Thursday, 20 March 2025

Business of the house

Sessional orders

Mary-Anne THOMAS (Macedon – Leader of the House, Minister for Health, Minister for Ambulance Services) (17:16): I move:

That the following sessional order be adopted, to come into operation from 1 April 2025:

‘18 Order of government business

So much of standing orders 146, 148(1) and 150 are suspended to allow, on days on which government business has precedence, ministers to list government notices of motion and orders of the day at the head of the list on the notice paper in whatever order they wish. Government notices and orders are then dealt with in the order they are listed on the notice paper. After a government notice or order has been disposed of, the Speaker will either call the minister to move the next notice of motion or direct the Clerk to read the next order of the day, as appropriate.’

Members interjecting.

Mary-Anne THOMAS: Who would have thought that such a motion would invite so much opposition already – I have hardly had a chance to say anything – from those on the other side of the house. What are we doing here with this motion? Well, it is quite simple. We are making a minor change to the sessional orders in order that this house may run more efficiently and effectively, and what is more –

Members interjecting.

The SPEAKER: Order! I am having trouble hearing the member on her feet. If members wish to leave the chamber, can they do so quickly and quietly.

Mary-Anne THOMAS: It is a simple change, one that is all part of making sure that we have a Parliament that reflects the views of the public by being efficient and getting on with the real business of the day, which is the government business program as set down by the government. This is a minor change to the sessional orders that only affects the order of government business on a sitting day. It is a very simple and a very basic change. Under the current rules, notices have to be dealt with before moving on to orders of the day, such as bills, motions or other government business. The practical impact of this change is that the government can order notices, bills and motions in whatever order we wish. And do you know what? One of the benefits of winning government is being able to come into this place and establish a government business program. Let us be clear: we are seizing that opportunity. We are going to make this change, and we are doing it because we are the government. We have the numbers in this place and –

A member interjected.

Mary-Anne THOMAS: I am going to take up the interjection. Apparently we do not believe in democracy. Well, let me tell you what democracy delivered in 2014, in 2018 and in 2022. Democracy ‍–

Cindy McLeish: On a point of order, Speaker, the Leader of the House moved somewhat from the motion but also started to take up interjections, which is disorderly.

The SPEAKER: I ask the minister to speak to the motion before the house.

Mary-Anne THOMAS: We are talking about the rules of the house, and indeed I do think the debate does allow me to discuss the concept of democracy. Democracy is one which I think is relevant to what we are discussing here tonight. Indeed the people of this state in 2014, 2018 and 2022 have elected substantial Labor majority governments here in this place, and we have not wasted a moment in the time that we have had here in government in order to deliver on the things that matter to the people of Victoria. I will concede that the standing orders do not much matter to the people of Victoria. That is why we are seeking to make a very simple change to the sessional orders in order to enable us to prioritise the business that we as the government recognise and understand and agree is the highest priority on any given sitting day.

In terms of the practical impact of this change, it is that the government can order notices, bills and motions in whatever order we wish. I do not really know how you can argue against that. To be clear, the government can effectively already do this, but this change will clean that process up and make the chamber run a bit smoother. I think we can probably all agree that if there is an opportunity to avoid the regular audition from the member for Brighton for the leadership position then that is probably a good thing. As far as I can tell, that will be the only real effect for the opposition – that there will be less opportunities for the member for Brighton to grandstand in this place and in doing so, I might say, seek to embarrass the current Manager of Opposition Business in the way in which he seeks to undermine her as she goes about her job.

This is, as I said, a pretty simple question. I have got a lot of time on the clock. I do not intend to use it, because I can tell you what, there are many notices of motion on the paper for this evening. I am sure we are all going to look forward to speaking to a number of them. I am going to leave it for my colleagues to contribute further on this debate, but I commend this rather short and simple and efficient change to the house.

Bridget VALLENCE (Evelyn) (17:23): This motion demonstrates everything wrong about this tired Labor government. This motion demonstrates how much this Labor government is obsessed with power and control. It will stop at nothing to silence its critics, especially the opposition, especially any non-government member of Parliament, whether that be from the Liberal Party, the National Party, the Greens or the independents. That is exactly what this motion seeks to do. Do not let this government try to pull the wool over your eyes. For the Victorians out there watching this, do not let the government try to pull the wool over your eyes. At its core this motion is undemocratic because it seeks to trash the fairness and the balance that the current standing orders attempt to achieve.

It is really regrettable that this motion is before the house today because it only seeks to diminish the voices of those who dare to speak against this Labor government – this tired 10-year-old decaying Labor government. It is a motion that is designed to save the Premier’s job. It is a motion that is designed to save the Premier’s leadership, because it is unravelling before our eyes. The former Premier Daniel Andrews did not need to make this extraordinary move.

A member interjected.

The SPEAKER: Order! It is not too late to be removed from the chamber.

Bridget VALLENCE: And we would not lose anything, Speaker, if that occurred. The former Premier Daniel Andrews did not need to make such a change, because dare I say it, despite my disagreement severely with his politics, the former Premier Andrews had control of this chamber. But what we see under the decaying leadership of the new Premier Allan is it is all falling apart and it is all unravelling.

The Premier’s office have advised that they want to make this change because they want to get some more control because they are losing it, quite frankly. This motion has not even been reviewed by the Standing Orders Committee. A fundamental principle is we have committees and scrutiny in this institution, in Parliament. Let us not forget that this Parliament and the Legislative Assembly here is the people’s chamber, and yet Victorians are being denied a voice through the members on this side – all non-government members. As I say, former Premier Daniel Andrews did not need to take this extraordinary step. Only because the leadership is at risk with Premier Allan are the government and the Premier’s office taking this extraordinary step.

As I say, most of these kinds of changes and changes of significant nature really should go to the Standing Orders Committee for further scrutiny to make sure that it is a problem – what problem are we trying to solve? – and to take it through that due process of the Standing Orders Committee. That has not been done with this motion. This motion is something that was cooked up in the Premier’s office and has been put forward and rushed through, which just smacks of desperation by this government. As I say, it has not been to the Standing Orders Committee. This government seeks, as it always does with this chamber and with Victorians, to ride roughshod over our democratic processes.

The standing orders are relied on by all who participate in and follow the work of this house as an authoritative source and the practice of the house. It is a longstanding practice of the house that we have had with notices of motion on the paper to be dispensed with first before we moved to the orders of the day. It is a situation where all Victorians – not just those who are members of the chamber, but all Victorians – are able to review what is on the standing orders. As I say, they are longstanding. They are very reasonable practice. The current standing orders reflect fair and reasonable practice, and that is what this Labor government does not like. They do not like fairness. They do not like integrity. They do not like equitable processes. They want to ride roughshod over all of these processes.

This motion seeks to destroy the balance and centralise more power with this Labor government. As I said, Speaker, do not let this Labor government and do not let the Leader of the House pull the wool over your eyes. The Leader of the House in her contribution said that this was a minor change. It is not. That is false. In fact when the Leader of the House was briefing me about this change she said quite directly, ‘We are the government and we are exercising our authority and our control,’ and that is precisely what this motion is about. It is not because it respects the fair and equitable processes of this Parliament. It does not respect the institution of this Parliament as former premiers and governments have done. There is no sound reason for this change, no sound reason whatsoever. It is purely because this government want to exercise its power and it is trying to save the failing leadership of its Premier, Premier Allan. As I say again, former Premier Andrews did not see the need for this change, and it just demonstrates the desperation and the lengths to which the government will go.

This government now wants to control the order in which the notices of motion are debated, and if motions are passed it means that no matter if a member of this place has been waiting for months to debate a motion which they have listed on the notice paper, the government’s motions will always take preference and be debated first. It has been raised many, many times in this chamber how non-government members also represent Victorians and also have the right to be able to raise matters and seek to debate motions in this chamber, but this government seeks to silence not only those non-government members but also the voices of Victorians who live in electorates that are not represented by a government member. I think that that is a sad day for democracy in the state of Victoria. It is not fair, and it is simply a shameful power grab by this Labor government. It just demonstrates that they know things are changing.

We have already seen in the past 12 or so months a very, very lame legislative agenda. Obviously they do not want to do the work on legislation and the legislative agenda. They just want to bring in these sledge motions, these very ridiculous motions that, more often than not, do not actually talk about the matters of importance to Victorian people but seek to disparage members in this chamber. I think that is a reflection of people. If people want to be name-calling and have those kinds of motions that seek to disparage an opposition, a minor party like the Greens or any members in particular, it is just a reflection on the people bringing those motions. You only have to read some of the motions that the Labor Party and the Labor government bring. They seek to disparage people within this chamber. All that does is go to the lowest common denominator. It does not help represent the interests and the matters that are most important and crucial to Victorians right now.

This motion does nothing to address the crime crisis in Victoria. This motion does nothing to address the shocking youth crime crisis in Victoria. This motion does nothing to address the cost-of-living crisis in Victoria. All this motion is is a nasty, ridiculous power grab. It smacks of desperation from this Labor government. It is an absolute affront to the traditions of this house. This Labor government do not want to be accountable. They do not want to be accountable for their actions. They have no integrity; they lack integrity. I hear day in and day out from people in my community the lack of integrity this government has. They just do not care. There is no transparency and no accountability, and this motion proves exactly that.

As I said, it is an affront to the traditions of this house. The standing orders that are before us today have been around for a very long time. There has been no previous need to change them. There has been no genuine reason provided by this Labor government as to why they need to change them now, other than, as I said, the Leader of the House saying to me directly, ‘We’re the government. We can do this. Let’s just do this. We’re doing it anyway.’ It just demonstrates that it is not about any meaningful change. It is not actually tackling any of the crises that are occurring in Victoria under this Labor government. All it is doing is, with the government losing control, saving the leadership of Premier Jacinta Allan and trying to harness back a little bit of control because they are losing it at a rapid rate of knots. They see it in the polls. They see it in the disastrous results from the recent by-elections in Werribee and Prahran. They experienced the crime crisis there, the cost-of-living crisis –

Mathew Hilakari: On a point of order, Speaker, on relevance, I just thought I would give the Manager of Opposition Business a bit of a chop-out. She needs time to gather her thoughts and bring together a bit more of a cogent statement, so I am hoping I have given her long enough after a couple of minutes in. She has spent 10 minutes waffling now.

The SPEAKER: What is your point of order, member for Point Cook?

Mathew Hilakari: It is on relevance.

The SPEAKER: I do ask the member for Evelyn to come back to the motion before the house.

Bridget VALLENCE: As I was saying, it is an affront to the traditions of this house to undermine the standing orders in such a way and for a nasty power grab. It was bad enough that earlier this week we received a bill to change the government’s weakened bail laws. They wanted to debate it with urgency on the Tuesday, but dismally, showed no courtesy of providing the community with this bill in a timely fashion. We got it at 6 pm on the night before it was to be debated with urgency. That just demonstrates the arrogance and the shameful behaviour of this Labor government.

What is even worse is that this government is using its power to shut down debate and force this house to vote on bills and motions and have these motions without the opportunity for genuine procedural debate on them. They are going to be removing the opportunity for that because they do not want to be frustrated. They do not want non-government members – members of the Liberals, Nationals, Greens and independents – to hold them to account. They just want to be a dictatorship. It is just more activity like that. We have seen it year after year, and it is just getting worse. They saw that that is how they grabbed control under their former Premier Andrews – the dictator style that he had with the world’s longest lockdowns in the pandemic, which had the worst results from a health perspective.

Members interjecting.

The SPEAKER: Order! Members will come to order. The member for Evelyn will come back to the motion before the house.

Bridget VALLENCE: What this Labor government is doing is utterly disgraceful. Again, it is going to prevent members on this side of the chamber, all non-government members, from being able to participate in the way that they used to be able to do and that they have been able to do for so long and represent their communities, who are Victorians too. I think it is shameful, and I know that the Labor government know it, but they frankly do not care. They do not care for the institution of this Parliament, they do not care for the longstanding tradition of these current standing orders and they do not care for Victorians. We oppose this motion.

Iwan WALTERS (Greenvale) (17:35): Goodness me. I appreciate that my desk area looks a little bit like that of Dennis Denuto in The Castle, but the reason I have a few papers set out here is that I read this motion before coming into this place. I read it, and my interpretation of it in pretty simple English was that it involved a few standing orders – that is why I have got the standing orders here – about the consideration of orders of the day and the precedence of motions, and they are 148 and 150 but also standing order 146. I thought it related to quite a simple change to the sequencing of motions that we consider in this place, but I had to read it again. I was astonished to hear the Manager of Opposition Business talk about what this motion, this simple administrative motion, entails. It is doing a lot of heavy lifting. It is going to result in a dictatorship! I wonder, Speaker, if you could ask one of your attendants to see if in fact Charles I is behind the Speaker’s dais –

The SPEAKER: Order! Member for Greenvale, you know you cannot ask the Speaker questions.

