Tuesday, 7 February 2023

Business of the house

Sessional orders

Jaclyn SYMES (Northern Victoria – Attorney-General, Minister for Emergency Services) (16:46): I move:

That until the end of the session, unless otherwise ordered by the Council:

(1) The following sessional orders be adopted, to come into operation on the next sitting day:

1. Interruption of debate – Messages

In Standing Order 4.07(7) for “will” substitute “may”.

2. Order of business

Standing Orders 5.02(2) and (3) are suspended and the following order of business will apply on Wednesday –

Messages

Formal business

Members’ statements (up to 15 members)

General business

At 12.00 noon Questions

General business (until 5.15 pm)

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

Petitions (qualifying for debate) (30 minutes)

Government business (maximum 60 minutes)

At 7.15 pm Adjournment (up to 20 members)

3. Time limits

(1) Standing Order 5.03 Time limits – Budget debate is suspended and the following will apply:

Budget debate

Total time No limit

Main Government lead speaker 30 minutes

Main Opposition lead speaker 30 minutes

Other lead speakers 30 minutes

Remaining speakers 15 minutes

(2) Standing Order 5.03 Time limits – General business (Standing Order 5.07) is suspended and the following will apply:

General business (Standing Order 5.07)

Total time 90 minutes

Mover/Sponsor 20 minutes

Lead speakers 10 minutes

Remaining speakers 10 minutes

Mover/Sponsor, in reply 5 minutes

(3) In Standing Order 5.03 Time limits, insert the following:

Private member bills – second reading debate

Total time No limit

Mover/Sponsor 30 minutes

Main Government lead speaker 30 minutes

Other lead speakers 30 minutes

Remaining speakers 15 minutes

(4) Standing Order 5.03 Time limits – Government bills – second reading debate is suspended and the following will apply:

Government bills – second reading debate

Total time No limit

Main Government lead speaker 30 minutes

Main Opposition lead speaker 30 minutes

Other lead speakers 30 minutes

Remaining speakers 15 minutes

(5) Standing Order 5.03 Time limits – Government business (Standing Order 5.06) is suspended and the following will apply:

Government business (Standing Order 5.06)

Total time No limit

Main Government lead speaker 30 minutes

Main Opposition lead speaker 30 minutes

Other lead speakers 30 minutes

Remaining speakers 15 minutes

(6) Standing Order 5.03 Time limits – Statements on tabled papers and petitions (Standing Order 9.10) is suspended and the following will apply:

Statements on tabled papers and petitions (Standing Order 9.10)

Total time 30 minutes (a member with the call at the expiration of the total time will be permitted to complete their contribution)

Each member 5 minutes

4. Disorderly conduct – Member ordered to withdraw: application during questions without notice

Notwithstanding Standing Order 13.03(2), if –

(1) a member is ordered to withdraw from the House under Standing Order 13.03(1) during questions without notice; and

(2) the time for questions without notice concludes before the expiration of the suspension period –

the member may return to the Chamber at the conclusion of question time and must serve the remainder of their suspension during the next occurrence of questions without notice.

(2) The foregoing provisions of this resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the standing orders or practices of the Council, will have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the standing orders or practices of the Council.

(3) The Clerk is empowered to renumber the sessional orders and correct any internal references as a consequence of this resolution.

Notice of motion 1 is just in relation to sessional orders. It was circulated in December, which feels like some time ago, but since then it has been the subject of a few conversations and some questions in relation to what is in it. I guess in summary it is effectively just picking up some of the sessional orders that proved to be useful to the chamber in the former Parliament. There are no surprises here from the government. It covers, effectively, messages and the order of business, particularly on a Wednesday, picking up feedback from non-government and opposition members in relation to how they want Wednesdays to run, and also looks at speaking times, predominantly around facilitating the ability for as many people to speak on motions as possible, notwithstanding that we do have constraints on our time. It goes through budget debate, general business debate, private members bills, government bills and government business speaking times. There are no surprises, and everyone, as I understand it, is reasonably okay with what is being proposed. And it does reinstate this disorderly conduct provision, which I understand was not used much, so let us hope that is not used again in this term of Parliament.

