Wednesday, 21 September 2022

Adjournment

Ms SYMES (Northern Victoria—Leader of the Government, Attorney-General, Minister for Emergency Services) (09:57): I move:

That the Council, at its rising, adjourn until a day and hour to be fixed by the President, who will notify each member of the Council accordingly.

Mr DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan—Leader of the Opposition) (09:57): I want to indicate that we do not believe that that is the motion that should be moved today, and we should amend that motion. This is a very important matter. The chamber should be sitting closer to the election. Since the Parliament changed its format to a fixed four-year term, this will be the longest period that the Parliament has not sat if we adjourn today as proposed, and that will see in fact the longest period between the closing of Parliament and the election period—more than nine weeks.

That is not the work of democracy, it is not the work of scrutiny and it is not the work of tabling. I note the government has today given an indication that it will make available relevant pandemic reports ahead of the election. We welcome that step, although we are mistrustful of when the government will do it and the way they will do it. We believe it is preferable that they be tabled on a sitting day and be done in an open and transparent way. For that reason, for the broader reason of scrutiny and to ensure that there is maximum pressure for annual reports to be tabled, I propose to move two distinct amendments. One of them relates to a sitting day on 19 October. That would be a single sitting day, with the ability to move to a second sitting day if the government has not at that point tabled the relevant pandemic reports. If I could get the clerks to circulate that amendment that would be helpful.

Ms Shing: President, I wish to raise a point of order in relation to the amendments to the motion which Mr Davis has now foreshadowed, in the first instance seeking a further sitting day on 19 October and I suspect there is another part to this which he may well go to depending on your ruling, President. There are clear requirements within previous rulings from the Chair as they relate to a member making a change to notify and provide it to people in advance so that no members are taken by surprise. To that end I note that this is in keeping with a range of matters that have been raised as concerns by the crossbench whereby information has not been provided until the last minute. On that basis and given that Mr Davis had the opportunity to put this yesterday, it would appear that this is not within the scope of the motion as it has been put. On that basis Mr Davis’s proposed amendment—I am waiting to see what the second one would be, but in any event the timing as it relates to those two amendments would not be allowable within the standing orders or indeed Rulings from the Chair.

Mr DAVIS: Further to the point of order, President, these are clearly within the purview of the motion that has been moved and clearly within the matters of—

The PRESIDENT: Thank you, Mr Davis. I was going to rule on that because you have not moved your amendments yet, and I do not think the point of order at the moment is approachable. So I will wait until Mr Davis has moved his amendments.

Mr DAVIS: The second amendment—

Ms Symes interjected.

Mr DAVIS: They both stand alone, and they both can be moved separately or together.

Ms Symes interjected.

Mr DAVIS: It is one set of amendments. A sheet of amendments is what it is called. It is an amendment sheet. There are two amendments. One relates to the date and returning for a sitting day on the 19th, and the second, as I am just about to explain, relates to a tabling mechanism. I move:

1. Omit all words and expressions after ‘adjourn’ and insert in their place:

‘until Wednesday, 19 October 2022 and that standing and sessional orders be suspended to the extent necessary to allow the order of business on that day to be:

Messages

Formal business

Members statements (up to 15 members)

General business

At 12 noon Questions

Constituency questions

General business (until 5.15 pm)

At 5.15 pm Statements on reports, papers and petitions (30 minutes)

Government business (maximum 2 hours)

At 7.45 pm Adjournment (up to 20 members).’.

2. At the end of the motion, omit ‘.’ and insert in its place:

‘; and that standing and sessional orders be suspended to the extent necessary to provide that for the remainder of this session:

(1) Where an act of Parliament requires a document to be tabled and the document is received by the Clerk in a week in which the house is not sitting, the Clerk must:

(a) by 4.00 pm each Friday in a non-sitting week, notify each member of the house of the receipt of documents received by 10.00 am that day and advise that the documents are available in the tabled documents database;

(b) cause the document to be tabled in the house on the next sitting day;

(c) publish a register on the Parliament’s website each Friday that lists:

(i) how many and the names of the annual reports for the 2021–22 financial year that have been published in the tabled documents database under this paragraph; and

(ii) the total number of annual reports for the 2020–21 financial year that were tabled in the Council in 2021.