Iwan WALTERS: No, Speaker. I do apologise. I withdraw. But it alarms me that we may be, according to the Manager of Opposition Business, descending into an anarchic police state and that the spectre of Charles I could be here and abrogating parliamentary sovereignty. I am here on behalf of the members of Greenvale – according to the Manager of Opposition Business many of whom are tuning in this evening. I hope that the missing of The Chase is not causing too much of a wrench, but it is lovely to have you on board with us this evening for this debate. But no. While I knew in my heart of hearts that the member for Brighton was a Cromwellian Roundhead, I did not know that the Manager of Opposition Business was as well.

I do return to the era of Charles I because this is a minor change to the standing orders. It gives effect to government business on a sitting day. It is a simple and basic change. The Manager of Opposition Business expressed alarm that this motion does not address the cost-of-living crisis, does not put more police on the streets, and I am here to say no, it does not. But it is an administrative change that enables us to get to motions that do, to get to motions that enable us to talk about how this government is supporting families in my electorate of Greenvale, in Point Cook, in Wendouree, in all of the 18 regional electorates that we represent, supporting them with the cost of living, investing in their schools and keeping our streets safe. The Manager of Opposition Business also bemoaned that apparently we have no legislative agenda. I looked around. Again, it is 20 to 6. We are here precisely because we have an important legislative agenda to ensure that the streets of Victoria are safe, that those who ignore the privilege that bail is are enabled –

Members interjecting.

The SPEAKER: Order!

Iwan WALTERS: The member for Nepean is very voluble, unlike in question time.

The SPEAKER: Member for Greenvale!

Iwan WALTERS: He did have a question today. Well, he had many. He had many questions in that brief interlude. He was making up for lost time, but that is okay. I come back to the motion.

Cindy McLeish: On a point of order, Speaker, the member for Greenvale might still be fairly new, but he should know by now that this is a fairly limited motion and he needs to stick to it.

The SPEAKER: Yes. I remind all members that this is a motion that is listed on the notice of business, and I hope that members will stick to that motion.

Iwan WALTERS: I certainly shall, and I mourn the death of irony at that point of order.

This simple motion does not abrogate parliamentary sovereignty. The idea that the elected government somehow enabling a provision of this place to be able to debate things of substance, to amend the notice paper, somehow translates into a power grab by the Crown, it did sound, in that contribution, like the 1640s whereby the rights of a sovereign parliament were being traduced. That is simply untrue. We are all, as the Manager of Opposition Business said, elected members of this place, but there has been evolution of parliamentary traditions over many, many years, and this minor, minor, minor tweak will enable us to revert to things which matter to our communities, to get back to those motions relating to the cost of living, relating to investments in health, rather than things which are rigidly set in place according to a sequence.

The member for Eildon is right – I have not been in this place as long as the member for Rowville or others, but I am still rather shocked to find that we are in this position of needing to have quite a long, unwieldy debate simply to make a very minor change to the notice paper to enable us to talk about things which matter to our communities. But no, there were more metaphors in the Manager of Opposition Business’s contribution than you can poke a stick at, and there indeed I go again. But again, the idea that this simple administrative motion somehow denotes an obsession with power, a dictatorship, that it abrogates the people’s chamber, that there is no legislative agenda, I think this is a very, very long bow indeed to draw. On the evolution of parliamentary sovereignty that I have talked about, I come back to Charles I, Speaker, and I think you are very live to that era, given the –

Members interjecting.

The SPEAKER: Order! I am not that old, member for Greenvale.

Iwan WALTERS: I withdraw. There was no intention –

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Greenvale will resume his seat. I think that is a reflection on the Chair.

Members interjecting.

Iwan WALTERS: The member for South-West Coast again exemplifies that incredible inverse relationship between her willingness to contribute and the quality of what she contributes. I was merely reflecting on the fact that the role of the Speaker in that era was one upon which there was significant risk, as a representative of this entire house, towards the Crown. A representative of the House of Commons in that era towards the Crown – that placed significant threat upon the office of the Speaker in that era, and I was talking about the office of the Speaker and not the personage of the Speaker embodied by you, Speaker.

Of course, parliamentary sovereignty has evolved. We have an era where all of us are elected representatives. The idea that somehow this change reflects an unelected Crown making adjustments willy-nilly to the notice paper is an absurdity. We are all elected, and the government has been elected with the number of members that it has stretching all the way around to the member for Preston, who will be contributing on this motion shortly. So it is entirely appropriate that the government does seek to ensure that the house can operate in a way that ensures that the priorities of the community are able to be discussed. Again, I come back to that idea that I find it an unusual situation for us to be needing to have a very long, quite unwieldy debate simply to get onto matters that are very important, like the cost of living for Victorians and the way in which this government is supporting them.

I could go on, and I will. To move from the era of the English Civil War, which of course ended with the Restoration in 1660, through that Restoration era from 1660 to the Glorious Revolution – so-called ‘glorious’. I think for many minorities in England it was not so glorious indeed. But that did cement the idea of parliamentary sovereignty and a responsible and constrained constitutional monarchy. Again I come back to that idea that the notion that this motion somehow abrogates that convention is an absurdity. We have had a very strong system of parliamentary sovereignty in this jurisdiction and others for many centuries. The role of the Crown in Parliament has evolved as well. Robert Walpole was the first Prime Minister, and obviously the Premier inherits that equivalent position. For the Manager of Opposition Business to suggest that somehow that is a position of a dictator I think is a regretful reflection upon the Premier and those before who have held that office.

I have given something of an explanation as to why I am supporting this motion this evening. I think it is a sensible motion, a constrained motion, a reasonable motion that will enable us as a house to debate the issues that are particularly important to our communities. I touched on one, the cost of living, and why it is important that as a government and as a Parliament we are supporting our communities with the cost of living. I think is worthwhile for us to move onto that in due course once this immediate motion has been addressed in order to enable us to do that. I support the motion. I commend it to the house.

Danny O’BRIEN (Gippsland South) (17:45): I am pleased to say a few words on this. I am also pleased to find that, given the rumours that abound about the member for Essendon moving on, we have found a new member for Essendon who can take us into speeches going back to the 16th century. Did Cromwell get a mention? I think Cromwell did get a mention. King Charles got several mentions. I think the member for Greenvale has got a little way to go, because the member for Essendon always goes back at least a thousand years for his issues. You could learn a lot. But we are all very relieved that if the member for Essendon does succumb, we have got someone in the member for Greenvale to take over his role as the archivist of the Parliament, perhaps.

It is important to understand the context of a decision like this. It may well be a small decision, it may well not have an enormous bearing on what this Parliament does, but it is the context of what else the Parliament does as well. I find it a little bit revealing, both the Leader of the House’s and the member for Greenvale’s commentary that this is exactly democracy because they won. Well, by extension, what does the Parliament even sit for then? Because if the government can just do whatever it likes, we do not need to be here. As the member for Evelyn indicated, those people who got elected and are not forming part of the government deserve the opportunity to have their say on behalf of their community.

Again I go back to the idea that this particular motion does not necessarily take away the right of those of us to have our say, but it is in the context of the many other things that do not happen in this chamber already. One of them I note, Speaker, given your activity at the moment, is that the air conditioner does not seem to work in this chamber at this place.

Members interjecting.

The SPEAKER: Order! I advise members that the air conditioning has just been turned back on.

Danny O’BRIEN: I am glad, because I would not want to have to keep diverting from the debate at hand. But what I am talking about here is a number of little changes that the government has made over its 10 years in power. I say ‘in power’ and not ‘in office’ because that is what the government seems to think this is about. It is about their power. They seem to think that because they have got a majority in the lower house they can do whatever they want with the lower house. I know there will be a time where those opposite will become those on this side, and they will have a very, very different view. Not all of you, because some of you will not be here, but that will be –

Belinda Wilson interjected.

Danny O’BRIEN: I was not looking at anyone in particular, member for Narre Warren North. But I am sure they will take a very different view of democracy and parliamentary procedure. What we have seen, as I have said, is this incremental movement and diminishing of the role of the Parliament and the ability of the Parliament to manage its own affairs without the executive just constantly pulling rank. It is incremental. It is creeping. One might say there are creeping assumptions that are made by the government that they can assume to just take whatever they want and do these things. We have heard those figures before.

I do not profess to say that this particular motion before us is a sign of dictatorship, but it is creeping towards dictatorship, because if the government just does whatever it wants in the chamber, the essence of parliamentary democracy is polluted. As I said, this is in context. This is in the context where I understand we are the only chamber in an Australian parliament that does not have general business, that does not have an opportunity for non-government members to introduce legislation and debate it and to debate motions that they would like. I have been here for 10 years, and we have had in that time two – I think the member for Brighton might correct me – maybe three, committee stages on a piece of legislation. A committee stage should not be something that the government is worried about. In fact upper house members, members in the other place, do them all the time. I feel sorry sometimes for the ministers in the other place who have to take carriage of business. In fact it is happening right now. It is the reason why we are here. But the ministers in this place do not seem absolutely capable of defending or explaining their own legislation – either that or the government just thinks it can do what it likes and it does not need to bother with that small thing of democracy. I go to some quotes, because I do not think the member for Greenvale went to quotes, but he certainly went to history. I picked up this one a moment ago:

What is Parliament for if it is not to be a means to make ministers accountable for the services for which they are responsible?

It is a quote from Michael Howard, who I think was John Howard’s brother – no, I might be making that up. The point is true: the Parliament is here to hold the executive to account, not for the executive just to ride roughshod over the Parliament, and when I say roughshod over the Parliament, I mean over the people of Victoria, who have elected us all here. It is a point that I took very seriously in my 10 years – you get less for murder – on the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee, and it is something that I tried to impart on government members of PAEC. You have got your job to defend the government, and I get that. Everyone understands that.

The SPEAKER: Order! Through the Chair.

Danny O’BRIEN: Sorry, Speaker. They have their job, but they also have a role in holding the executive to account, and that includes ministers – and we know that none of those that I ever served with on PAEC ever held a minister to account – and also holding the public service to account.

Gary Maas interjected.

Danny O’BRIEN: No, not once, member for Narre Warren South, did I ever see a government member held to account. Actually, we got to hold the member for –

The SPEAKER: Order! Through the Chair, Leader of the Nationals.

Danny O’BRIEN: That was actually through the Chair.

Bridget Vallence interjected.

Danny O’BRIEN: The member for Preston, yes. Actually, he was not the only one. There were a few others around the place that were public servants at times – but anyway, I digress. It is the case that motions like this reflect the fact that the government does not want a Parliament, it wants an audience. It just wants to stand up and say what it wants, move what it wants, put through what it wants, and to hell with the consequences. One of the problems with that is you get the bad decisions and the bad legislation that we have had under this government. We have seen two today, I would argue. The gambling legislation is one, and particularly the Emergency Services and Volunteers Fund legislation, otherwise known as the emergency services tax, which reflects, as I said, the lack of an agenda or a wrong agenda in our view. It is something that I think this motion is set up to deal with, because as the member for Evelyn said, too often these days we find the government with a very light agenda, and they want to be able to bring in more of these motions. The member for Brighton might refer them to them as sledge motions. I would certainly say they are a political waste of time. I should have said too – he has gone now, the member for Greenvale – I do not think I have heard someone complain so often about a contribution wasting the chamber’s time, but then he took his full 10 minutes in doing so. That is another issue.

Again, I take umbrage at the government’s position on these changes; as I say, creeping contextual changes, which all diminish the ability of the Parliament. I take objection to the commentary of ‘Well, we won the election so we can do what we want.’ As I said, they won the election to be the executive, they did not win the Parliament. There are tens of thousands of people on this side represented by people who are not part of the government, and those people deserve the opportunity to have their say, to have a proper procedure and to have the traditions of the Parliament respected at every turn.

This motion is just another example, and we saw it through the pandemic in particular. We saw it under the previous Premier in particular – time and time again the role of the Parliament was diminished. The inability of parliamentarians to hold the executive to account through things like a committee phase just does not happen under this government. We do not even have ministers 99 times out of 100 come in and answer any questions on the adjournment debate, which happened regularly under the previous coalition government.

This is a motion that reflects a government that does not want a Parliament; it wants an audience, and it should not be supported in this chamber.

Nathan LAMBERT (Preston) (17:55): I rise to support the motion from the Leader of the House, which, as we know, seeks to amend the sessional orders with relation to standing orders 146, 148(1) and 150, relating to government notices of motion and government orders of the day.

With your indulgence, Speaker, just before I do, there is a very significant Macedonian community in the part of the world that I represent. I know that other members here, particularly the member for Thomastown, represent large Macedonian communities, and I would just like to acknowledge in this place of course the recent tragedy in Macedonia – the nightclub fire in Kočani in the north-east of Macedonia, which has led to 59 deaths and I understand about 150 or so more people who are injured, some very seriously injured. Macedonia has declared, I think, seven days of mourning, and I understand a mass burial service is being held in the next 24 hours. The member for Thomastown might have something further to say about that, but just on behalf of those members of that Macedonian community who I represent I want to express our sorrow and our thoughts for those directly affected and the broader Macedonian community. Cr Connie Boglis, who is up in our part of the world, let me know that there is an appeal going on at the moment, which members of our community and other members are encouraged to contribute to.