I think there is probably potential for a few more conversations should there be amendments put, but this is very non-controversial, as I understand. I will not speak for other members, but nobody has raised any concerns with me – and there has been ample opportunity to do so – on the material that is in this motion.

Georgie CROZIER (Southern Metropolitan) (16:48): I thank the Leader of the Government for going through the proposal that she has put forward in terms of the sessional orders, and I do agree in terms of the running of the house and the conduct of the house and understanding some of those time limits. I know that some new members were concerned about that, but I think it is very clear why we are trying to have some time limits on certain areas in certain debates – to give the opportunity for more members to be able to contribute to the debates – and I want to agree with the Leader of the Government in relation to that very commonsense approach to how the running of the house could be, as has been outlined by the government’s motion in relation to the sessional orders for this Parliament.

I want to thank the Leader of the Government. I know that we did have discussion last night in relation to me moving an amendment to the sessional orders, and I will move that amendment. I move:

1. Insert the following new sessional order before sessional order 4:

‘X. Ministers’ statements

Standing Order 8.04(3) is suspended and the following will apply:

At the conclusion of formal business, and prior to members’ statements under Standing Order 5.13 (where applicable), up to four Ministers may seek the call to make a Minister’s statement of up to two minutes each, to advise the House of new Government initiatives, projects, and achievements.

In Standing Order 8.04(4), omit the words “and four Ministers’ statements have been made”’.

I think it is relevant to just put this on record in relation to some of the ministers statements that are done in this house. I was listening closely to the ministers statements today and thought actually that the ministers statements were more about what ministers statements are supposed to be about in relation to advising the house of government initiatives, projects and achievements, so I thank the couple of ministers that did do that. However, we have seen in the past Parliament how ministers statements have been used. There have been virtual cheerios and references to their good friend in this house and that house or this member and that house, and it really did not go towards, I think, what the intent of the ministers statements is.

Certainly question time is a serious part of what we do in this house. We are a house of review. Question time is to hold the government to account. It is the ability to ask questions of government, and we need to have a thoroughly working question time without these ministers statements, which sometimes are not new initiatives and quite frivolous in nature on some occasions. That is why we are moving this motion that those ministers statements be moved out of question time and follow in the business program, following members statements. Then it flows: members statements, ministers statements. You can still say the same things about what the initiatives of government are, or if you want to make the cheerios to your colleagues or whoever it is in the ministers statements, you can do it, but outside question time.

I will not name anyone. But, quite seriously, question time is a serious time to ask the government about the issues that are happening in this state, and for that reason I think it should be a continuous question time. That is why I propose this amendment, and I would urge the house to support that initiative.

Samantha RATNAM (Northern Metropolitan) (16:51): I wish to make a brief contribution regarding the proposals around the sessional orders on behalf of my Greens colleagues, firstly to thank the government, the opposition and the crossbenchers, who have been engaged in a collaborative discussion over the last number of weeks to understand the purpose of these sessional orders and think about where we could strengthen them to ensure that the democracy and accountability of this house is a strong as possible. Thanks to those discussions, we have got to a point of by-and-large agreement, and that is hopefully a testament to what this chamber can achieve together, working across the sides over the next four years.

The sessional orders are important. They set the tone and the opportunities for us to be able to do the important work that we will do over the next four years, so they do need due consideration. I hope, too, that there is a spirit of review that we can build in to the sessional orders. Over the four years there might be times when we believe a sessional order is not working to the best of its ability and it needs to be improved, and I hope that we will be able to enter a conversation on reviewing and improving that if it is needed.

I too would like to move an amendment, which I have canvassed with the crossbench, opposition and government, to reduce the threshold for the petition debate, and I am happy for that amendment to be circulated now, please. I move:

1. In paragraph (1), after sessional order 3, insert the following sessional order:

‘X. Presenting a petition

In Standing Order 11.03(10)(i) for “10,000” substitute “5,000”.’.

