Wednesday, 11 May 2022

Business of the house

Standing and sessional orders

Debate resumed on motion of Dr CUMMING:

That so much of standing and sessional orders be suspended to allow the following arrangements to come into effect tomorrow and remain in place until the house resolves otherwise:

1. Remote participation

Members may participate in debate remotely using an audio-visual link as follows:

(1) The Chair must be satisfied that the quality of the audio-visual link allows the Chair to verify the identity of that Member and for the Member to participate.

(2) A Member participating remotely is not counted for the purposes of a quorum.

(3) A Member participating remotely shall not vote and a Member that is not in the Chamber at the time of a division may register their opinion on the question by notifying the Clerk in writing of their opinion (either ‘Aye’ or ‘Noe’) after the commencement of the matter in the House and before the President reports the result of the vote to the House, and any such opinion will be published, separately from the results of the vote, in Hansard and the Minutes of Proceedings.

(4) Members participating remotely may do all things a Member in the Chamber may do, except—

(a) chair the debate;

(b) refuse leave;

(c) take, or speak on, a point of order unless it is taken by another member during their contribution;

(d) call the Chair’s attention to the state of the House;

(e) call for a division;

(f) vote;

(g) move a motion for the closure of debate under Standing Order 12.25 or be counted in support of a closure of debate motion under Standing Order 12.25(2); and

(h) be counted for the purposes of satisfying an absolute or special majority requirement.

(5) In order to assist Members participating remotely, the Chair will use a formal call list to allocate the call for each debate where practical and Members wishing to participate remotely may seek the call by—

(a) informing their whip, or the whip’s representative, who will inform the Chair in advance—for a Government or Opposition Member; and

(b) informing the Clerk, who will inform the Chair in advance—for any other Member.

(6) When a Member participates remotely, the Chair may exercise all their usual powers to control the debate.

(7) The Chair is given any additional powers necessary to facilitate the smooth running of the House and/or to address any technical issues, including but not limited to—

(a) stopping the clock;

(b) returning to a Member’s contribution; and

(c) re-ordering business.

(8) The President may issue formal Guidelines from time to time about remote participation which must not be inconsistent with this temporary order and must be complied with as if they are temporary orders and the President may take any action necessary should Members not abide by the Guidelines.

Ms TAYLOR (Southern Metropolitan) (16:33): I know that we were talking about this some time back. It is certainly important that we do discuss this, and we certainly welcome the discussion on this motion. The government does have some challenges with the motion in its current form. In particular the government is concerned that the motion does not specify the reason for a member’s absence, so I did want to provide today some more clarification in the hope of furthering this discussion in a positive way. Whilst it certainly is absolutely well intentioned—the problem in saying that is that it can sound patronising. It is not meant to; we understand there are some very pragmatic realities behind this. However, it does unfortunately offer opportunity beyond its intended use for those in isolation for COVID-related reasons. I am hoping to sort of expand out today with the discussion just to provide even more clarity and to help further the conversation overall on this matter. A more proper process for this would be that the matter be referred to the Procedure Committee to consider. That it is just something to put forward as well.

Since 2020 the government, the opposition and the crossbench have worked together with the clerks on temporary orders to ensure the Parliament can run as smoothly as possible. On that note I do just want to flag that, yes, obviously as MPs we are a significant part of this conversation—all the MPs are a significant part of the conversation—but, and I know this would not be beyond others to consider, the clerks are a very significant part of this conversation as well, because facilitating this process is another aspect. As MPs we often think—magic—everything just happens, but of course there are some pretty significant processes that have to go on behind the scenes. There is the potential for that to sound like not the strongest argument, but actually it is significant, because I think that everyone is required to make this Parliament run and so we cannot ignore those aspects as well.

As a government we have always been open and clear in our communication around sitting during COVID-19. I note that it has been incredibly challenging, but it has taken everyone working together to get the best outcomes possible. Many sittings over the past few years have been moved or altered based on discussions held between the government, opposition and crossbench. We are certainly happy—and I really want to emphasise that—to continue these conversations with the opposition and the crossbench on this issue, because obviously we know the significance of sitting; that goes without saying. Whilst the ability for members to appear remotely was previously in place, it was rarely used and it did create functional difficulties for the Parliament. That goes beyond us as MPs, and that is a further equation for all those who actually support the processes of Parliament and facilitate us to do the work that we do when we sit.