Coming back to the motion that we have in front of us, it of course relates to the standing orders. I am grateful to my colleagues who apparently decided that I was the person to stand up. There are several motions on the notice paper, as we all know, this evening concerning many important issues. This one is probably a little more dry and technical. I am not sure why it was that others did not leap upon it, but I am very happy to speak about it at some length.

As we know, the standing orders divide up the business of Parliament and what we do. There is formal business, there is government business and then there are other categories of things, like question time and so forth. For those of us, like the member for Pascoe Vale, who are relatively new to this place, some of them, like the grievance debate, are a little unusual when you first encounter them. But they are venerable arrangements. Indeed the member for Gippsland South is leaving the chamber, but he did complain that there are not opportunities for non-government members to speak, and I suppose the grievance debate is in fact one.

The motion that we have before us addresses in particular how the notice paper operates, and again, for those of us who are relatively new to this place, I might just step through the mechanics of how that operates, because of course that is pertinent to the motion we have before us. We have the notice paper, all of us, in front of us. I have a copy here. Traditionally of course it starts with notices of motion. Those are things that we have not yet debated but which the government has said it might wish to debate at some point, and they are listed in the order in which notice was given. Then we come to the orders of the day. They are things that we have already started debating – notably most commonly bills that have already had their first and second reading and been passed – and they are listed in the order in which we intend to debate them. Following that are those notices brought by non-government members; they are also listed in the order that they were given. So that, if you like, is the way we get the notice paper that we always have in front of us.

Then of course at the start of each week we have the government business program – we are all very familiar with that debate – and the purpose of the government business program is to specifically pull out those items from the notice paper that we intend to not only debate on a specific day but then of course deal with in the guillotine, which we would normally have at about 5:00 pm on a Thursday, although notably not today. It is very important when we think about how we address those items that we can all see on the notice paper to understand that the government and indeed any member in this place always has the right to say that their item on the notice paper does not proceed for today and that we can come back to it on another day.

Bridget Vallence interjected.

Nathan LAMBERT: The member for Evelyn interjects to ask why we need the changes, and I assure her that I am coming to that. But just to step through the mechanics, as I say, for those of us who are perhaps newer to this place, any member can decide at any given point that they do not want the particular notice of motion that is there to proceed and then business moves to the next thing that is on the notice paper. It is also important to point out that there is an existing standing order by which the government can reorder those items that are the orders of the day. There is already a procedure there by which the government can reorder the items under the orders of the day to whatever order that the government so chooses without the need for a procedural motion. So just to be clear about how that all generally operates, the government can bring bills forward to legislate, it can bring motions on important topics. There are of course limits to that – time limits, and things have to be introduced a day before the second reading and so forth – the government has to provide certain notice and it must provide the other parties an opportunity to speak. They are all very important principles there that are not changing at all. But to be very clear about the principles that are in the standing orders and the sessional orders, there has never been any principle that says that the opposition or other parties must be given advance notice of an item that is on the notice paper coming forward for debate. Anyone who is in opposition, or any of us in fact who are here in this place, has to be prepared to speak on all of the motions that are on the first couple of pages of the notice paper. That has always been the case. As I say, anyone can waive their right to speak on a notice of motion, and the result of that is that those notices of motion can come on at any time and all of us in this place must be prepared to speak to them.

The only thing we are saving by making this small procedural amendment that the Leader of the House has put forward is then going and having a procedural debate about the decision to change the orders of that notice of motion. The government can change the order. At the moment it just needs a procedural debate to do so. And we ask ourselves: is it necessary to have that procedural debate and to take up the time of the house when, as the member for Greenvale has pointed out, there are other things often that the government needs to discuss and that would be of value to our broader communities in discussing?

I do not want to be unfair to the many people who contribute to procedural debates, but sometimes you would think that perhaps they could be a little shorter. In fact we have all been here while numerous interjections go back and forth with people asking for members who are on their feet to return to the procedural matter and not get to the substantial matter. Procedural debates play an important role. I think a particularly important one – and this goes to things that the opposition were raising – is that sometimes the government does want to expedite the process by which it makes decisions on bills in particular. And when we do so, we have to have procedural motions, and that is appropriate and good that those procedural motions give the opposition a chance to argue against the government doing that and of course means that the government cannot make those sorts of decisions without an appropriate level of scrutiny. I think that is the broad principle. The government cannot do anything unexpected in this place without needing a procedural motion, and that gives those in other parties the opportunity to criticise that decision. But I want to emphasise this: what we are proposing here is not something that will be launching any surprises on anyone. All of us must always be prepared to speak on the items that are on the notice paper in the section that is the government business section. The government already has the ability to jump to any one of those at any time with no notice. All this procedural thing does is avoid us having to go through a debate before the government reorders those that in the first section on the notice paper.

I think when the member for Greenvale and indeed when the Leader of the House said this was a relatively minor change, they were absolutely correct in that. I do not need to repeat the comments of the member at length, but the notion that that change constituted a dictatorship – indeed I want to pick up on a more detailed matter in the member for Evelyn’s contribution. She did say that the effect of this motion that we have before us would be that the government’s motions would have precedence. I just want to be very clear for her – and you would expect that she perhaps might have a good understanding of these things – that that is not what the motion does. Government motions already have precedence under the standing orders, and always have. All this motion ahead of us does is change the order in which they might appear without the need for a postponement motion. It is possible that the very strong language that the member for Evelyn used about a dictatorship and so forth was because she misunderstood the motion that is in front of her. This is not giving government motions or notices of motion or orders of the day any more precedence than they already have.

I will finish on her complaint that the sessional orders and standing orders are longstanding and do not need any changes. I do not think that is something I agree with. They are important. It is important that we treat them with respect, but of course there have been many changes to the standing orders and sessional orders in this place.

I was talking the other day to the Premier who was involved in the change that meant that adjournment was at 7 pm on Tuesdays and Wednesdays instead of at 10 pm. I know many people in this place have families and some people have younger children to try and get home to after a sitting day, and many of us are grateful for the fact that that change, which was enacted through the sessional orders, makes this workplace a little bit more family friendly than it might have been otherwise. So there are plenty of precedents for us making positive changes to the sessional orders. I believe that the Leader of the House’s motion does exactly that, and I commend it to the house and wish it a speedy passage.

James NEWBURY (Brighton) (18:05): I can understand why the government have moved this motion at 6 o’clock at the end of a sitting week when no-one, they think, is watching. But I do want to add to the debate in a number of ways, firstly by saying that this change to the processes and operation of the house, if I can put it that way, have not gone through the Standing Orders Committee, which is unprecedented. This house creates a Standing Orders Committee so that it can consider in a bipartisan way the way this house operates, because this of course is where the government is formed but this is the people’s house, and it does not presume that it is anything more than the place where all of the members who are elected to represent their communities sit. It does not presume that one particular party exists and can come in and do whatever it wants in this place. Every member should have the right to be part of the decisions of this place, the running of this place. Whether or not their views are found to be the majority is a secondary point, but every member should have the right. That is why the Standing Orders Committee exists. It provides an opportunity for members in a bipartisan way to consider any changes in the way the standing orders operate.

There has been bipartisan support pretty much to use the Standing Orders Committee. What has happened today is unprecedented. The government has said, ‘Hang the Standing Orders Committee. We’re going to do it our own way.’ We understand why they are doing it – because they do not want to sully themselves with having to consider issues before the house, to have debates before the house and to have votes in this house, even if they were to win them, and argue their point. They do not want to argue their point.

If I can start a few words into the start of the motion, this motion suspends elements of the standing orders themselves. The standing orders are the rules of this place. They are rules that have come together over time that have been agreed to by the members of this house. What this motion says by its own definition is ‘We don’t care about what the standing orders say. We want to ignore what the standing orders say and’ – to quote the motion – ‘suspend them, ignore them.’ The three standing orders are in relation to precedence, orders of the day and when precedence is given. This government is now saying, ‘We are going to suspend the rules of the house that have been written over time, we are going to do it without going to the Standing Orders Committee’ – a very, very important committee in terms of the operation of this place – ‘and we are going to do it at the end of a sitting week when we think no-one is looking.’ It does not surprise me, because the government cannot win an argument in open debate and they do not want to win an argument in the public square. They want to sneak things through. It is why they make every announcement at 4:59 pm on a Friday night of a long weekend. They have taken the old rule of taking out the bad news trash on a Friday night to a standard form. Has there ever been anything this government has ever done now not at 4:59 pm on the Friday of a long weekend? What this government is doing is pushing through a change to bypass this chamber.

One of the members on the other side of the chamber just spoke about the federal Parliament. I was not going to go into this, but I will. In relation to the standing orders of the federal Parliament, pretty much the standing orders that currently exist and the standing orders that were written when the Gillard minority government came into force, on two occasions I helped write the standing orders and was part of the process to write those two sets of standing orders – well, the update of the first set. What I can tell you is whenever standing orders are considered – and this is a debate for parliamentary tragics, not for everybody – this Parliament’s standing orders are held up across parliaments in Australia as the worst standing orders in Australia, at a state and federal level. The clerks of all parliaments in Australia hold up our standing orders as an outrageous joke.

Tim Richardson interjected.

James NEWBURY: They do, because they are. These standing orders were first bastardised in 1999 and since then have descended into a frankly cursory document that means very little. In no way am I reflecting, but we now see standing orders not even upheld when they are in the standing orders. It means nothing anymore. We have a Standing Orders Committee. That means nothing anymore. We look at the standing order change today – what is the point of a Standing Orders Committee? What is the point of the standing orders?

The government do not care, because they will get their win, they will get to set their motions in the order they want and they will get to debate their sledge motions and feel very clever. I notice that the only people who have contributed to this debate are so new I would suspect that not one of them has read the standing orders. They would not have read the standing orders, because the substantive arguments that I am making have not been dealt with. Why has this not been through the Standing Orders Committee? Why has it not? Why has the bipartisan Standing Orders Committee been ignored? It does operate in a bipartisan, respectful way. Why would it not be? Why would you want to then turn the notice paper from a report of what the Parliament has heard and considered, a report of that fact – that is what the notice paper is – into a government document that it can use to its own political dividend whenever it feels that it wants to. Why would it?

The government will not answer any of those questions. They will say, ‘This is a simple administrative change.’ Of course they will. I mean, everything they say is just not true. But what is a fact is that every single precedent this government sets in terms of taking away the good-spirited way that this Parliament should work lowers how this Parliament works forevermore. The new low normal of this government is the new low normal for this Parliament forever. This Parliament, if it was made up of good people, would recognise that and would call it out and say there are some lines that should not be crossed because we should operate well and we should behave in a way, as a chamber, that provides members with opportunities and does it in its terms of its reporting and how the standing orders work. It should not allow governments to misuse their power, and this is a misuse of power.

The government will say this is just about precedent, but no, it is not. This is a misuse of power that undermines the core instruments of this place: the Standing Orders Committee, the standing orders, the notice paper. It slipped through at the end of a day when no-one was watching. This is taking the low road that we know is a constant of this government. We as a Parliament are going to be worse off for it, and it is incredibly, incredibly disappointing.

Pauline RICHARDS (Cranbourne) (18:15): Honourable members of the house, I stand before you with an imaginary hat, because under the standing orders a hat was needed – an imaginary hat that would look quite fetching on the member for Brighton. The member for Brighton some might call ‘the right honourable baron of Brighton’. I had a great opportunity to be able to share in the member for Brighton taking us back to the Gillard government, which of course gives me the opportunity in response to say I will not be lectured to on behaviour in the house by this man.

I have spent a bit of time on the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee with several friends who are here in the chamber. I know it is a very well looked after committee under the terrific stewardship it has now. The member for Laverton does a terrific job on the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee. But I can remember a time when the now Minister for Children, previous member for Pascoe Vale, had to really strongly censure the member for Brighton for putting his feet up on the desk.

James Newbury: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, this is a tight procedural debate, and everything the member said is factually untrue.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Paul Hamer): That is a point of debate.

Pauline RICHARDS: On the point of order, Acting Speaker, the member for Brighton said there are lines that should not be crossed, and I am giving an example of what I saw at the time to be a line that ought not be crossed.

James Newbury: This has nothing to do with the procedural debate.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Paul Hamer): That was not your point of order, member for Brighton. The member for Cranbourne has been going for 2 minutes and should tie her point into the procedural point.

Pauline RICHARDS: I do want to refer to the standing orders and say how pleased I am to have what is often a well-thumbed version of the standing orders and also reflect on what the consequence would be if we took every change to the standing orders. I am going to get back to some of the extraordinary evolutions that we have been through in this chamber. I do want to say that if we launched an inquiry for every little thing that happens in this place, it would grind to a halt because the member for Brighton likes the sound of his own voice. There would be all sorts of arguments from those opposite that would not allow us to move forward on debates. Let us have a look at the evolution of the Victorian Parliament and the evolution of this place.

James Newbury: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, on relevance, I do not think there has been one change to the standing orders that has not been through the Standing Orders Committee.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Paul Hamer): That is not a point of order.