Speaking to my amendment, it proposes to reduce the threshold from 10,000 signatures to 5000 signatures to qualify a petition to be debated in this new time that we have allocated on a Wednesday after general business time. It is a new feature of the standing orders in the term ahead, which I think is a good feature, thanks to the work of the Procedure Committee and a number of previous members. I believe Ms Patten particularly led the charge over a number of years, joined with others, to think about how petitions can be better acknowledged and responded to by this chamber given the weight they have in the community. They are an important way that the community communicates to this chamber and this Parliament about things that they want changed or improved or to have their voice heard. It is really incumbent on us to create opportunities for the community’s voices to be heard, acknowledged and responded to.

It is welcome that we have this addition on a Wednesday, with half an hour for petitions to be debated, should they meet the threshold. However, the Greens believe that that threshold is too high. It has been set at 10,000. There are differing accounts as to how that 10,000 number was reached, but our understanding is that it can be lowered without significant impact on our ability to use that 30-minute time slot. We have asked for some advice about the last parliamentary term – how many petitions were received with the different thresholds – and a threshold of 5000 signatures would have qualified 15 petitions over a four-year period for debate using those 30-minute slots. If you understand that we have essentially 15 weeks of Parliament and a 30-minute session each week of Parliament for 15 weeks times four, and 15 petitions qualify for debate, I do not think it is too onerous for this chamber to lower that threshold to 5000 to allow just a few more petitions – we are talking under 20 – to be debated in this chamber, to hear the voices of Victorians who have gone to a tremendous effort to canvass their communities on issues they really, really care about and want to be heard about in this chamber.

Lowering the threshold to 5000 would give more Victorians the ability to have their important matters heard. And it is not actually putting a value on the different types of matters. There will be matters that I, for example, might not agree with, but I still believe in the principle that the community’s voice should be heard. For a number of us who have been in this chamber for a number of years, we do, I am sure, appreciate and acknowledge there are so many ways that we have to improve the democracy of our chamber and the accessibility of this Parliament to the Victorian public. There are thousands of Victorians who have no idea what happens here; they feel really excluded, when this should be the people’s place. If we are going to be truly democratic, we should be looking for every opportunity to hear the voices of Victorians. So having done the research, looking at the task before us, if we reduce that threshold to 5000 we do not think it is too onerous, and therefore my amendment would have that effect.

If I can speak briefly in response to the opposition’s amendment around ministers statements, the Greens are not in a position to be able to support it today. However, we appreciate the sentiment behind it. In terms of a future conversation, we need to have enough time to consider it and also understand the impact and interaction that ministers statements have with question time and other contributions. My understanding too is that when this was originally negotiated – and there have been years of negotiations to take Dorothy Dixers, for example, out of question time – it was part of a set of measures that responded to taking Dorothy Dixers out. So I think it is worth, if you are going to make a change to that, understanding the implications of it, and therefore the Greens are not in a position to support that amendment today.

David LIMBRICK (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (16:57): I would also like to start by thanking the crossbench, the opposition and the government for the collaborative way that we have gone through these procedural changes and got to a place where we are in a fair amount of agreement. Some of these changes that were brought in through the Procedure Committee, as Dr Ratnam alluded to, such as responding to petitions, I am very happy about. I sponsored many petitions in my last term of Parliament and had complaints from constituents when they got tabled in Parliament and then they asked, ‘Well, what’s the government going to do with it next?’ and my answer was usually ‘Nothing’. It is good that they are going to be able to respond to that and also have the opportunity to even debate it within the chamber. I think this is an excellent improvement.

On that note, I agree with Dr Ratnam that the threshold is too high and should be lowered, and therefore I will be supporting the reduction in the threshold to 5000. I actually think that Dr Ratnam overstates the burden, because many of these petitions would not end up being debated. They are not the sorts of petitions that you would actually debate in many cases, so that number of 15 I think would actually be far lower than that, and over the course of four years I think this would by no means be overburdening the Parliament. Therefore I think it is an obvious thing to try and support that and give more opportunity for people who have gone to that effort of going out and setting up a petition, getting it sponsored and getting people to sign it about something that they are passionate about to have it debated in Parliament; I think that is an excellent thing.