(2) If received by the Clerk under paragraph (1), the house orders reports from the following agencies to be published if so requested by those agencies:

Auditor-General

Commission for Children and Young People

Commissioner for privacy and data protection

Consumer Affairs Victoria

Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission

Family violence reform implementation monitor

Gambling and Lotteries Licence Review Panel

Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission

Law Reform Commission

Ombudsman

Parliamentary committees

Victorian Inspectorate.

(3) If received by the Clerk under paragraph (1), the house orders the following reports to be published:

Annual financial report of the state of Victoria

Reports of boards of inquiry and royal commissions under the Inquiries Act 2014

Community visitors annual reports

Compliance officer’s statements of findings

Legal services commissioner’s annual reports

Parliamentary Budget Officer’s report of operations under section 27 of the Parliamentary Budget Officer Act 2017

Public advocate’s annual reports

Registers of members interests

Small business commissioner’s annual reports.’.

We have just seen the government table a number of reports—32 of the general annual reports. There are more than 250 tabled most years. So that leaves around 220 that are still to be tabled and, frankly, will not be tabled unless there is a mechanism for that tabling to occur. This picks up the mechanism that was crafted during the COVID period and enables a mechanism for the Clerk to put into the tabled documents database the reports as they come through to the Clerk and to report on how many he has received, and in effect we can calculate how many are outstanding. This is a simple mechanism that will enable tabling of annual reports all the way through until the period that the election writs are issued when the Parliament is dissolved. It is a very simple—

Ms Shing: On a point of order, President: Mr Davis, I did not mean to cut you off. I suspect you may have been coming to the end of the second part of your point. On a point of order, President, this is again a matter which has only just been provided to the government. Again there are rulings from the Chair, and the standing orders require and indeed invite that to be provided in advance. In addition to that, the tabling of the out-of-session reports component of these two amendments is not within scope of the substantive motion as it relates to a reconvening of the house on 19 October. Further to that, President, reports can and indeed often are tabled out of session—this is nothing unusual. As it relates to Mr Davis’s own drafting of the documents, he has referred to the register of members interests. That was literally tabled yesterday. The fact that we have only just seen the amendment now is a problem and, again, not within scope of the motion itself around reconvening the house.

Mr DAVIS: Further to the point of order, clearly the house’s business is the house’s business, and we are entitled to make sure, if you are going to close the house down, that the opportunity is there to ensure transparency and that tabling occurs. That is what this seeks to do. This is a very simple point. This is within scope. I have carefully worked this through with the clerks to make sure it was within scope.

Ms Symes: Well, why didn’t you give it to me?

Mr DAVIS: Because we were hopeful that you would actually change on the 19th matter.

The PRESIDENT: Let me be clear on this. Ms Symes has moved a motion that puts the next sitting date as on a day and hour to be fixed by the President. Mr Davis moved two amendments. The second amendment is related to that, and it takes note that reports that would otherwise be tabled will not be tabled and ought to be tabled. I believe the amendment is directly relevant to Ms Symes’s motion, and therefore it is in order.

Mr DAVIS: I will be very brief. I do not want to take the time of the house, but this is an important point. We should sit. We should not finish the grand final, as it were, three quarters of the way through the last quarter. We should sit on, and the scrutiny should be there. When it comes to reports, what on earth does the government have to hide? Why are they afraid of a tabling mechanism, because there are seas of red ink in a lot of the agencies and a lot of the departments. The truth is the government does not want its major projects scrutinised. What on earth has the government got to hide? I say, ‘Let’s bring the sitting on’, and if you do not want the sitting, we will have the tablings.

Ms SHING (Eastern Victoria—Minister for Water, Minister for Regional Development, Minister for Equality) (10:05): Further to that point, Mr Davis, you have had many years to understand the scope of being able to move a substantive motion on your terms. You failed to do so, you missed the boat and now you are seeking to shoehorn that in around tabling of reports. Mr Davis, you are well aware of the nature of reports being tabled and well aware of the long-established practices of this place whereby reports can be and indeed are very frequently and ordinarily tabled out of session. Mr Davis, you are also well aware of the processes of the house, and you are well aware of the basis upon which you have previously argued in exactly the same way as the government is now arguing. For you to now claim at the last minute that you are being denied some opportunity is to ignore the reality of the way in which reports are tabled, the way in which the business of the house is conducted and indeed to ignore the reality of the situation in which you find yourself, having left this matter until the very last minute without having given the government any of the information necessary to consider this.