Pauline RICHARDS: The member for Evelyn spoke in her opening contribution about the sorts of longstanding conventions that she holds dear. I would just like to talk about some of the other evolutions and conventions that I think are well worth leaving in the past. I think we can consider what happens when women get elected. In fact a previous member for Forest Hill was in the house this week and celebrating the opening of a childcare centre named after her daughter Charlotte, because of course the previous member for Forest Hill Kirstie Marshall was absolutely censured for breastfeeding her daughter or bringing her daughter into the chamber. Now we have three babies who we often see in this chamber with great delight because we have so many women elected to this Parliament. That is what happens when we evolve, when standing orders change, when we have an evolution.

To be frank, I was not that familiar with the notice paper before becoming the Government Whip, but there are some standing orders that I saw that I would not mind returning to. There were standing orders that allowed me to fine people for leaving the chamber. I think that is something that we might consider. Certainly duelling was an option, and I know the member for Wendouree and the member for Narracan often seem to be involved in duels. The member for Pakenham and the members for Gippsland South and Gippsland East are often involved in duels. Sometimes I feel like I would not mind seeing the Usher of the Black Rod chasing people down the corridors when they are not covering off on their duty. But in the absence of that, I will continue to use the tools that I have in my kitbag.

Back to some of the other reasons why we need to evolve and why this motion is so important for us to debate: it is because we need to make sure that this Parliament represents a modern and evolved Parliament, and that is what this commonsense and practical motion does.

The member for Evelyn spoke quite a lot about the consequences of change, and I think that we have seen that the consequences of change have been evidenced by things like toilets for women. Imagine if we went back, not a long way, to when women were needing to be held behind a screen in this Parliament because they were not to be seen.

Cindy McLeish: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, I know this has been a little broader than the actual motion, but toilets for women is probably just taking it that little too far, and I ask you to bring the member back to the motion.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Paul Hamer): I do understand that the member on her feet was talking about the evolution of the process of standing orders.

Cindy McLeish: The toilets are not in the standing orders.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Paul Hamer): A number of speakers on both sides have been talking about the standing orders.

Roma Britnell interjected.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Paul Hamer): Member for South-West Coast, I did not say that. The member for Cranbourne to continue and make sure she references her contributions to the procedural motion at hand.

Pauline RICHARDS: On the procedural motion, as I was saying, there are quite a lot of copies, often, of the notice paper that are left there at the beginning of the day, and they do not all get used up, and that is because people do not always understand clearly what is going to be happening as the day progresses. Having this new sessional order will allow a lot more clarity, and I am looking forward to this pile of green notice papers diminishing quickly at the beginning of the day, because you will find all sorts of important information in here that really help with the running of the day and really help me undertake my role as the whip.

I do want to comment on the contributions from the member for Greenvale. I do not think I have heard quite so many metaphors used, and I thought that he was mixing one. There was a bit of a poking of a stick at the end of the tunnel; I thought he was mixing his metaphors there. But I was very grateful to the member for Greenvale for really taking us back to why we have the Parliament that we have and the importance of the roles that we have. He spoke about his role as the member for Greenvale. I often speak about the importance of the role I have representing the Cranbourne community. There are people all across this chamber representing their own communities, and it just so happens that after the last election, when there were some extraordinary claims made about vaccinations that were canvassed by the member for Evelyn as she spoke about the previous Premier being referred to as a ‘dictator’, what happened as a result of that conversation was that people made a determination about who they thought would represent them best in their communities. What that gives people an opportunity to do is to debate the motions that are in front of them and are put on the notice paper as they respond to their needs and what our community is looking forward to us focusing on. Other motions on the paper that I know we are looking at are things like cost of living and the impact of breakfast clubs and the school saving bonus.

These notices of motion are going to be so much clearer for people to understand because of this commonsense approach that we are taking to update the sessional orders, just as the sessional orders have been updated so that I longer need to duel somebody because I disagree with them and I do not need to wear a hat or in fact be a man to stand here, to be elected. As all of those evolutions have happened, we are a better place. We are a better workplace, and we represent our community in a much more fulsome and accurate way. This motion is incredibly important to continue that. I commend the motion, and I look forward to hearing further contributions.

Roma BRITNELL (South-West Coast) (18:25): I also rise to make a contribution towards this motion before the house, which wants to make changes to sessional orders. Basically this will give the house the ability to suspend debate, and this is a change that has gone through without going through the Standing Orders Committee, which is something we have never seen before. I think what this motion is doing is ignoring that over time the parliamentary rules have been developed for reasons, reasons that are keeping the balance of power and making sure people have the ability to debate and contribute.

This sessional order really does I think show the obsession of this current Labor government, which over the last 10 years has been obsessed with power and control. We have seen that over and again with the way they gag people here in this chamber, as we see when we are not able to debate; things get guillotined and there are no opportunities. We have also seen it out in the community. A recent example was with the debate around turning the different hospitals into health hubs around the state and the government saying to the CEOs and the board members, ‘If you speak out against us, you’ll lose your job.’ I have seen many examples in South-West Coast of that sort of bullying behaviour, where the government, working through their lines of who is in charge down through the ranks, is actually putting pressure on community organisations, saying, ‘If you speak up or you speak to the opposition, you will not get the opportunity to get funding for projects.’

Michaela Settle: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, this is a procedural motion around sessional orders, and we are hearing about bullying in the South-West Coast. I am not sure what the relevance is.

Roma BRITNELL: On the point of order, your ruling specifically said that we are able to talk about wideranging debates because other people have talked about very wideranging issues, and I am talking about the sessional orders eroding the ability for people to actually have a debate and freedom of speech and time to do that. I think it is very relevant.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Paul Hamer): I believe you are verballing me when you say that that was my ruling. That was not my ruling. However, I do accept that –

Roma Britnell interjected.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Paul Hamer): Member for South-West Coast, what I said is that various members have raised process points about how standing orders have been addressed in the past and how that applied to the current sessional orders under debate, and I am happy for you to continue with that framework in mind.

Mathew Hilakari interjected.

Roma BRITNELL: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, I believe I was called a disgrace by the member over there, and I would like that to be withdrawn.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Paul Hamer): I ask the member for Point Cook to withdraw.

Mathew Hilakari: I withdraw.

Roma BRITNELL: This is a motion, as I was saying, that will erode the democratic process that this Parliament has had in place for a very long time, and it will further erode the ability for people to discuss important legislation. The Minister for Health in her contribution actually stated that the government have been getting on with dealing with what Victoria needs – that was what she said. But clearly we are here tonight because they have not been getting on with what Victoria needs. The debate on the bail laws that is going on in the upper house tonight is why we are actually here, because this government did not put the work in. The committee is taking a lot of time to debate the bill because the work was not done.

Michaela Settle: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, we are straying away from this tight procedural motion. I do not understand why we are discussing what is going on in the other chamber when we are having a procedural motion.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Paul Hamer): There is no point of order on this matter. However, the time for me to interrupt business has arrived, and I will be suspending the sitting for 1 hour for the dinner break.

Sitting suspended 6:30 pm until 7:31 pm.

Roma BRITNELL: As I was saying before the dinner break, Acting Speaker Edbrooke – which you were not able to hear because you were not in the chair – this is the first time we have seen a motion that changes the sessional orders that has not gone through the Standing Orders Committee. It is unprecedented. This is what we have seen of this government that is looking to detract the ability for debate to occur. They want to be able to cease debating legislation and bring in motions so that they can absolutely detract from the situation where they actually have very little legislation that they are bringing into this Parliament to address through legislation the challenges that we are seeing throughout Victoria. But this is not a new situation. This is a Parliament that really does not want to see debate. The government believe that they have the ability to make the decisions without being here in the Parliament. That is why we see them gag debate, which I spoke about before the dinner break.

I have been here 10 years this year, and as the member for Gippsland South brought up in his contribution, in our time we have only ever had the ability to go into consideration in detail, to really thoroughly debate legislation through that stage, three times because the government does not want us to have the ability to scrutinise them. That is what opposition is for – to hold the government to account. Ministers should be held to account. This is public money that they are spending, wasting, bingeing on projects that are bleeding money, running late and probably funding, as I said this morning, their CFMEU mates as well. So changing the sessional orders to give the government the ability to put on motions so that we have less time to debate legislation is actually no surprise. This is a government that does not want the standards to be maintained. They like to see the standards change. The creep that goes on to get less and less democracy and more and more dictatorial processes in place so they can control and wield the power they think will actually keep Victorians under control. But Victorians have had enough. We have seen this over the last 10 years of this lazy government that just want to make it their way or the highway.

We have the Standing Orders Committee, which is the committee sessional orders would normally be put through for changes to occur, which has not happened in this case. Standing orders actually do matter, because they are the longstanding rules that govern how the Parliament runs. That might be technical and dry, but it is very important. These changes that we are seeing today, which the government are putting forward through this motion, show that the Labor government does not care about the processes of Parliament but would rather be authoritarian. It is probably no surprise to any of us on this side of the house that this is a government that just wants to change things to make it easier for them to waste time, because really they are a government that just want a political audience so that they can roll out more spin to keep people believing that what they have been conning Victorians about through their spin for the last 10 years is actually real.

But I think, as we are all seeing every single day when we wake up now, that the chickens are coming home to roost and the cracks are quite wide now in the spin stories. What people have been hoping – that this government has been looking after the Victorian budget – has absolutely been laid bare for all to see. We have got major financial problems in the state of Victoria. ‘The state is broke’ is what has been said by many, and when you cannot drive on a road that has not got massive cracks, potholes or shoulders that crumble away – roads that are so dangerous that there is not a person, particularly in regional Victoria, that is not worried sick about the safety that they see as compromised for their family trying to get home from work or going to take their kids to school – this is a government that has failed so drastically. It is a real shame to see that the legislative program is so light when there are so many areas that could be fixed – areas like the health system, the mental health system, the education system and the roads, as I have said. There is not probably a portfolio area that is not actually failing under the Allan Labor government.

Unfortunately, that is what we will continue to see more of, because they do not even address and see the ill of their ways. They just continually barrel on down the same pathway of borrow and binge and waste. Unfortunately, under this, Victorians are struggling. The cost of living is rising. The energy costs are going up. Families are paying more for their groceries – 30 per cent more we heard last week ‍– and they just continue to come after Victorians’ taxes through reaching into the pockets of good hardworking families. Things will have to change before too long, and in two years they will change.

Nina TAYLOR (Albert Park) (19:37): I think it is a little curious that they are talking a lot, the opposition, about spin. The free dental program, Smile Squad – is that spin, or are we actually helping kids to get free dental care? Is not that an equaliser? What about the free glasses program? As somebody who has had glasses since about grade 3, I can tell you what, I would not be able to read what is in front of me without them. I can barely read my writing anyway; it is terrible. But coming back to the point, I am so grateful that we are delivering that program. So is that spin? No, actually it is being delivered. So I am wondering what she is referring to. What about the free breakfast program that has been rolled out across the state? Is that spin? No, it is actually happening, because we know our members have visited schools and actually seen kids getting healthy breakfasts.

They were talking about, ‘Oh, nothing’s working.’ What about the acceleration of the phonics program? Let me tell you, parents are feeding back to me and others exactly what that means. It is a real game changer, and particularly for those who might have come from families where there has been extreme disadvantage et cetera it means that we can offset whatever challenges or otherwise may be at home, or they may have other learning challenges et cetera. This is a great equaliser, but that is actually being accelerated. It is actually happening, not spin. What about our free kinder program? That has been rolled out as well, and –

Roma Britnell: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, it is nearly 2 minutes into the debate on this motion and the motion has not been referred to once, so I ask you to bring the member back to the motion at hand.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Paul Edbrooke): Member for South-West Coast, it has been a wideranging debate on this, but I will remind members that they are to stick to the motion at hand.

Nina TAYLOR: I thank you, Acting Speaker, very much for reminding me of that very important point, and I will say that I was simply rebutting points that were made by the opposition, which I think is certainly at the discretion of members of the chamber to do. In any case, I shall proceed. We know that this motion is administrative in nature, but it does not in any way resile from the importance of standing orders, which is another proposition that has been put forward rather incorrectly, I would say, by the opposition. The other thing that I did take exception to was that we were just shovelling these changes through when in fact actually I can see cameras all over the chamber. This is actually being live streamed, and the only way that we would be cutting through the democratic process, which we are actually partaking in here as we speak, is if perhaps I was to stand under the desk and not be visible to the cameras, although I think the microphone might still pick up what I am actually proffering or what I am putting forward to the chamber. I think that the fact of being in this house and having every single word that we put forward to the chamber recorded attests to the fact that we are not resiling from democratic processes, we are actually undertaking a democratic process as we speak and actually having a debate on this issue.

Roma Britnell: We are only 10 minutes into the resumption of this motion, and the Labor government, who put this motion forward, have not even had the decency to keep a quorum in the room for 10 minutes. I call the state of the house to the attention of the Acting Speaker.

Quorum formed.