Also, in my response to the amendment put forward by the opposition to change the way that ministers statements work, I will not be supporting this amendment today. I have concerns about how Parliament would actually operate with this effectively new section before question time, when all the ministers would, to my mind, get up one after the other and give a statement at a time when no-one would really be paying attention, I think. Also, the ministers statements in the first place were brought in as a compromise to get rid of Dorothy Dixers. I am open-minded on how we might improve that process, but I would prefer to discuss further what might be the best approach rather than just ripping them out of question time and putting them into another block. I am not sure that that is the best solution, and I will not be supporting that.

Harriet SHING (Eastern Victoria – Minister for Water, Minister for Regional Development, Minister for Commonwealth Games Legacy, Minister for Equality) (17:00): I am going to speak briefly on both of the amendments further to the Leader of the Government’s introduction of these particular components of the sessional orders.

I will deal with Dr Ratnam’s amendment first if I may. I just note that these are matters which have been canvassed, I think, as early as the end of last year and have been the subject of a wideranging number of discussions in terms of the sessional orders as they sit within this pink here today and that it is only relatively recently that we have seen a proposal to reduce the number from 10,000 to 5000, as it sits within your proposed amendment moved here today, Dr Ratnam. I also note that the Procedure Committee does perform a range of really important tasks as they relate to the house and indeed the Parliament’s discharge of obligations and responsibilities. Mr Limbrick has referred directly to that work and to the work that the Procedure Committee has undertaken. This occurs in consultation and discussion with the clerks and with those who are responsible for providing resources, processes and time frames in the acquittal of those obligations. On that basis it may well be useful for this to be something that you or your colleagues seek to raise and to prosecute through the Procedure Committee. There are a range of options and opportunities for you there.

In addition to that, and noting what Mr Limbrick has quite appropriately raised as being what we anticipate to be a much lower number than that which you have canvassed, there are a range of other mechanisms within the standing orders as they operate to table petitions and to do so within the framework that exists within the standing orders. So that might be something which you can also turn your minds to and to do so in accordance with the opportunities that also exist within the Procedure Committee. On that basis the government will not be supporting the amendment that you are putting here today.

I might turn briefly to the amendment proposed by Ms Crozier and note the comments made by other speakers. Ms Crozier, you yourself said when you got to your feet that you were pleased with the level of relevance, the quality and indeed substance, perhaps even relevance, of ministers statements that have been issued. One of the great challenges that we have here is an attempt to regulate or indeed have a view on the substance of ministers statements. In the same way that the standing orders do not empower the house to direct the way in which somebody answers a question, the idea behind ministers statements is that they enable a minister to speak about matters germane to their portfolios in whatever way that they choose, provided that it is not unparliamentary. Where this involves discussion of portfolio matters as they are implemented and rolled out across the state in direct relevance to the way in which a portfolio might operate, then that is a wonderful thing and in fact an important thing for the house to hear about.

I think it is great, Ms Crozier, that you have noted the relevance and the substance of ministers statements as they have been made recently. You have said they have been improved. It is really great that you are making a qualitative statement about the way in which ministers statements have been rolled out, but to actually seek to move an amendment based on what you assess the quality of ministers statements to be I think gets the task of this Parliament wrong. The job that we have here is to make sure that members of this chamber and indeed of the Parliament, both of those people watching along at home, can get a good sense of what it is that we are doing here, and that includes the work of the government and it includes the work of ministers as they relate to a range of different portfolios. So on that basis and given that the flow of question time has not itself – and you would have to agree with this, Ms Crozier – been without controversy in recent parliaments in terms of interjections, unparliamentary remarks and indeed requests for rulings and guidance from the Chair at any number of different issues, in fact this would not be an amendment that would perhaps elevate question time to the standard that you might otherwise like it to be. On that basis we will not be supporting the amendment that you are proposing here today, but thank you for at least recognising the excellent work done by the government in the way in which ministers statements have been acquitted at the beginning of the sitting year.

Matthew BACH (North-Eastern Metropolitan) (17:04): I too just want to make a couple of brief comments about these two issues at play, and I also want to put on the record my thanks to the Leader of the Government for the very straightforward manner in which she has dealt with this. I think when you look at the sessional orders and the standing orders in the other place – well, again we should not be overly smug – we do things better, if not even well, in this place.