This is what we see and have consistently seen from you, and when I say ‘we’ it is not just government members, it is the crossbench who have been caught unawares by the last-minute provision of information, or indeed no provision of information whatsoever, before moving a range of matters that seek to fundamentally alter the business of the house. We have not received this information until you have bowled it up at the last minute. One might be forgiven for thinking in fact that you failed to put in the work yesterday when the opportunity was there for you within the rules—the standing orders, the existence of rulings from the Chair and the processes of the house, as has been well observed in the course of this Parliament—to move a motion in exactly these terms to make sure that this was not bolted on as a last-minute retrofit, as far as the business of this chamber goes, a reconvening on the 16th and again a request to make sure that reports could be tabled in session. You know full well, Mr Davis, the operation of the standing orders. You know full well that reports can indeed and are indeed tabled out of session. Mr Davis, I will take you—

Mr Davis interjected.

Ms SHING: All right, I am going to take that interjection up. You said, ‘You can’t’. Mr Davis is now on the record as saying you cannot table reports out of session in the way that he is seeking to have them done and that it is only by way of substantive motion that we in fact as a house can cure this defect. Newsflash to everybody involved—newsflash to you, Mr Davis: there is a mechanism whereby reports can be tabled out of session. You have been a member of committees. In fact you have chaired committees in a previous Parliament where reports have been tabled out of session. You have been at the helm of many inquiries, particularly—well, what is one example? The Environment and Planning Committee, Mr Davis—I was deputy chair of that particular committee, Mr Davis, when you were the chair of that committee and you accepted the tabling of reports out of session. There was not an issue for you when you were at the helm of that particular parliamentary committee as it conducted a range of inquiries. You know full well, Mr Davis, that you have been more than happy to play by those rules until the very last minute when you neglected to actually table your motion. Because you cannot get your act together you are now expecting this place to do the lifting for you at the last minute because you never got around to drafting the motion, running it by the crossbench or putting it to us in government, and now we are expected to clean up your mess.

Frankly, Mr Davis, you know better. You know what the standing orders say, you know what Rulings from the Chair says and you know what the customs and the practice not only of this house but of the Parliament say in relation to the tabling of reports out of session. You have form in understanding the way in which reports are tabled. This is something which you have previously been very proud to talk about—your long history in the Parliament, your attention to detail of the way in which standing orders operate—and yet now, curiously, at the very last minute we see a sudden case of procedural amnesia in favour of making up for the complete inability for your end to put the motion as you should have done yesterday. The ship has sailed, Mr Davis, and the house should reject the motion amendments outright.

Ms CROZIER (Southern Metropolitan) (10:10): Well, goodness me. The government is fairly desperate with that diatribe that we have just been subjected to for the last 5 minutes. This is an important amendment, because what we have seen from this government is a lack of transparency, and I am particularly concerned about the Independent Pandemic Management Advisory Committee report. I noticed that a few days ago the Minister for Health was saying that this report would not be available until after the election, and I have spoken out publicly and other members have spoken out publicly about the concerns in relation to transparency. This state has been through so much in relation to COVID over the last few years, and what we have seen is the Parliament shut down and committees gagged. I have said several times the parliamentary processes that have gone on under this government are quite shameful, when we have members of committees deliberately not turning up so oversight committees cannot take on what they are supposed to do. And while we have got an opportunity to have another sitting day so that we can see these reports and scrutinise IPMAC and ask the government about that report that is now to be tabled, I believe, before caretaker—well, how can we trust the government on that? How can we trust the government to not be dropping this report just days—

Mr Davis: On grand final day?

Ms CROZIER: Well, on grand final day, Mr Davis. We have seen with the 000—the day before Melbourne Cup. I mean, they are up to all the tricks, but they are not open to transparency. These are quite reasonable amendments for the Victorian public to actually understand about not just that important report but also the other annual reports. Six health reports have been dumped today but there are dozens more. We must see those reports.

Members interjecting.