Nina TAYLOR: I know that those opposite have claimed that by the mere putting forward of this motion to the house we are sliding into a dictatorship. I would say that is a slight, if not significant, embellishment and in fact a gross exaggeration. In fact I would say it is a furphy. I am pretty confident in putting that point forward. I would suggest that I am absolutely confident we will get through this motion and democracy will continue for the sitting weeks to follow. I am very confident in that. I want to reassure those opposite that a dictatorship is certainly not inherent or underpinning the motion that we have before the house. But I know that they are deeply frightened of this, so I want to allay their fears, because they might not be able to sleep at night at the thought of such a dreadful outcome and we cannot have that. Please rest assured that democracy is strong and we respect it – hence we are having this debate in the house at this moment.

A member interjected.

Nina TAYLOR: Exactly. I did hear some contentions about the fact that we are not debating on issues that Victorians care about. Well, I actually had a look through the motions that are already on the notice paper. As has been stated many times in this chamber, they are things that we care about because we know our communities care about these issues, such as the cost of living, energy, the school breakfast program, health matters and protections for renters. Maybe those opposite do not care about these issues, but I know our communities, if I can speak for members of the government, certainly do, so these are a number of the issues that we put forward for debate.

If we are going to look at quid pro quo on this issue, I also had a look at a number of the motions of the opposition. They were suggesting that all of our motions are sledge motions. Have they looked at their own motions? I mean, they should review them, because there was plenty of sledging in there, let me tell you. There is a lot of sledging in there. Well, they are giving it a good crack. And I am not saying they should or they should not, but I am just suggesting that it is important to have some objectivity. I understand we all have our value positions and they may not actually like some of the motions that we are speaking to and vice versa. I absolutely respect that. But to suggest that we are diminishing democracy and that the nature of the matters that are being brought forward in the motions does not reflect the will of the community, well, I take exception to that. Whether it is energy, whether it is cost of living, whether it is school breakfasts, whether it is health, whether it is protections for renters – and I could go on – I am very confident that there is many a member of the community across our great state of Victoria that does care about these issues. I think we can rest assured that this Parliament will continue, with the goodwill of all those in the chamber, to prosecute matters that are important to Victorians.

Another thing they said was ‘You’re not dealing with the matters that are important, like crime.’ Actually, it was about an hour or two ago that I was watching the Minister for Corrections, if I can be absolutely accurate on that point, carrying through the committee stage of the Bail Amendment (Tough Bail) Bill 2025. So if we are talking about subject matter, that is certainly critical subject matter, and hence it is being appropriately debated in the committee stage in the upper house.

It was put forward by the opposition also that, ‘Oh, it’s a long committee stage,’ so therefore somehow this reflects on the legislation that is being put before the house. I can say, as somebody who was a whip in the upper house, that I saw many a committee stage, which was often protracted because that is democracy, because that gives everyone – all the opposition and the crossbench – the opportunity to ask any question that they see fit. So I do not know whether the opposition actually want us to reduce the committee stage and reduce the capacity of the crossbench to ask the questions that they want. Was that the inference? I found it very confusing, because I actually think it is an important pillar of democracy that they do have the committee stage in the upper house.

The opposition might want to clarify whether they want to reduce the committee stage because somehow that implies that there is a better bill or a better outcome or whether they will continue to allow their members in the upper house and the crossbench the opportunity that they, I would have thought, certainly under democratic principles, are entitled to have to cross-examine the bills in the committee stage in the upper house. So I was a little perplexed by that proposition, because on the one hand here they are saying, ‘We’re sliding into a dictatorship,’ but then on the other hand they want to reduce the committee stage in the upper house. Do you see the contradiction? It is very confusing.

In any case, rest assured that on this side of house we are absolutely committed to democracy; we are absolutely committed to the issues that are impacting Victorians day in, day out, across the spectrum of matters that impact the great Victorians of our state, and, you know, that is fine. I know that the member for Brighton suggested that we had the worst standing orders in the country; the only thing was, he did not substantiate the point. It was just a really, really, really strong opinion, and he is entitled to have that opinion, but a really, really, really strong opinion is not going to cut it. On that note I commend the motion.

Matthew GUY (Bulleen) (19:47): You know what – I enjoy the member for Albert Park and the member for Pascoe Vale, because I reckon they are the only two who speak faster than me, and I do not knock them for it – I get it, I get it. You want to get a lot out; I get it. I know that feeling too, and I can speak quickly, but I will not because I have got to fill 10 minutes. As a consequence I will speak slowly. Like a press conference from a former federal Liberal leader, I will speak slowly so you absorb it and understand what I am saying.

The member for Albert Park said free dental, Smile Squad, breakfasts, all kinds of stuff. That is great, and look, I would just simply say that if those things are very important and those things are a priority, with respect, let us debate them; let us put those things on the notice paper and talk about matters that are important to the Victorian community. I mean, the government is very proud of them; every government is proud of what they do, I am sure. Instead we are debating notice 4, which is about giving precedence to sticking government notices at the top of the notice paper, so they can come in and move, effectively, sledge motions – a procedural motion. Why are we debating a procedural motion? What I cannot understand is: usually, and the member for Brighton said this very eloquently, when we are going to make these –

A member interjected.

Matthew GUY: He did. You should listen more to him. He is very good on his feet.

Members interjecting.

Matthew GUY: I take the vocal support for the member for Brighton’s contribution, because I supported his contribution very much.

A member interjected.

Matthew GUY: Listen. Слухай, in Ukrainian – слухай.

The point is: why didn’t the Leader of the House have a conversation with the Manager of Opposition Business in the week before, like is usually done? I think the member for Eildon would know this; it is usually Thursday or Friday that you have this conversation, and you come in and you say, ‘Listen, next week we’re going to do this, we’re going to do this and we’re going to do this. No worries. And these are the bills we’re going to debate. No worries.’ And what we found was there was this glaring hole for Wednesday. We were told at shadow cabinet, ‘There’s a glaring hole for Wednesday.’ Sure enough, there was a glaring hole for Wednesday.

Now we are debating at night. We knew the Greens, who are nuts, would debate a motion on bail.

Members interjecting.

Matthew GUY: Well, they are odd – all kinds of buskers, odd bods, failed artists, all kinds of people who join the Greens. We knew that we would be debating after dinner a thing on bail. We have come to this chamber four times trying to strengthen bail. We are more than happy to strengthen bail. We do not think this goes anywhere near it, but that is another discussion.

The point is: why wasn’t this discussed with the opposition? That is why a number of speakers on our side are coming up and saying, ‘This is utterly disingenuous.’ If you want to change the sessional orders – and they are Labor’s sessional orders; let us not forget that – we are 60 per cent of the way through this term, and if it is so urgent, as the member for Eildon and I were discussing, that we have got to debate this, you would think that if it was such a good idea and the light bulb of good ideas went on in the member for Macedon’s head in December 2022, it would have been debated then. It would have been part of the sessional orders then. Okay, no worries. The government have got a majority – fair point. But now we are 60 per cent of the way through the term, and we are told, ‘Oh no, we need to prioritise these government motions’, which have no substance.

The member for Albert Park actually made some decent points in terms of policy. She mentioned a whole range of issues in relation to policy. Fine, let us talk about policy. But we are not talking about those matters. She made some reasonable points. I would throw in the CFMEU. I would throw in the economy. I would throw in the crime stats that were released today. I would throw in housing targets, which we have all noted the government has not mentioned once in two weeks of question time. This is the biggest issue of the day, remember – not mentioned once in two weeks. Why aren’t we debating that? But no, we have got this sessional order notice of motion 4, which the member for Macedon has come in and said, ‘This is the most important thing for us to be talking about.’ People on our side are treating this with a point of disdain. There must be something disingenuous about this, because if it was so important it would have been done at the start of the term with the sessional orders.

Those in this chamber would know that after an election you default to the standing orders, and then in the first few weeks in the next year you have a debate on the sessional orders to improve the flow of the year. We are not luddites. We are not saying that you do not ever improve on the sessional orders. I understand that. But it just seems a little odd that 60 per cent-plus of the way through the term you are coming back to the chamber, but not to say that we need to prioritise legislation. If this was a motion to somehow prioritise legislation that might deal with what we have just been talking about this week, which is bail, or what we might talk about, which is a fire services property amendment or taxation or something else, then I would get the debate. I would understand it. We might have a different point of view on how it is conducted and how we vote, I get that, but I would get the context of the debate, which is that we must change the sessional orders to facilitate this legislation, because that is clearly what the government needs to do to put this legislation in place – got it. No.

I say it again – for the third time. We are coming into the chamber at 10 to 8 at night – and I know we are sitting late because of issues in the Legislative Council; that is okay, we will pass those laws – but the point is: why are we doing this over something self-confessed by the government as so minor? They are not my words. Literally every speaker that has come before me from the government side has got up and said, ‘This is so minor. Why are we debating it?’ I would argue the same. The government is selling the argument for us. It is so minor. So why wasn’t it done in the sessional orders in 2023 in February when we came back for the first session? Did the light bulb really take 2½ years to go on in the member for Macedon’s head that this might be an important idea? Really? I do not think so. I do not know her that well, but I do not think the light bulb took that long to come on. That is why we think that this must be just an idea of popping in sledge motions leading up to an election, which is really just a waste of this Parliament’s time.

It has been self-confessed by the Labor Party, as literally every speaker before me has said, ‘Look what we’ve done’, and they have reeled off a whole bunch of achievements for their decade in office. Good, bad or indifferent, they have listed those achievements. All right, no worries. Well, why don’t you come and debate those? Let us debate the economy. Let us debate the government’s plan supposedly to lower debt. Let us debate the government’s plan to build 80,000 homes each and every year for 10 years. The member for Narracan and I have noted that they have not talked about that for two weeks in question time – the biggest issue of the day, remember, the biggest issue of the year. It is not notice of motion 4, which talks about:

So much of standing orders 146, 148(1) and 150 are suspended to allow, on days on which government business has precedence, ministers to list government notices of motion …

I would use very different language if I was back at Montmorency High. The best I can come up with is – I am trying to be polite – I do not believe it. I think it is not real. I am not going to swear because I cannot put it on Instagram if I do. I would say it in Ukrainian, but someone will go and interpret it, and I will be in Backroom Baz.

The point is it is just ridiculous that this is our priority. I just use as evidence for my 10 minutes of contribution on this motion the Labor Party’s own speakers, who have got up and talked about a myriad of their decade-of-office achievements. Well, let us talk about those – got it. I just say if that is the biggest issue of the day, that we would hold up the chamber, the Legislative Assembly in the Parliament of Victoria, to talk about this matter for the best part of a few hours. I would say how can the Parliament be wasting its time on something like this when if you wanted to do it, you could have told the Manager of Opposition Business on Thursday or Friday last week, ‘This is what it is and this is what it is about. Can you please facilitate it?’ The member for Evelyn is a pretty reasonable person. She would have had that conversation and would have brought it. The shadow cabinet would have had a discussion here and there, and it would probably go through. We would have a conversation or one or the other. Instead no-one was told, I understand, till Tuesday: ‘Don’t tell them. It’s a big state secret’ – this is how the government operates. ‘It’s cabinet in confidence. Sign a confidentiality agreement’ – all this kind of crap they do. It is a motion just to bring on sledge motions.

I guess in the 20 seconds left I will say when those motions come, we will refer to all these speeches we are making tonight. I would have thought the Parliament of Victoria is worth a little bit more than this kind of crap, because it is actually worth more discussing issues of what the government themselves have actually come out and said we should be discussing. They are matters around the economy, crime, law and order and the state and future of Victoria under this government.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Paul Edbrooke): I would remind members about their speech. Also the member for Bulleen broke a promise to the Acting Speaker. He said he was going to speak slowly.

Daniela DE MARTINO (Monbulk) (19:57): It is actually against the standing orders to speak in another language – just for the member for Bulleen. But I will give it a go if I do not get a point of order. Adesso io parlo qui nel Parlamento di Victoria. Eccola. Basta così. No swearing, I promise. There are translators aplenty, I am sure, on all sides of the chamber who can guarantee that I was very parliamentary in my language just then, unlike the member for Bulleen, who did drop a word that I would not have accepted in my classroom back in the day. I have to say it is always entertaining listening to the member for Bulleen, and often I do not get to follow the leader-in-waiting, once again. It is always entertaining. I listened with great anticipation. I thought this might give me a bit of material to dovetail off as well, and it certainly did.

Quite seriously, if you will indulge me, I am being very serious at this point in time, because the member for Preston referred to the tragedy in Macedonia. I actually, given I am following the member for Bulleen, wanted to take the opportunity to express my utter and complete support for the people of Ukraine. I believe that photo we held the other day here was a wonderful moment of solidarity across houses and across parties, and long may that continue because that is when we are all at our absolute best. I would like to put that here.

Getting back to the substance of the matter of the member for Bulleen’s contribution, I am trying to understand how this is possibly a sledge motion when it is a minor administrative change. One would think that Henny Penny was around clucking that the sky is going to fall in because we are trying to make a simple change here to basically improve the functionality of this Parliament.