On the functional element, bringing the screens in and out of the chamber is difficult in a chamber that was not built with this in mind. They are just some pragmatic elements. It is what it is in the sense that we are in a gorgeous chamber but it is certainly an old chamber and it has its challenges. The chamber itself does present some physical difficulties if the screens have to be brought in and seating charts have to be done. All this actually creates a lot of extra work for the Parliament itself. I am not saying it is prohibitive, but I am just saying we do have to factor that in.

Ms SHING (Eastern Victoria) (16:38): I am here today to speak in relation to the hybrid motion for sitting and what that looks like to enable members of this place to participate fully and in a way which is comprehensible and that is able to meet the needs of the Parliament and its functioning on a daily basis and to handle the procedural intricacies of a chamber which is long accustomed to things being done in rather a specific way. That is not to say that there is not room for innovation and for evolution. In fact we saw through the pandemic and the course of restrictions and limitations on movement that it was necessary for us to evolve not just in the way in which we came together for the purpose of making law but also as it relates to the undertaking of committee work and of work associated with inquiries and other matters that the Parliament deals with frequently behind closed doors, albeit with the need for virtual connections.

I am really interested in ongoing work as far as continuous improvement is concerned to enable better participation across a range of circumstances. I think that as the pandemic continues to evolve and as we continue to gain a better understanding of what the limitations might be, necessarily and proportionally and appropriately, in safeguarding public health—and that in and of itself is an enormous subject which is well canvassed in this place and indeed worldwide—we are able to make adjustments and to be flexible in the way in which the ongoing business of this house occurs. To that end I am in agreement with a number of the things which somewhat paradoxically have come from the opposition around the importance of this house being able to continue to function and to do its work.

Again, history will probably condemn me for this, but Mr Davis has in fact made a number of really useful points—ooh, that hurt—in relation to the way in which this chamber—

Mr Ondarchie: Can we get a defibrillator here?

Ms SHING: I know, my mic cut out there. My mic seemed to cut out there momentarily. If Hansard is looking to redact something—no, I would never ask for that to happen. But Mr Davis has made a number of really useful points around the importance of this chamber being able to continue to do its work, and he is not alone in that regard around the primacy that we all place on this Parliament being able to function and function well.

It has also been important to make sure that this chamber and this Parliament can function safely and can reduce, as far as possible, the limitations on function because of operational need. Those in this place who remember the marathon sittings, where we all saw each other at perhaps our least varnished at 3, 4 and 5 o’clock in the morning, will well recall the challenges that were created in an operational environment whereby clerks, attendants and staff were necessary for the course of often sittings of many dozens of hours. This in and of itself presented numerous operational challenges, and it is really important that we learn from that. It is really important that to the best extent possible we can deploy technology—such as the way in which I did not just do so with my jacket; my apologies for any interference with the microphone—in a way which is useful, in a way which facilitates the discussion, debate and passage of legislation and in a way which makes sure that there is public trust and confidence in the role of this Parliament as it necessarily continues to operate throughout a variety of different circumstances.

We have actually seen that since 2020 there have been temporary orders in place that have been negotiated and agreed with members of the crossbench and of the opposition and that this has been a collegiate exercise in response to an unprecedented set of public health challenges. We need to also recognise the number of matters, sitting days, procedures and processes that have not been able to take place over the last couple of years for various reasons.

We did have, as some in this place will recall, a capacity for a limited period of time for members to attend remotely. I recall the vast shimmering faces of three crossbenchers rising from the public gallery about nine times the size of everybody else as contributions were made, and it was a good solution for the time. It was actually a really important way for people to participate in the processes of the house and to be heard as matters continued to be debated and moved. I think we also need to recognise though that whilst those looming faces were important, there were a lot of functional difficulties with delivering this technology, and the operational requirements that sat behind that were not insignificant. We need to make sure that, for example, the Procedure Committee is in a good position to actually determine the way in which this can occur, occur with minimal disruption and occur in a way which facilitates the business of the house and a way in which clerks, staff and others have the best possible opportunity to facilitate that ease of participation by members who are not here in three dimensions.