Ms CROZIER: It is attached to the adjournment matter. But the sitting of the house—now, the government does not want this to occur, and quite rightly because they do not want scrutiny. They actually do not want the chamber to do the work it is supposed to do. It does not want us to undertake the work we need to do. And I say because of the shocking situation in this state around health—just look at the story today; seven children have died in the last five months. There are record numbers of sentinel events.

Mr Davis interjected.

Ms CROZIER: Well, Safer Care Victoria, Mr Davis, will not undertake an investigation into all this until next year. This is what I am talking about when we need to have a greater degree of transparency and understanding about what is going on. Where are these reports that are coming out of the various health services, the various departments, the various agencies? We are all privileged to sit in this house to be representing our communities and to be putting forward the scrutiny that Victorians quite rightly expect. Yet this government we have seen has time and time again shut down that opportunity to do so. I say that these amendments to the adjournment that we are debating now are important in the interests of every single Victorian and I would urge—

Ms Shing interjected.

Ms CROZIER: Well, you might have a problem with it, Ms Shing, but this is about transparency. This is about undertaking the work—

Ms Shing: It’s you not being organised.

Ms CROZIER: No, it’s not.

Mr Davis: No, it’s actually precisely organised on the adjournment motion.

Ms CROZIER: I thank Mr Davis for that interjection. This is an amendment to the adjournment motion put by the Leader of the Government. It is entirely appropriate, and in the interests of transparency and proper process I urge every member to support Mr Davis’s amendments.

Mr FINN (Western Metropolitan) (10:14): We face an extraordinary situation today where members of the government have come in here and said, ‘We are from the government, trust us’. Well, I do not know too many Victorians who would trust the current government. We have been lied to by this government far too often, by this Premier and by his ministers—far too often to accept on face value anything they say. Whether it be a tweet or whether it be a sworn oath, whatever it may be, if this government tells you something you cannot take it to the bank. That is the bottom line. They have lied to us. Remember the curfew? They told us that that was based on health advice. We found out it was not based on health advice and it was not based on law and order advice. It was cooked up by the Premier. So many times we have had a situation where we have had an instruction to release the health advice; he still has not done it. Is he going to do that before we close down? I mean, what is going on? I do not care, as Ms Shing said, how many times who has done what to who. I do not care about the past. What I want to know is whether we can leave here today knowing that that pandemic report is in our keeping. We need to know.

The Minister for Health says she is not in a position to release it today. She should be. She has known for months, since she took on the job, that the Parliament was rising today. She has known that, and I have to say that if she has not got her act together then she should not have the job. If she did not know that the Parliament was rising today and that we would want to see that pandemic report before the house rose, she should not have the job. It is as simple as that.

So I will be supporting certainly the first amendment from Mr Davis, and I urge other members, particularly crossbench members, to consider the words that I have expressed and just ask yourselves this question: do I trust this government? If you trust the government, yes, you will say, ‘Oh, they said it; it must be true. We’ll follow them into the valley of death’. If you do not trust the government, like the majority of Victorians, you will support this amendment.

I cannot understand anybody who would give this government carte blanche for anything, because if you give them an inch, they will take 10 miles, they will take 100 miles. They have no respect for the truth. They have no respect for the people of Victoria. They certainly have no respect for this Parliament, and they have shown that time and time and time again. I would like that report released today, but if it cannot be released today, well then let us come back on 19 October and let it be released then.

Dr CUMMING (Western Metropolitan) (10:18): The way I vote today will depend on what the government is going to say in the way of a retort and a reply. I obviously want transparency and accountability for my community. We want the reports. They have been promised. I know that this government—some of the ministers, not all of the ministers but a good fat majority—are not very good at actually giving information when it is requested or answering questions in this chamber.

Mr Leane: All of us?

Dr CUMMING: Not all. The good ones in this chamber I have no issue with, but there are some in the other place, such as the Minister for Health during the pandemic, who has absolutely refused—

Mr Somyurek interjected.

Dr CUMMING: You too, Mr Somyurek. I will take that back. That is right—Mr Somyurek was wonderful when he was local government minister. But there have been many in the other place, from the Premier down—in the way of ministers in the other house—that have not responded to my questions in this place, that have not produced reports and that have promised through these debates that we would have a better way and that they would adhere to their four-day, five-day reporting mechanism, but they have not. I have spent nearly every Wednesday on my feet for 5 minutes either speaking to directions or reports—every Wednesday—so I would like to see the reports. I have no problem reading the reports as well as questioning this government on why the reports are written in the way they are, because that is what it is all about—transparency and accountability. That is why those reports are actually given to this Parliament—so we can actually question and try to improve things for our community.