I would like to go into a little bit of history because the inner history teacher is always ready to burst forth, and I was very inspired by the member for Greenvale’s contribution earlier, with a wonderful exploration and exposition on some of the history that preceded us long before in the Westminster parliamentary system. It is interesting to note that, amongst all the Commonwealth countries where our systems have evolved from the one parliamentary system, each and every one of our systems has its own nuance and is quite different. I am wondering if anyone is even aware that the Isle of Man is not unicameral or bicameral, it is a tricameral system of parliament. I did not even know that that was a thing. So there we go; we have all learned something there. But the point I am trying to make is parliaments evolve; processes and procedures evolve – and they need to; they modernise.

I actually have a copy here of the original standing orders of the Victorian Parliament. It is not a prop because it is a piece of information completely relevant to this house. In 1858 this was printed. It is quite interesting comparing and contrasting the standing orders of 1858 to our modern standing orders. I did want to just highlight a few of the interesting things in there. When presenting petitions back in the day, they had to be in writing – that is fine. They also had to contain a prayer at the end. There you go, who would have thought that a petition needed to have a prayer at the end. But it did. It needed to be signed on the same skin or sheet. Now I am going to come to the skin part, because all legislation in the Victorian Parliament at that time – and I am yet to uncover when it changed – and still today in Westminster had to be printed on vellum. For those who might not know what vellum actually is, it is animal skin. Every piece of legislation was printed on animal skin and stored. I can only presume that it held better than paper. Thankfully modern-day practices here in the Victorian Parliament have stopped with the use of animal skin. I know that my friend in the other place the member of the Animal Justice Party is quite delighted by the fact that that is no longer the practice here, as I am sure many of the other members here are also delighted that we no longer need animal hide to record our legislation. But interestingly they still do in the United Kingdom.

There was some wailing and gnashing of teeth earlier about this motion, in particular from the member for Brighton – unsurprisingly – claiming that the standing orders mean nothing anymore and this has descended into a cursory document. I mean, talk about hyperbolic – honestly. It is just another case of if everything is a 10 out of 10, then nothing ever is. What an overreaction. Then contrasting that, the member for Bulleen was basically saying that this was not worth debating. So I am not sure that they have got their minds consistent on that side of the chamber, because we have one side saying that this is terrible and decrying our motion here, and another one saying it is not even worth the time to debate it. It would be wonderful to find out where exactly the opposition falls on this, because I am a bit confused – I do not know about anyone else.

This is quite interesting, and I do actually want to address something when it comes to the standing orders having been changed in the past by those opposite when they had carriage, because it is a bit rich for them to talk about sessional order changes needing to go to the Standing Orders Committee when their own people forced a significant change to the sessional orders in the other place not just once but twice, and both times it had unintended consequences. They were warned when they first proposed short-form documents motions that they would run into timing issues in the afternoon on a Wednesday, but apparently they did not take that counsel on board. Lo and behold, week after week after week there were timing issues. So they rushed another change to sessional orders which meant the government could also propose documents motions. Well, they were surprised when they realised what they had done. We warned them that they should put such a significant change to the sessional orders through the Procedure Committee, but they ploughed ahead and they made a mince of it. They then had to waste Parliament’s time for a third attempt – they say third time lucky – to get their business in order. Now the Parliament staff have to suffer because there is no dinner break. I think the staff at this place deserve better. I would imagine that my comrades here agree. In fact I would hope that everyone here agrees. I am just going to say, once again, it is a little bit rich to hear the bleating from those opposite when their own track record is fairly poor form.

It has been quite interesting, this debate. I have to say when I first looked at it I thought, ‘This could be a bit dry and there are quite a few people speaking on it,’ but I think it has been one of the more entertaining ones we have had in a long time. Maybe we can put that down to us being still here later than usual for us, especially on a Thursday, and maybe getting a little bit, I do not know, too jolly with staying on late. It is like the adrenaline rush when you are going out at night. You think, ‘Oh, this is exciting,’ so you get a bit fired up, more than you often would. People have definitely been fired up on this one, and who would have thunk it? I am not a betting person, but if someone had have said that this might be one of the more entertaining debates for the week, I would have said, ‘No way.’ Lo and behold, I would have been proven wrong.

I am just going to repeat into Hansard what is being sought:

So much of standing orders 146, 148(1) and 150 are suspended to allow, on days on which government business has precedence, ministers to list government notices of motion and orders of the day at the head of the list on the notice paper in whatever order they wish. Government notices and orders are then dealt with in the order they are listed on the notice paper.

How can anyone take umbrage at that? It gives clarity, it makes things more precise and it gives us all a reasonable expectation of what is going to follow that day. I would have thought the opposition would be delighted at that. Instead they are having conniptions and apoplexies and falling apart. They are discombobulated. I am trying to think of other great words. I just like to put some nice things –

Matthew Guy: Say it in Italian.

Daniela DE MARTINO: In Italian again? I do not know that I can, because I may stray into territory that might be unparliamentary. No, I will not say it in Italian.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Through the Chair, member for Monbulk.

Daniela DE MARTINO: I will remain within the standing orders and keep it all in English, but I can tell you in Italian later outside of the chamber, if you like.

In all honesty, this is really a minor administrative change that is being sought. It really should not be causing the consternation that it has been causing, which feels very performative, one has to say. Once again, I will challenge the inconsistency of the message coming from the member for Brighton and the member for Bulleen. I think they should probably caucus, as we tend to do, and at least get their arguments in line with each other, because that makes for a much more coherent and cogent argument. Then we can understand where we are going. But it feels like it is just flying into a thousand different directions out into the ether. Maybe that is what happens when the Legislative Assembly is sitting at 8 o’clock at night. I commend it to the house.

Cindy McLEISH (Eildon) (20:07): As I have listened to the contributions particularly from the other side, it has stunned me, really, that they do not know how this Parliament operates. They do not understand the difference between the standing orders and the sessional orders, and that was very clear from the last speaker. The standing orders are much more long standing. As the member for Bulleen said, when a new Parliament commences, the government have a look at the sessional orders and decide what they are going to bring in for that Parliament. We hear people saying, ‘This evolves. These are not permanent. These are sessional orders. They are not evolving to permanent standing orders.’ I think that you are not really understanding that, and it is really quite scary to me that people have been here for so long and really do not understand how the process works.

I do recall one Parliament – not the last one; I think it was the one before that, maybe the 58th – where the government changed the sessional orders so question time was not at 2 o’clock, it was at 11 am. We thought at the time, ‘Gosh, ministers aren’t going to like that. It’s not going to give them any preparation for the day.’ And guess what? For the next Parliament it changed back because the sessional orders are for that session of Parliament only. We are well over 50 per cent – I think we just calculated we are over 59 per cent – of the way through this term of this Parliament, and the government have all of a sudden decided we need to change the sessional orders. But what reasons could they give us? They could not give us any reasons. It is a little bit scary to say, ‘We’re doing it because we’ve got the numbers. We’re the government.’ That is very much about power and control.

Iwan Walters interjected.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Greenvale is not in his chair.

Cindy McLEISH: This is a haphazard way of running its business. It is not going to make the chamber run more smoothly. I do not think it will make the chamber run more smoothly. The Parliament is here to hold the executive to account. We need to have the role to be able to do that. For the government to fly in the face of everything that has been there – and I will draw the house’s attention to the minutes of the house, Votes and Proceedings, from 21, 22 and 23 February 2023. It talks about the Standing Orders Committee, and it says here:

A select committee be appointed to consider and report upon the standing orders and practices of the House …

So for me that is a very clear indication that these changes to the sessional orders should first of all have gone, with the government’s intent when they started Parliament, to the Standing Orders Committee. I have been part of standing orders; I understand what happens and how you do it. Now there are new members on the Standing Orders Committee, and a couple of those members have not been to any meetings. I believe the last Standing Orders Committee meeting was in December last year, and this was not raised. The government did not have it on their radar then, it was not vitally important that they change it. But now they find themselves in a bit of a pickle, because I think they are finding themselves a little bit light on on the legislative program. This gives them a couple of outs here. When the minister yesterday was introducing motions about this motion, for a minute I thought they might actually have listened to the Greens, who for a long time have wanted the sessional orders to look at non-government business. I thought, ‘Gosh, maybe they’re going to make something like that to appease the Greens.’ They probably owe the Greens quite a bit, so I thought maybe they were going to do that. But, no, we see that they want to change the sessional order to allow them to kind of determine the program of the day how they want, not what is set out in the standing orders and not where the motions are done at the start of the day. They will just do this at any old time.

The way it will work is that the night before it will be printed, what will be happening for the day, and the government will have to put down in order what is going to go on. I bet on more than one occasion there has been a bad news story about to break. It might be about the Auditor-General, the $12 billion blowout that the government said, ‘Oh, gosh, that was shoddy methodology from the Auditor-General’, and they did not believe the $12 billion blowout. It might be another scandal around the Commonwealth Games or the CFMEU rorting, the breaking stories by Nick McKenzie. They might get a heads-up the night before that this is going to happen, and so they need a plan B, they need something to take away from the program, they need to start a sledge motion.

Belinda Wilson: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, I would like to bring the member back to the motion – on relevance.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Succinctly. I will take that on relevance.

Cindy McLEISH: On the point of order, Deputy Speaker, yes, I think that was on relevance. This is entirely relevant, because I was pointing out the sorts of things that are the consequences of the change to the sessional orders, what it means in practicality as we play it out in the Parliament, and I think that is what I am supposed to do, and again that just shows me that those opposite really do not understand the way the house works.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The debate has been rather wide from the words on the notice paper, and the member was as close as many.

Cindy McLEISH: This is what can happen, because when the government have parked a number of sledge motions on the paper, they realise they have got a backup plan, because if there is some bad news breaking, the night before, when they put that program together, they will think, ‘How can we deflect that bad news? What are we going to do? Let’s see if we can find something that is going to try and take away from all of these bad things that are going on.’ That is one consequence that they can have. It is a gap filler, because sometimes you can tell – they have got to have a lot of speakers sometimes – and by the end of it they have exhausted everyone’s contributions. People are making stuff up because they have been asked to speak at the last minute. So this is a bit of a gap filler – again, using a gap filler as a sledge motion. When I thought about this, what I would have liked to have seen with the changes to the sessional orders, whatever order that they want about these motions, I have got motions on the paper, and there are some motions that I would not mind talking about – 42 and 44, for example. I would be more than happy for the government, if they want to introduce motions like this, not just to give them carte blanche to do what they like, but I would rather see that on a rotational basis in the same way that proportionality is there with members statements, that you might get four of your motions up, then we get two of ours up, then the Greens might get one. I would have liked to have seen a little bit more democracy in the way that you put the order of business to make it fair. This is not about balance and fairness, as the government might think, because we certainly do not think that at all.

I think the government are in a bit of strife, and they are looking at what they can do. They have had the previous two terms of Parliament; the government know how these things play out. But they have got in a pickle this time, and they have thought, ‘We need to do something different. What is it that I can do to give us that flexibility when we have got a bad news story breaking, when our legislative program’s a bit light, when our backbenchers are starting to make contributions that make no sense because they’re being asked to fill in at the last minute?’ The government needs something, a bit of a get-out-of-jail-free card. I think this is why the government have introduced this now.

As I said, I would much rather have seen a process where, if you are going to have these debated, it is proportional, like with our questions at question time, with the adjournment matters and constituency questions and with the members statements, with that allocation. I will tell you, we have got a load of motions on the papers that we would love to have debated. The way it is at the minute, the government want to curtail debate on legislation, if they have got enough legislation coming forward, to just push their burrow and not have us be able to hold them to account.

There are so many things to hold this government to account, with all of the dodginess on the Big Build projects and their treatment of women in construction, the police having to find $2 billion worth of savings over the forwards – give me a break. There are so many things that we could be debating as motions that we would like to bring on, but this very much curtails the debates that can happen. The government think they have the power to do what they want and are treating the Parliament with absolute disrespect.

Tim RICHARDSON (Mordialloc) (20:17): It is a pleasure to rise at this early hour to speak on this motion and to join you, Deputy Speaker. While hundreds of thousands are tuning into the game of the night down the road at the MCG, there are still tens of thousands that are tuning into this stellar debate on this motion. I think it is a bit misunderstood.

I will say one thing: I am honoured to be joined in this chamber at this late hour by none other than the Leader of the Nationals, who has turned up for this one; the former outstanding Leader of the Liberal Party the member for Bulleen; the in-waiting Leader of the Liberal Party the member for Nepean; and the parliamentary secretary to the opposition leader. We have the heavy hitters who do not rock up during bill speeches, but we have got them out here tonight on a motion that they have demonised and torn down.

I want to put a case forward to the opposition that you have misunderstood this. This is in the interests of the opposition. We have actually got your back. I will take you through why we have got your back. There have been discussions around dictators coming back. There have been overthrows of Parliament. There has been a lot of egg put into this pie. I will say that I think you have misunderstood this.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Through the Chair, member for Mordialloc.