There is a lot of work that sits underneath this, and that is why making sure that we have the operational capability to effect these changes is really important. I am not saying that we cannot get there; I am not saying that we should not get there. I actually think that we do need to be dexterous, that we do need to be able to accommodate changes to the way in which modern democracy is delivered, including by way of virtual or digital participation. This is not unique as a challenge for workplaces around the world. It just so happens that our workplaces are based on a model which came into being hundreds of years ago, and to that end there is an uneasy combination of factors that sit against mahogany panels on the one hand and digital technology and real-time participation on the other.

I am looking forward to seeing where we can have outcomes which reflect that we are doing the best that we can and collaborating in the best possible way that we can as a government to manage our way through these circumstances. In that regard it is not dissimilar to RAT testing, which has been undertaken during the week and has been undertaken in workforces and workplaces all the way around the state and indeed the country and indeed internationally. It is not dissimilar to the way in which temperature checks have operated at various points of entrance and egress, including here at the Parliament for a number of weeks previously. And it is not dissimilar to the COVID check-in requirements and processes that have been in effect, including making sure that those certificates have been displayed upon request and upon entry, to really enhance the opportunity for people to participate whilst not creating a public health risk beyond the public health risk that already exists and which already presents a range of pretty enormous and often very, very serious consequences where not kept in check.

I would like to see that the Procedure Committee is given an opportunity to investigate these matters and to make sure that, from a non-partisan perspective, there is a process whereby this work can be done. I think for a hybrid sitting model to be introduced without that level of analysis and without that level of discussion that is an important and necessary part of developing a framework such as this we run the risk of coming up with a solution which is either inferior or indeed leads to unintended consequences or indeed fails to accommodate the concerns and the priorities of a range of members in this place and fails to inform best or indeed better practice.

We can do more, we should do more and we should be better. But what we do need to do is make sure that these improvements are delivered against a backdrop of regard for public safety and are delivered against a backdrop of regard for occupational requirements and operational requirements of the staff here at Parliament and indeed that we have the opportunity for technology to be delivered in a way which is reliable and efficient. Do not get me started on fibre to the node versus fibre to the premises and the attendant difficulties around connectivity that that has presented, but it is one of those examples where technology needs to be well understood, advances in technology need to be well understood and operational impost needs to be well examined, and to that end I think the Procedure Committee is entirely the right place for these discussions to happen. On that basis we cannot support the motion in its current form, but the principles that underpin it are entirely valid.

Ms WATT (Northern Metropolitan) (16:48): This is a motion worthy of considerable debate and consideration by all of us in this place, and I do rise with gratitude for that opportunity to contribute to the debate on hybrid sittings. I thank Dr Cumming for bringing it to us. She now joins us—good to see you.

There are some remarks that I do want to make in contributing to this. Having come to this place in the middle of COVID, I do have some reflections on life at home and life in the mixed-mode workplace that we had here in the Parliament. But first and foremost I need to say that the government cannot support this motion in its current form, as outlined in a range of really substantive remarks made by Ms Shing. Some of them do bear repeating, and I will take a moment of everyone’s time to do that.

Firstly, it is of course a really well intentioned motion. It unfortunately offers opportunities beyond its intended use for those in isolation for COVID-related reasons. Really a more proper process for this would be that the matter be referred to the Procedure Committee to consider, because whilst I understand where this has come from, during the debate and hearing remarks from Ms Shing I have had some thoughts as to members of our chamber that may be affected by other emergencies and how it is that this Parliament can best reflect those members that may be cut off or isolated due to flooding or fire lines or other such things. The expectation is that I, not living all that far away from Parliament, would be less affected. Those among us from regional Victoria I think would have some really substantial contributions when it comes to a debate about their access to Parliament in times of natural emergencies and disasters, so I do think that there is a lot more for consideration when it comes to hybrid sittings. I think and hope that the Procedure Committee is best placed to consider this, and I hope that I could just add to that my thoughts on consideration for emergencies.

