014. The session on Tuesday would start at 2 pm and then would go through to 10 pm on the adjournment, but there would be an hour-and-a-half dinner break. Then on the following day it was the same; they would have the dinner break and they would have the lunch break. I do not think anything good comes after a 1½ hour dinner break, as I think has been mentioned previously by the Leader of the House. When you combine the total hours, the total hours that are spent debating the bills and doing what members of both sides want – to represent our communities and debate the important legislation that is before the Parliament – we are not actually reducing the total hours by having these sessional orders.
Also, as we could see today just in terms of question time – as fun as it was to ask my own question in the December sitting – we are all aware that having the answers of the ministers restricted to 3 minutes, having a question and a supplementary question and then having the availability of ministers statements to talk about the important issues of the day and the important issues in their portfolios is a much better use of the time, followed up by constituency questions, which I know all members on this side have used to great advantage in terms of pressing the most important issues in their constituency. I fully support the changes in the sessional orders.
Roma BRITNELL (South-West Coast) (17:10): I rise to make just some quick comments about the sessional orders. Firstly, I would like to endorse the amendments moved by my colleague the member for Brighton, and I will be supporting those. I think having the opportunity, when questions do not get answered properly and are not actually answered – the frustration that my community have expressed to me when they see that happen in the chamber in question time – to have members have to, like in the upper house, address the question and answer it properly by the next day would be an absolute improvement to the transparency and respect that the questions deserve.
The area I want to speak to really quickly about, though, is having the opportunity to refer to the Standing Orders Committee ideas that will improve our ability to communicate and connect and improve our ability to help people in the community understand how the Parliament works. One of those ideas is having regional sittings – bringing them back. They have been part of the Parliament in the past on both sides, whether it has been Labor or Liberal. It is something I would dearly love to see. I can absolutely see the people of Portland loving the idea of taking a session to Portland and people seeing the beauty we have there, having a parma in the pub at night together and people having the opportunity –
A member interjected.
Roma BRITNELL: A parma and a pot in the pub at Portland would be absolutely, I would think, a perfect way to show our beautiful part of the world and also listen to the people of Portland, who are really concerned about their health service and how they are going to continue to have that. The people in Terang would really welcome the opportunity. I am sure you would hear them saying how concerned they are and how worried – whilst the government is boasting about the energy issues that they think they are doing well in – that 80 per cent increases in their gas prices is what they are being told at the moment by their current provider. And guess what, there is no-one else that can provide any gas –
The SPEAKER: Order! I ask the member for South-West Coast to come back to the motion before the house.
Roma BRITNELL: So having the sessional orders changed to take the Parliament to the communities of Portland, Terang, Warrnambool and Heywood would be an absolute improvement, and I will endorse that opportunity if it gets put forward. I conclude by endorsing the amendments to the sessional orders from the member for Brighton.
Sessional orders 1 and 2 agreed to.
Sessional order 3
The SPEAKER: The member for Melbourne has moved amendment 1 in her name and I advise the house that if the amendment is not agreed to, all of the member’s remaining amendments will fail, as they are consequential.
The question is:
That the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the motion.
Members supporting the amendment moved by the member for Melbourne should vote no.
Assembly divided on question:
Ayes (78): Juliana Addison, Jacinta Allan, Daniel Andrews, Brad Battin, Jade Benham, Roma Britnell, Colin Brooks, Josh Bull, Martin Cameron, Anthony Carbines, Ben Carroll, Darren Cheeseman, Anthony Cianflone, Annabelle Cleeland, Sarah Connolly, Chris Couzens, Chris Crewther, Jordan Crugnale, Lily D’Ambrosio, Daniela De Martino, Steve Dimopoulos, Paul Edbrooke, Will Fowles, Matt Fregon, Ella George, Luba Grigorovitch, Sam Groth, Matthew Guy, Bronwyn Halfpenny, Katie Hall, Paul Hamer, Martha Haylett, Mathew Hilakari, David Hodgett, Melissa Horne, Natalie Hutchins, Lauren Kathage, Emma Kealy, Sonya Kilkenny, Nathan Lambert, Gary Maas, Alison Marchant, Kathleen Matthews-Ward, Tim McCurdy, Steve McGhie, Cindy McLeish, Paul Mercurio, John Mullahy, James Newbury, Danny O’Brien, Michael O’Brien, Kim O’Keeffe, Tim Pallas, Danny Pearson, John Pesutto, Pauline Richards, Tim Richardson, Richard Riordan, Brad Rowswell, Michaela Settle, David Southwick, Ros Spence, Nick Staikos, Natalie Suleyman, Meng Heang Tak, Jackson Taylor, Nina Taylor, Kat Theophanous, Mary-Anne Thomas, Bill Tilley, Bridget Vallence, Emma Vulin, Peter Walsh, Iwan Walters, Kim Wells, Dylan Wight, Belinda Wilson, Jess Wilson
Noes (4): Gabrielle de Vietri, Sam Hibbins, Tim Read, Ellen Sandell
Question agreed to.