Mr HAYES (Southern Metropolitan) (10:20): I would just like to follow up on Dr Cumming’s request and ask the government, maybe the Attorney-General, to clarify when the reports will be released to us and the Parliament.

Ms SYMES (Northern Victoria—Leader of the Government, Attorney-General, Minister for Emergency Services) (10:20): While the amendments to the sitting of the house motion which I put some half hour ago were only brought to my attention this morning, I put on record that it was indicated by the opposition that they intended to sit an extra day. But this second component about documents was not brought to my attention until it was a printed-out document, which as Mr Davis has indicated was carefully crafted with the clerks—it was not even remotely put on my radar. In fact it was members of the crossbench that mentioned it to me this morning. I was like, ‘I think there’s something coming’. After four years, I reckon we have developed a bit of a rapport in this place where we kind of let each other know what is going on, so on the last day to be presented with this is pretty disappointing in that regard. In respect of the—

Ms Crozier interjected.

Ms SYMES: Can I finish? Because there is no big deal—

Ms Crozier interjected.

Ms SYMES: I pick up Ms Crozier’s interjection. She just said, ‘It’s no big deal’. I said, ‘Yes, it’s not a big deal’, and then she said, ‘Actually it is a big deal’. I was agreeing with you, Ms Crozier. I know that that does not regularly happen. I cannot say anything without you wanting to oppose what I am saying.

What I am saying is in relation to—and I will speak to people that are listening—the first amendment to the returning to the house motion, which is seeking to compel us to come back on a Wednesday, of course, on 19 October. The government will not be supporting that amendment. I do not know about you, but I have got some commitments in my electorate, talking to people that are really interested in the positive platform that the government is proposing for the upcoming election. I am sure others have got conversations that they want to be having in their communities, speaking to the real people. We will not be supporting that amendment.

In relation to the second amendment, as Ms Shing has articulated, many of these documents can be tabled out of session. There is certainly no attempt by the government to avoid scrutiny. As we have seen this morning, based on some conversations, the Minister for Health has certainly confirmed that the Independent Pandemic Management Advisory Committee report will be made public before the caretaker period. I think she has explained that the scope of that inquiry was broadened. The government needs to consider it, develop a response and make it public. She has given that commitment. I reaffirm the commitment on behalf of the government that that is forthcoming.

In relation to the other reports, many annual reports have been tabled today. In relation to these others, if they become available in time and they can be tabled out of session, I do not mind. That is fine. In fact if Mr Davis had come and spoken to me about this without lumping it on me, we could have had a decent conversation and probably agreed to it. So the government will not oppose this amendment, because I do not have a problem with it. But I do not want to facilitate his stunt. Mr Davis wants to stand up there and say the government is avoiding scrutiny, the government does not want to table anything. That is nonsense. That is absolute nonsense. We have received advice in this place from the Auditor-General in relation to constraints on some government agencies and the like, but in terms of anything that is available, there is no problem in making it public. That is not a problem. So I will not be opposing this second component of the amendments because it is fine. There is nothing wrong with it. It would have been nice to have a conversation about it, but Mr Davis wanted to grandstand, he wanted a stunt and it has fallen a bit flat because, frankly, I do not have a problem with it. The government will not be opposing it; I oppose the way it has been brought to the chamber.

So, to make it absolutely clear, we will be voting against the first amendment. I had at least a bit of advance notice on that one, but for the second one—despite the fact that it has only been brought to my attention within the last 45 minutes—there is nothing offensive in it. It is fine. The only thing that is offensive is the conduct of the opposition.

Dr Cumming: On a point of order, President, just to clarify the dates, through the Chair to the Clerk: what dates are we looking at, possibly, with these reports? The Attorney-General just mentioned caretaker mode.

The PRESIDENT: Order! Thank you very much. I think the contribution is finished. I am sorry, Dr Cumming. The Leader of the Government has already declared that she will support the amendment, and we are going through the process.

House divided on amendment 1:

Amendment negatived.

Amendment 2 agreed to; amended motion agreed to.