Tim RICHARDSON: This procedural motion under the current rules changes the motions so they are allowed to be dealt with in any particular order. I thought, ‘Oh, that’s exciting.’ The member for Eildon gave me a bit of inspiration while I was feverishly prepping for this speech and this contribution. I thought there might be an occasion that the government brings on notices of motion a little bit earlier in the day just out of the goodness of our work through the Parliament. I love some of these ones. I love some of these notices of motion that we could get to a bit sooner. You know these absolute humdingers around the Suburban Rail Loop. We had about 200 of those notices of motion put forward. The SEC was put forward. Imagine if we could get to the intellect on these motions that are all the same. I remember when the shadow cabinet said, ‘You know what’s going to really wind the government up this week? Let’s all put these same notices of motion with no intellectual thought other than to change electorate names slightly.’ We could have an opportunity to bring those debates on a bit sooner. I have gone through them, and it just keeps going. Look at this: the ideological gas ban – ‘bas gan’, the member for Eildon once called it – going through. We have got Redbridge polling. We have got all these wonderful things that the Manager of Opposition Business said were so critical to their opposition and to their discussion and debate.

Well, just think: if we are able to put these in the order that we determine, with the member for Evelyn and the member for Macedon leading their respective parties and the operation of the house, we might be able to get to these motions a bit sooner in the day. We might be able to bring it on a bit sooner. We might give them an opportunity to have a chat on some of these motions – and I am a bit disappointed that this year we had just a feverish flow of notices of motion. Do you remember them? Sometimes we would get to members statements by adjournment time, it would be so long – they would just sail out. They were not really intellectually stimulating; they were all very much the same. But then they just sort of dried up. They have just sort of given up on this as a tactic.

I think: bring back the pointless notices of motion. Bring it all back. Next sitting week – Shadow Assistant Minister to the Leader of the Opposition, if you are taking minutes – get it back. Let us bring it back. Let us have another 300 notices of motion on random policies that you all put forward, and then you might just have a hope, because at the moment the procedural limitations on this mean we do not get to it straightaway. We could dream to get there a bit sooner, because at the moment we have a situation where government business motions have to be given a day’s notice. All this whole, ‘Oh, democracy is overthrown’ – I mean, give me a spell; 99 per cent of the team over there do not really read the notice papers. Let us be honest. Let us call it out. How many actually check it when rolling in? The member for Bulleen might have a go, and I definitely know that the Leader of the Nationals has a go. I have seen the Leader of the Nationals audit Public Accounts and Estimates Committee reports down to the absolute centimetre. So I think that there are some over that side that do the work. But most would not have an absolute clue what goes on until they get the look-up, probably from the member for Brighton, and then have some sort of sense on where the day goes.

So do not give us this whole, ‘Oh, we might not. We’ll take it away.’ I would put to you that they would not have a clue what is going on in the day, because most of the time we do not have anyone on that side contributing to bills after question time. We are sort of looking around, and they say, ‘Oh, give us a chance; we want to have a go.’ We have gone through the statistical reference. There are some on that side who would not know a bill speech if it fell on them. They would not have a clue. And if shadow cabinet does not give them something to talk about, they do not speak on anything. There are some that have not spoken on things for 18 months. So the notion that their democracy and their representation is being curtailed and taken away is just garbage. It is absolute rubbish.

But I put the contention forward that the actual combining of this, and the practical implications, means that some of the frivolous procedural debates that sometimes pop up when the enthusiasm comes forward to contest a particular movement of the house are actually the practicality to this. So when you have the government notices on the paper and you need to move them through, it creates a line in the sand on a Thursday, where the member for Brighton will come in and to his credit go, ‘You know what, I’m going to burn 30 minutes here. I’ll get a bit of air time, I’ll put it on the socials. I’ll have a whack at the government.’ That is what it is really about. That is what really happens in practical terms. It effectively combines the notices with the bills into one sequence and says that is government business.

Now, how that is suggested to have curtailed democracy to the likes of authoritarian regimes, which the member for Evelyn described as a dictatorship – I mean, there is trying to have a sledge and then there is just being absolutely ridiculous to the point of ridicule. And then the member for Greenvale just went through, case in point, in the most eloquent way, how credibility on things like this just falls to pieces. At least the member for Brighton had a bit of a chat around how in his day he drafted all of the Canberra standing orders. I mean, I have never seen a ‘Toot, toot, look at me’ performance like that before. Step aside, Minister Burke, step aside Leader of the House Albanese, who is now Prime Minister. The member for Brighton was there in the trenches getting it done. He was there on behalf of Christopher Pyne –

Danny O’Brien: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, I usually find the member for Mordialloc a little bit entertaining, but apart from being a bit disappointing, he has strayed a fair way from the motion, I would say. You need to bring it up a bit, Tim. Come on!

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I encourage the member to come back to somewhere near the motion.

Tim RICHARDSON: I say it is 8:25, Leader of the Nationals. It is a hard slog, and my eye was caught by the next notice of motion that we have got on the notice paper. I am warming up for that one; that will be a good one. I do not know if you are aware of what it might be, but we will get to it very soon.

My contention is that we are on the side of the opposition here. This is a bipartisan – you would even describe it namely as a multipartisan – moment in time where we could agree that there could be a chance to get your notices of motion brought forward sooner. If you look at it, it is written – and if you say that we get some notes, we did get a few notes for this one. One of the dot points I have on here that I have read and I have shared with you in my notes was about making sure that any order could be taken and any order could be to bring on these notices of motion. There is a nice one here from the member for Bulleen. This is number 56 here – I know the member for Bulleen has had his eye on this one – about the Suburban Rail Loop and something about eggs in baskets and the member for Eltham. I mean, imagine if we could get back on that.

A member interjected.

Tim RICHARDSON: We would love to do that, as a train enthusiast. We did see that wonderful video up in New South Wales that had about a billion views just talking about the rail tunnels up there. It did alright. But imagine if we could get back to that motion. This gives you hope. I look at number 60. Number 60 is from the member for Narracan. Here we go. There is another egg – eggs in baskets. We could get to this one from Pakenham. We could get onto this motion. I think this is misunderstood, and to the speaker that follows me, just have a bit of reflection on the fact that maybe not always there is some harm or some suggestion that we are not on your side. This is an opportunity to reorder them. It could be bills one day, it could be government notices, it could be notices of motion. We could get it done.

A member interjected.

Tim RICHARDSON: It could be eggs. It could be excellent stuff. It could be anything that is on this, and I think that is really what this is about. It is about making sure that we have more streamlined process. We hear time and time again from the member for Brighton on government business discussions around the efficient running of the house, discounting the fact that this person, the member for Brighton, is the biggest procedural motion interferer in the house’s history – get around that sort of sneaky fact there. But this allows for us to grab a bit more time maybe for an extra bill contribution from those opposite. Maybe we could get a few in before question time before everyone puts a cue in the rack and then we do not see them for the rest of the day. Maybe it will give the Greens political party the energy and purpose – I mean, the Greens have walked in; it may be a notice of motion for the Greens coming through. They knock off on a Wednesday afternoon, and we do not see them until the following Tuesday. Just have a bit of hope that this has actually got your interests at heart.

Wayne FARNHAM (Narracan) (20:27): I am very happy to rise after my opposite number over there, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Premier. He is a very, very entertaining fellow. He has brought up some a very good points about this debate today, some very good points, and I would love to debate some of these things that we have in here. The member for Bulleen said it earlier: there are so many important things and important motions we should be debating instead of motion 4. There is so much more than that; there is a lot on this paper. You know, the member for Greenvale got up earlier today and gave a beautiful 10-minute stand-up comedy routine, and that is about all it was. He took his funny pills this morning and thought he would keep going with them. It was an amazing 10-minute stand-up comedy routine.

And then we just heard from the member for Mordialloc. The member for Mordialloc actually touched on some pretty good points, and if you indulge me I will go to those points. The member for Mordialloc said we should be debating the SEC. I agree. I would love to debate the SEC. Let us debate the SEC in these papers. Let us debate that and talk about all the employment opportunities that have happened in Morwell with the SEC. I would love to have a debate about that with the member for Mordialloc, and I think to date there is one job created in Morwell with the new SEC. I would be more than happy for the member for Mordialloc to get up and interject if he wishes, but we know there is only one job created in there. We also know I would love to debate the SEC because I get sick and tired in this chamber when I hear the Labor rhetoric about the SEC and who privatised the SEC and all that kind of stuff. They always forget that the person who actually did privatise the SEC was Joan Kirner back in 1992. We always forget that little chestnut in that debate. I would love to debate the SEC with the member for Mordialloc; it would be a very good debate. I know the member for Morwell would probably have a bit to contribute on that as well; he would have that.

But now we are here today and we are debating notice of motion 4, which the Leader of the House has put through. It was stated earlier that it is really no big deal when you read it. It is not a big deal at all. I think maybe this has been put forward because the government’s approval ratings are going south ‍– they are at 22 per cent – and maybe the government needs to do this to start sledge motions against us so they can put up their 30-second grab on social media to get that little quip of a funny line out. Maybe that is what it is all about. When the approval ratings start going south people do do weird things. The mind games start. I think that is what is happening with the government today.

We could be pessimistic on this side of the chamber and say, ‘Well, maybe the ministers have run out of ideas and we need to fill space for the lack of quality bills that are coming through this chamber.’ Maybe if I was being a pessimist, I would say, ‘Well, the ministers are all tired. They’ve been here for quite a while and they don’t know what to do anymore.’ They’re putting through bills that are pretty inconsequential at times. We are debating a bill today that is actually very important – it is in the other place at the moment, so we cannot talk about that – but that is an exception to the rule. Maybe this is just an opportunity to go, ‘The ministers are all a bit tired, they’re all a bit puffed.’ The Minister for Police cannot open his bottom drawer. Apparently it is locked and it has been jammed up for a few years. He does not know what is in there anymore. So maybe this notice of motion 4 is to just fill in space because the ministers are out of ideas.

But I do agree with the member for Mordialloc. I would love to also debate the Suburban Rail Loop. I think that is worth a debate. It really is worth a debate. I do not know how you are going to build a $35 billion Suburban Rail Loop. That is stage 1. I do not know how you are going to do that when you have only got $11 billion committed. You have only got $2 billion from the federal government to date, and then you need $11 billion from the feds and the rest is going to be created out of this thin air of value capture. Value capture – what a beautiful, beautiful statement that is. The value capture is from all reports generated from the income of windfall gains tax. They have to rezone the 60 precincts they are talking about, so there is the tax side of it – the windfall gains tax with stamp duty revenue and everything else. That is going to create this $11 billion value capture. But the problem the government has with that is the development community has no taste for it. They have actually said it is not viable. I do not know how you are going to grab $11 billion on something that is not viable. But I would be more than happy to debate the Suburban Rail Loop with the member for Mordialloc any day of the week.

He also mentioned earlier housing targets. Now, there is something worth debating – it is. We are here debating notice of motion 4, but housing targets are worth debating absolutely every day of the week. The member for Bulleen touched on it earlier. The government has not reached the housing targets. Eighty thousand a year was the initial announcement. Then it went to 800,000 over 10 years. We had to change the narrative on that because we knew the first year was not going to make it. We know the second year is not going to make it. I would love to debate that. That would be an absolutely amazing thing, because I always love hearing the other side debate when they think they are right about something – when they are so passionate about it and they are so committed to it. But they are so totally wrong when it comes to housing targets, so totally wrong. I think in these first two years, when we get to September 2025, you are probably going to be 60,000 short of your initial targets. Then we are relying on the 60 precincts that they have put out there that the development community said has said are not viable. That is going to fail dismally, I am afraid. They will have to redo their aspirational targets. That is all they are; they are just figures. That is what this government does. They just throw out figures: ‘We’re going to build XYZ for this amount of money.’ But XYZ ends up costing double what it is meant to. So yes, I am happy to debate any of those things that the member for Mordialloc put forward.

The government is doing this to create sledge motions. They need to get some traction. They are going so far south in the polls that they think, ‘Well, let’s put this in. Let’s put item 4 in. Let’s get this over the line so we can try and pick on the opposition.’ But while they are focusing on the opposition, the problem is they are not focusing on Victorians and what they need. It is amazing how we live rent-free in their heads. It is fantastic. That is the cheapest rent in Victoria. The only cheap rent in Victoria is in the member for Mordialloc’s head. It is such a great place to live. There is a lot of space in there too, I will let you know that. I have been in there, there is a lot of space. But it is great to live rent-free, and it is the only cheap rent in this state. That is my point: while they are focusing on the opposition, while they are trying to move this motion 4, they are forgetting about Victorians. They are forgetting about the cost-of-living crisis. They are forgetting about how expensive energy is today. They have actually stopped talking about energy. They do not want to talk about energy because they know the ban on gas is hurting everyday Victorians. They know trying to electrify the state will not work, because the government is decades away from electrifying the state. We do not have the infrastructure to do it. They have banned gas too early. The ban on gas is too early, decades too early. They need to do gas exploration. They need to look for the gas. There is only 1.6 trillion cubic feet in the Gippsland Basin. Just a little bit of gas there, which is about 30 to 40 years supply. But we did not do any exploration for a decade, and now Victorians are suffering. Now the government is saying, ‘We want to electrify the state.’