The SPEAKER: The member for Brighton has moved amendment 1 in his name to sessional order 3. The question is:
That the amendment be agreed to.
Assembly divided on James Newbury’s amendment 1:
Ayes (29): Brad Battin, Jade Benham, Roma Britnell, Martin Cameron, Annabelle Cleeland, Chris Crewther, Gabrielle de Vietri, Sam Groth, Matthew Guy, Sam Hibbins, David Hodgett, Emma Kealy, Tim McCurdy, Cindy McLeish, James Newbury, Danny O’Brien, Michael O’Brien, Kim O’Keeffe, John Pesutto, Tim Read, Richard Riordan, Brad Rowswell, Ellen Sandell, David Southwick, Bill Tilley, Bridget Vallence, Peter Walsh, Kim Wells, Jess Wilson
Noes (53): Juliana Addison, Jacinta Allan, Daniel Andrews, Colin Brooks, Josh Bull, Anthony Carbines, Ben Carroll, Darren Cheeseman, Anthony Cianflone, Sarah Connolly, Chris Couzens, Jordan Crugnale, Lily D’Ambrosio, Daniela De Martino, Steve Dimopoulos, Paul Edbrooke, Will Fowles, Matt Fregon, Ella George, Luba Grigorovitch, Bronwyn Halfpenny, Katie Hall, Paul Hamer, Martha Haylett, Mathew Hilakari, Melissa Horne, Natalie Hutchins, Lauren Kathage, Sonya Kilkenny, Nathan Lambert, Gary Maas, Alison Marchant, Kathleen Matthews-Ward, Steve McGhie, Paul Mercurio, John Mullahy, Tim Pallas, Danny Pearson, Pauline Richards, Tim Richardson, Michaela Settle, Ros Spence, Nick Staikos, Natalie Suleyman, Meng Heang Tak, Jackson Taylor, Nina Taylor, Kat Theophanous, Mary-Anne Thomas, Emma Vulin, Iwan Walters, Dylan Wight, Belinda Wilson
Amendment defeated.
Sessional order 3 agreed to; sessional orders 4 to 10 agreed to.
Sessional order 11
The SPEAKER: The member for Brighton has moved amendments to sessional order 11. I advise the house that if the member for Brighton’s amendment 2 is not agreed to, the member’s remaining amendments will fail as they are consequential. The question is:
That the member for Brighton’s amendment 2 be agreed to.
Assembly divided on James Newbury’s amendment 2:
Ayes (29): Brad Battin, Jade Benham, Roma Britnell, Martin Cameron, Annabelle Cleeland, Chris Crewther, Gabrielle de Vietri, Sam Groth, Matthew Guy, Sam Hibbins, David Hodgett, Emma Kealy, Tim McCurdy, Cindy McLeish, James Newbury, Danny O’Brien, Michael O’Brien, Kim O’Keeffe, John Pesutto, Tim Read, Richard Riordan, Brad Rowswell, Ellen Sandell, David Southwick, Bill Tilley, Bridget Vallence, Peter Walsh, Kim Wells, Jess Wilson
Noes (53): Juliana Addison, Jacinta Allan, Daniel Andrews, Colin Brooks, Josh Bull, Anthony Carbines, Ben Carroll, Darren Cheeseman, Anthony Cianflone, Sarah Connolly, Chris Couzens, Jordan Crugnale, Lily D’Ambrosio, Daniela De Martino, Steve Dimopoulos, Paul Edbrooke, Will Fowles, Matt Fregon, Ella George, Luba Grigorovitch, Bronwyn Halfpenny, Katie Hall, Paul Hamer, Martha Haylett, Mathew Hilakari, Melissa Horne, Natalie Hutchins, Lauren Kathage, Sonya Kilkenny, Nathan Lambert, Gary Maas, Alison Marchant, Kathleen Matthews-Ward, Steve McGhie, Paul Mercurio, John Mullahy, Tim Pallas, Danny Pearson, Pauline Richards, Tim Richardson, Michaela Settle, Ros Spence, Nick Staikos, Natalie Suleyman, Meng Heang Tak, Jackson Taylor, Nina Taylor, Kat Theophanous, Mary-Anne Thomas, Emma Vulin, Iwan Walters, Dylan Wight, Belinda Wilson
Amendment defeated.
Sessional order 11 agreed to; sessional orders 12 to 18 agreed to.
Motion agreed to.