On petitions, I think Dr Ratnam made a series of very valid points, and it has been great to engage closely with her and her team over the last few days. The opposition will on this occasion not be supporting your amendment, Dr Ratnam. I do agree, and we do agree, with a couple of the points you made, Ms Shing, in your contribution. There has just recently – very recently, I understand – been a significant review by the Procedure Committee. While on a personal level I think the notion of looking very closely in future at reducing thresholds even more to enable greater discussion of matters, as you said, Mr Limbrick, that are really important to groups of Victorians, who are not small groups of Victorians, is a very good thing, our view nonetheless, upon serious consideration of what you wanted to put forward, Dr Ratnam, is that given that this review concluded so recently and that we have so little experience of this particular arrangement, the proper thing to do on this occasion is to wait and see how this operates – however, with a very open mind to continuing these discussions.

Briefly, on the matter of question time the arrangement that Ms Crozier is seeking to put forward is not a novel one. In fact my advice is that this house agreed to exactly this arrangement in 2014. At that time it was put forward by the coalition parties with the coalescence of several members of the crossbench. I take the criticism of Minister Shing of our position. My hope is that these comments will come back to bite me in four years. Question time has across Australian parliaments, no matter which party is in government, been a farce for a long time. Dorothy Dixers have become a farce. Ministers statements have become a farce. That is not a criticism of this –

Members interjecting.

Matthew BACH: Ms Crozier said they were better today, and they were better today. But Minister Shing is a great student of history. She would be aware that historically across Westminster parliaments there has been far less centralised party control. Dorothy Dixers as we understand them today are a relatively recent innovation. Of course backbenchers are not members of the government, so historically Labor backbenchers when Labor is government or coalition backbenchers when the coalition is in government have asked questions that have not gone through any centralised process. However, both when the coalition has been in power for short periods of time here and for longer in Canberra and also during the long period of recent Labor government here we have had a quite frankly rather silly state of affairs that has led to a change, as Ms Shing said. But the idea that ministers statements should be incorporated within question time, I am sure she would agree, goes directly against the grain of the entire purpose of question time. It is also something that has been agreed by this house previously. So I would commend in particular that proposed change to my friends on the crossbench and any waverers on the Treasury bench as well.

Council divided on Samantha Ratnam’s amendment:

Ayes (10): Jeff Bourman, Katherine Copsey, David Ettershank, David Limbrick, Sarah Mansfield, Rachel Payne, Aiv Puglielli, Georgie Purcell, Samantha Ratnam, Rikkie Tyrrell

Noes (28): Matthew Bach, Ryan Batchelor, Melina Bath, John Berger, Lizzie Blandthorn, Gaelle Broad, Georgie Crozier, David Davis, Moira Deeming, Enver Erdogan, Jacinta Ermacora, Michael Galea, Renee Heath, Ann-Marie Hermans, Shaun Leane, Wendy Lovell, Trung Luu, Bev McArthur, Joe McCracken, Nicholas McGowan, Tom McIntosh, Harriet Shing, Ingrid Stitt, Jaclyn Symes, Lee Tarlamis, Sonja Terpstra, Gayle Tierney, Sheena Watt

Amendment negatived.

Council divided on Georgie Crozier’s amendment:

Ayes (15): Matthew Bach, Melina Bath, Jeff Bourman, Gaelle Broad, Georgie Crozier, David Davis, Moira Deeming, Renee Heath, Ann-Marie Hermans, Wendy Lovell, Trung Luu, Bev McArthur, Joe McCracken, Nicholas McGowan, Rikkie Tyrrell

Noes (23): Ryan Batchelor, John Berger, Lizzie Blandthorn, Katherine Copsey, Enver Erdogan, Jacinta Ermacora, David Ettershank, Michael Galea, Shaun Leane, David Limbrick, Sarah Mansfield, Tom McIntosh, Rachel Payne, Aiv Puglielli, Georgie Purcell, Samantha Ratnam, Harriet Shing, Ingrid Stitt, Jaclyn Symes, Lee Tarlamis, Sonja Terpstra, Gayle Tierney, Sheena Watt

Amendment negatived.

Motion agreed to.