There is of course some commentary here worth looking at regarding the efforts that have been made since 2020 and the onset of the coronavirus global pandemic. The opposition, the government and the crossbench have really worked together with the clerks on temporary orders to ensure the Parliament can run as smoothly as possible. In fact it was all I knew, having started during COVID. This whole arrangement that we have got going right now is new for me, and in fact we still to this day have some of those temporary orders in place. Somebody keeps talking to me about the way voting used to happen in this chamber, and that was indeed before my time but has been reflected on by a number of members since I started in here. I suppose it is just me and Ms Burnett-Wake that have come in a little unawares of life before COVID. I think that there is really a certain enthusiasm from members of this government to continue conversations with the opposition and the crossbench about what worked and what perhaps could be reflected on and revised for future use.

I did not mind the ability for members to appear remotely, as was previously in place. It was indeed rarely used, and I will just take a moment to thank Ms Terpstra, who I understand was the first member of this chamber to get up on, I think it was, a motion or a members statement or something, but she was the first—

A member: It was a contribution on a bill.

Ms WATT: She made a contribution on a bill, I think it was. I do remember that groundbreaking contribution by Ms Terpstra. It made us really heavily consider how we can continue to look at remote contributions.

A member interjected.

Ms WATT: Yes, she was in this place, and that meant that she was pretty assured of good internet connection and other things, you would hope, having only been about 100 metres away. But that is not always the case with our members, so there will be a range of considerations with respect to technical access and whatnot. Given the high level of difficulty and the time-consuming work that parliamentary staff had to do to make that possible, can I just take a moment to thank them for all their efforts during that time. That was extraordinarily challenging. We had two screens, but it was not just about rolling in some TVs, there was internet access—I cannot even begin to imagine all of the behind-the-scenes technical wizardry that happened on behalf of the team from Hansard and the Clerk’s office to make that possible. It was not insurmountably difficult, but there was just so very much that went into that.

As I said, we still have a range of those temporary orders in place, including, as I understand it, voting. Like I said, it is not like I can so much reflect on life beforehand and what was great, because I did not know life beforehand in this place. But we still have a number of those in place. I am really committed to this, and I do reflect highly on being a member that came in during COVID and what that means for us.

Ms Shing: I’m disappointed that there have been no pets mentioned.

Ms WATT: I could talk about the fact that remote and hybrid would mean more time with Pickles and that in fact it would be of significant benefit to the health and wellbeing of members to be able to do our job surrounded by our pets and loved ones, including in my case darling Pickles, who recently celebrated a birthday, thank you very much.

Mr Gepp: Tell us about Pickles.

Ms WATT: I might just do that. But before I do that I just want to take a moment to say we are all doing the very best we can in some extraordinarily trying circumstances, including our continued vigilance around our health and safety, and just a reminder to everybody to keep a look out for not only our own health but that of those around us, and reminders around testing. It is never pleasant, but thank you to all the members that make our Parliament work by doing the work required to look after themselves and check up on their own health and wellbeing during the week. I wish we could make RATs just a little easier, just a little bit more pleasant, because they are not great, right? They are not a great way to start your day, but we do it nonetheless with great frequency, discomfort and difficulty.

I love a hybrid working arrangement. I loved my months working from home with Pickles on my lap. But it was not to be when I joined this place, and apparently there is no Pickles in the chamber, I hear, in the standing orders. That is okay. You will hear some fierce advocacy from me in the coming little while about how we can improve our standing orders to better reflect the health and wellbeing needs of members, including the considerable difference to my own blood pressure that comes from being in the company of the delightful Pickles. I will just take a moment to remind you all to get your blood pressure checked, thank you very much, because blood pressure check day is coming up. There we go. That is all I have got to say, thank you very, very much, and thank you again for your warm regard for Pickles. I think I have mentioned him, eight, nine, 10, 12 times in Hansard. Good stuff. Cheers.

Ms TIERNEY (Western Victoria—Minister for Training and Skills, Minister for Higher Education) (16:58): I think Ms Watt has probably won some sort of bet that has been taken. I move:

That debate be adjourned until the next day of meeting.

Motion agreed to and debate adjourned until next day of meeting.