This goes to the point of item number 4 on this paper. Let us say it gets through – which it probably will. In the spirit of bipartisanship and working together, why doesn’t the government get to pick some motions out of there and we get to pick some motions out of there, and let us have the debate. I think there are some motions on here that the government really, really do not want to debate. The member for Mordialloc said he would be happy to debate anything he wanted to, but I doubt it. This has really been put forward for one reason only: the government’s approval rating is going south. It is at 22 per cent – the lowest it has ever been – and they need this now to try and sledge us on this side of the chamber, just to make them look that little bit better on their social media grabs.

Mathew HILAKARI (Point Cook) (20:37): I am very excited to rise. I thought I might be following another, but it is okay to talk on the notice of motion 4 by the Leader of the House moving that the following sessional order be adopted and come into effect from 1 April. Look, I have got to say that the struggle is real on the other side of the house. The struggle is real because of the intellectual giants that they had to narrow down. They were the peak of the mountain, but it is not a peak of the mountain, there is such a wide base of intellectualism that the struggle was real to narrow it down to just a few, to really narrow it down to the best and brightest. I guess the government has taken blow after blow today and this evening.

I will move straight on then to the Manager of Opposition Business, who would never be accused of statements over substance – never. A real intellectual tour de force was in front of us tonight. I really did appreciate that she was able to point out that it is the people’s chamber, and I think the member for Greenvale dealt with that with his exploration of King Charles I appropriately. Members here will know all about the green carpet and the history of that and the sovereignty of this place over the Crown. She also spoke about the lame legislation, then the lame legislative agenda that does not speak to the likes of ordinary Victorians. But we here are at 20 to 9 on a Thursday evening because of the agenda that we have been putting forward, that we do seek to pass in this place this week right now. I would have thought she could have done better than to call those important matters of community safety the ‘lame legislative agenda’. I thought she was better than that. I thought she could have done better than that. They are the likes and the needs of ordinary people in this state. So I would disagree with her there.

I will also have to disagree with her on never changing sessional orders. Of course she would remember that at the start of this Parliament we did introduce sessional orders to change the standing orders as is appropriate, as is the practice, and that was on 7 February. Unfortunately for her they did actually change on 29 November. That was a year after they had been introduced and a mere year and a half ago. But I do not want to quibble with her about misleading the house – she had that opportunity at the time.

Leader of the Nationals, the sadly departed grandfather of the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee (PAEC), we do actually genuinely miss your service there.

Danny O’Brien interjected.

Mathew HILAKARI: You have departed from PAEC. No, you have not departed this mortal coil. You spoke to how the voice was very important – the voice of the communities, the voice of the opposition – and I want to assure you that it was not denied and has not been denied. You were not denied in the 10 minutes when you had the opportunity to speak to this motion – and to every motion and to every piece of agenda that comes to this place. But it is more about the voice versus the agenda. That is what we are talking about, and governments are given permission by the people to set the agenda. It is not to deny the voice of the opposition but to set the agenda of the government, because a rudderless government is far worse than a government that does set the agenda. The people expect us to have an agenda. They expect us to come to this place and set out an agenda that changes the face of Victoria for the better.

We know what a rudderless government looks like. It was 2010 to 2014. Nothing was achieved. That is a rudderless government. You did not need sessional orders then probably, because what was the point? Nothing was happening across the state, so I can understand why there are concerns about people getting on with the job. The Leader of the Nationals did expose, though, the differences between the Nationals and the Liberals. I agree with the Leader of the Nationals here: we do not have to be overextreme about these matters and go straight to dictatorship when there is a change in sessional orders, as the Manager of Opposition Business did. The Manager of Opposition Business diminishes dictatorships. She takes away the meaning of the word when she talks about dictatorships in a place like this, so I was very thankful to the Leader of the Nationals for bringing her to back to task, for bringing it back to the place where we are – because there are people who are experiencing dictatorships today. Some of the members opposite – the previous Leader of the Opposition came from a place that was exactly that. So I hope that the Manager of Opposition Business can think about the language that she uses in this place and the importance of that language.

The Leader of the Nationals, however, did say that maybe he disagreed with, whether it was the substance or not – he thought that there was bad legislation coming to this place, and that was the gambling legislation this week and the Fire Services Property Amendment (Emergency Services and Volunteers Fund) Bill 2025 that came this week. I would have thought that his time on PAEC and hearing the gambling and tobacco licensing discussions would have really led to him saying that actually these are really important pieces of legislation. Slowing down spin speeds for pokies venues ‍– I would have thought these are the things that are really important to the communities that he represents. They are important to the community that I represent. Every member opposite had the opportunity to have a say on those bills. Some chose to fill their time; some chose to take no time.

The member for Preston, I really appreciate, talked about some of the changes to the timings of this place to make them more family-friendly – that we are not here at these times and that the standing orders that require us to consider whether we adjourn for the day at 10 pm have not been used across this term of Parliament. I do appreciate that we are changing these orders to fit in with the modern day. It is not all Charles I in this place. Sometimes we get into the 20th century and sometimes even the 21st. We have a real crack at that.

The member for Brighton had a litany of complaints, but that is not unusual. He presumes that a majority can form government, including an executive sometimes, but he also does not like that. He has never really liked that. It is really the majority of Brighton, the majority of one. But it is important, again, that we seek to have an agenda in this place.

James Newbury: I heard!

Mathew HILAKARI: Of course you heard. You are right here in front of me.

The member for Eildon took particular offence, as she does as well, around access and availability of women’s toilets, with a point of order – but I guess we can probably move on on that, and I hope she will move on as well. The member for South-West Coast was completely invested and interested in gagging health services. She should speak to the member for Polwarth, who was also able to fill an emergency room on short notice, about how he can assist health services on any occasion that they would like.

Danny O’Brien interjected.

Mathew HILAKARI: Great patients. They were very patient patients. That was a very good thing about them. He was concerned about the lack of time to debate during the 10 minutes of making a contribution, so congratulations. And then he filled out the talking time about –

Members interjecting.

Richard Riordan: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, I have not actually contributed to this motion yet, and I just wish to correct the record for the member, who has mistakenly identified my skill and prowess at the table and has misappropriated my many contributions.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: That is informative but not a point of order.

Mathew HILAKARI: I am embarrassed on this one. You have taken me appropriately to task. I am still thinking about the member for Polwarth and emergency departments and filling those spaces and I forgot about the member for South-West Coast. I did forget about the member for South-West Coast. She did fill out her time talking about road infrastructure and other concerns that she has raised before in this place. The fast-speaking member for Bulleen –

A member interjected.

Mathew HILAKARI: It was his description, not my description. But he did slow down and speed up again. He did speak to some of the great Labor initiatives of the last 10 years – dental vans and other such matters – and I appreciate his support again. He is actually a fine contributor to this place. I do not think anyone would disagree that he is a real stand-out amongst those opposite, and I am sure he will get a third crack at it.

A member interjected.

Mathew HILAKARI: Lazarus – three times. But he did say that they are not Luddites opposite and that the standing orders and the sessional orders in particular can actually be improved. They are not Luddites in the opposition, but that does contrast strongly with the view of the Manager of Opposition Business, who thinks that they can never be improved. Of course I would never describe her as a Luddite; that would be outrageous.

He was concerned, though, that they did not get to talk about some of the most important matters that they would like to raise. I am running out of time, but there were some important matters raised yesterday by those opposite, including the member for Croydon. Congratulations on his and his wife’s happy anniversary of 20 years of marriage. The member for Gippsland East talked about the federal government recently announcing a roads package – probably not a contribution for this place – and the member for Gippsland East talked about better emergency services, which I hope he supports. (Time expired)

Tim READ (Brunswick) (20:47): We will have to hang around and ask the member for Point Cook to finish his speech later over at the bar.

Before I begin I would just like to thank the members who have given the Greens a shout-out, particularly the members for Eildon and Bulleen, but there may have been others and my apologies for forgetting you. This particular motion we are debating appears to be an innocuous piece of housekeeping. That is certainly how it was presented to us, and indeed it might be. I will give you the heads-up that, while the Greens will be opposing it, it is quite possible that under different circumstances we could have supported it – more about that in a minute.

I note that it has not been to the Standing Orders Committee, which would probably be worthwhile and would have made it more supportable. I do also want to acknowledge that we appreciate the briefing that we have been given by the government on this. This is simply a motion that increases the government’s flexibility to move in debate from bills to motions and back again on the notice paper. As I said earlier, it could well be an innocuous piece of housekeeping. However, I regard this with suspicion because of the countless changes that have occurred over the years removing the rights of non-government MPs. In fact, it would be hard to find a less democratic lower house in the Westminster system than this one. This is a house where non-government MPs do not have the ability to bring a substantive matter to a vote. When I started here in the previous term of Parliament, I was surprised by the endless copycat speeches, particularly from government members but in fact from both sides, that were pretty much photocopies of one another, and they often just seemed to be filling time until the guillotine, as though it was important that there be no dead air between midday Tuesday and 5 pm on Thursday.

The content of these speeches and more especially the time-filling motions was either smearing the other side or preening and strutting and inflating either the government or the opposition, depending on who is speaking. Very little of it, particularly after the first couple of speeches from any given party, contained actual substantive debate. I really wondered why this was until the member for Shepparton at the time, the former independent member for Shepparton Suzanna Sheed, sat down and explained to me that that was so that non-government MPs could not put up a private members bill or a motion and bring it to the vote, as they can in most other lower and upper houses in Westminster systems around the world, including in the other place here. Successive changes to sessional and standing orders have meant that non-government MPs do not have that basic ability. We would be more inclined to support this motion were it accompanied by the ability to do those things, were there some, for example, non-government business time on a Wednesday afternoon, as happens in the other place. If this was a more democratic chamber, a motion like this would be far more likely to get the support of all members. But trapped as we are in a system like this, it fills us all with suspicion.

Speaking of the guillotine, the guillotine is one of those things that we would regard as an outrageous infringement of our ability to represent our constituents if we had more meaningful debate in this chamber, but since we do not, it is barely noticeable – it is almost a relief. Instead of having non-government business time on a Wednesday afternoon, we essentially have a school debating club. Matters of public importance are largely a smear or an exercise in puffery. Instead of fixing that we have got this motion, small though it is.

Another thing that would persuade me to the support this motion would be if we had consideration in detail. In fact to find out what consideration in detail involves I wander over to the Legislative Council periodically to see what real MPs do, because here –

Paul Edbrooke: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, it is a bit rich for the Greens, who are never in the chamber, to be talking about what real MPs do.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

Tim READ: I appreciate that I possibly have struck a nerve – I cannot imagine how. If consideration in detail was something that was practised more often in this chamber, that would be the sort of thing that would allow a motion like this to pass without comment. It is also important to note that third parties – that is, not the big two – and independents are simply unable to speak on procedural motions. So in the debate on the government business program you do not normally hear an independent or a Green speaking, therefore we cannot explain to anyone why we are voting the way we vote, so we often do not. The lack of non-government business time –

A member interjected.

Tim READ: I am persuaded by an interjection, Deputy Speaker, if you do not mind, to explain that point a little further. On non-government business motions we often abstain simply because we do not have the opportunity to explain which way we are voting. It would seem to me a basic and fundamental right of any MP in any kind of Parliament or representative chamber to be allowed 60 seconds to get up and say why they are voting yes or no, and we do not have that right in procedural motions. There are three speakers for the affirmative and three speakers for the negative; you will get three from the coalition and three from the government, and you will not hear a Green or an independent. We do not have to get up and speak in every one of them, but it would be nice to have the ability to have 60 seconds to get up and explain why we are or are not supporting, for example, the government business program. I am sure this is something that could easily be fixed. Instead we get this motion. Essentially we will not be supporting this change to sessional orders, because we are tired of the thousands of incremental changes that increase the power of the executive to control Parliament and take it away from its original purpose, which is to be a representative chamber.

Assembly divided on motion:

Ayes (49): Juliana Addison, Jacinta Allan, Colin Brooks, Josh Bull, Anthony Carbines, Ben Carroll, Anthony Cianflone, Sarah Connolly, Chris Couzens, Jordan Crugnale, Lily D’Ambrosio, Daniela De Martino, Steve Dimopoulos, Paul Edbrooke, Eden Foster, Matt Fregon, Ella George, Luba Grigorovitch, Bronwyn Halfpenny, Katie Hall, Martha Haylett, Mathew Hilakari, Melissa Horne, Sonya Kilkenny, Nathan Lambert, John Lister, Gary Maas, Alison Marchant, Kathleen Matthews-Ward, Steve McGhie, Paul Mercurio, John Mullahy, 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, Iwan Walters, Vicki Ward, Dylan Wight, Gabrielle Williams, Belinda Wilson

Noes (28): Brad Battin, Jade Benham, Roma Britnell, Tim Bull, Martin Cameron, Annabelle Cleeland, Chris Crewther, Gabrielle de Vietri, Wayne Farnham, Sam Groth, Matthew Guy, David Hodgett, 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, Bridget Vallence, Peter Walsh, Kim Wells, Rachel Westaway, Jess Wilson

Motion agreed to.