Tuesday, 14 May 2024

Production of documents

Production of documents

David DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan) (13:37): I move:

That this house suspends the Leader of the Government from the service of the Council for the remainder of today and for the next two subsequent sitting days.

I am sorry to be standing and moving this motion today given the failure of the government to provide the list of documents that the chamber has sought. Some of these documents go back up to one year into the past, and the government has had plenty of time to comply with the orders of the chamber as outlined by the standing orders of the chamber. This motion as it currently reads would remove the Leader of the Government from the chamber for three days. It is our intention to move an amendment to that motion, a more modest amendment, to actually allow a period – and Ms Crozier will talk at length about this – to 18 June and to also bring on a debate to take note of the outstanding documents on 18 June. That is, I think, a very reasonable way forward.

I do want to indicate that there are a number of aspects in the context here. We think the government has yet again failed to bring forward documents in a sufficient way. I do not think I am foreshadowing anything that I cannot say, but I understand that the Greens have had some discussions with the government and the government has said – I am paraphrasing here because obviously I am not privy, and no doubt Dr Mansfield will have more to say on this – that it will discuss with the whole chamber some potential changes. We stand ready to have such a discussion. However, I do put on record my concern that a plug in the middle of the process could simply give the government more capacity to delay and fudge the provision of documents. I make the point that the standing orders here are explicitly modelled on the New South Wales Legislative Council and that those standing orders work perfectly and adequately in New South Wales. There is no reason at all why the documents orders here should not be treated with similar respect to the documents orders in New South Wales.

We start from a position that the standing orders are fine, the documents orders are fine. The government has not provided a large tranche of those documents, and I am not going to rehearse all of them, but some of them, as I said, go back more than a year. The government has also not been honest and direct with the chamber. If there is some particular problem, they could come to the chamber and say, ‘This particular documents motion is a problem for this particular reason.’

Members interjecting.

David DAVIS: No, that is not what you have done in many of the cases. Actually, in many of the cases there is a long list of them where all the government has said is, ‘We haven’t had time.’ That is all the government have said, and some of them go back, as I said, for more than a year. The truth of the matter is that the government is trying to slow this process down and not comply with the orders of this chamber.

I will let Dr Mansfield put her case in the way that she outlined to me earlier to the whole chamber so that we have an understanding of what the Greens are thinking on this point. We remain ready, as Ms Crozier I think will also indicate, and we are happy to have a discussion about modifications, but we do not want to see a weakening of the standing orders as they are now. The government ought in our view simply to begin to comply with these orders. As I said, if there is a particular issue with a particular order, well, let them tell us. That is not what they have largely done. There are a couple of cases, yes, but largely they have not done that, and largely these documents are left in limbo. That is why this process has commenced over the recent weeks.

We say we need to continue to put some pressure on the government. The provision of a small cluster of documents last sitting week was in fact the direct response of the government to the fact that the chamber had put additional pressure onto the government, so we think further pressure may be required. This motion, as Ms Crozier will outline in her amendment, will actually allow that to be considered in detail on 18 June in a way that will keep some discussion on these matters.

Ryan BATCHELOR (Southern Metropolitan) (13:43): We are back again to have another debate on Mr Davis’s motion seeking to suspend the Leader of the Government. This now appears to be the third time that an amendment has needed to be moved to the original motion, because the step Mr Davis is seeking is the reasonably extreme exercise of a power that is the right of this chamber. But clearly, as I articulated in my previous contribution to this debate a couple of weeks ago – and my apologies in advance in case I fall foul of the standing orders with respect to tedious repetition – once again we are back here not for an act of upholding principles of the Parliament, not for upholding the rights of the Parliament to seek to exercise powers with respect to the production of documents, but for an act that smacks more of political opportunism: seeking political outcomes to suspend the Leader of the Government, Attorney-General and Minister for Emergency Services from the services of the chamber.

What we have got in the discussions and the considerations that are going around this place is the opportunity for improvements to these sessional orders that require the production of documents. Essentially, they have us in a position where we can be pursuing good policy outcomes or we can be pursuing political bloviating. I think what you see on behalf of the government is a genuine desire to seek the former of those, a desire to get to the right policy and procedure outcomes, which stands in contrast with the breathlessness expressed by Mr Davis. It would have been useful this time, if Mr Davis is or Ms Crozier is indeed again proposing to move amendments, to have seen them. But again we have not, so it is difficult to take seriously the engagement of the opposition with this debate when on this occasion they have not decided to share their proposed amendments with us.

We do know, as I said at the last discussion on this, that the right of this chamber to order the production of documents is something that the chamber should take very seriously, something that all of those who look at and have considered these matters take very seriously. We go back to 1855, to the powers of the House of Commons. We look at what was set up under the Australia Act 1986. We look at the High Court’s decision in Egan v. Willis in 1998 with respect to deliberations and requests for documents in that context. I did use a quote last time, and I will use it again, because it is important to understand, in the High Court’s discussion of the powers of the New South Wales chamber to require the production of documents:

What is “reasonably necessary” at any time for the “proper exercise” of the “functions” of the Legislative Council is to be understood by reference to what, at the time in question, have come to be conventional practices established and maintained by the Legislative Council.

What is reasonably necessary to seek accountability from the government, to seek further information and to hold the executive to account, a core function of the Parliament? The spirit with which the government is engaging in that question I think is demonstrated by both the way in which the Attorney-General, the Leader of the Government, tabled some letters last time this motion was debated but also the extent to which the government has been willing to engage in discussions with members of the chamber who are willing to have a constructive conversation about ways to improve the documents motion processes. We have come to an arrangement with members of the crossbench who have agreed with our intention to revise the scope of the documents motion, and the intention is to create a process for documents motions tabled in this place to be revised and actioned accordingly, which is going to assist everyone, all parties who engage in requests and/or production, in ensuring that the information that they request is not voluminous and serves its intended purpose.

I understand that as a result of those discussions in due course the government will seek to introduce amendments to the sessional orders which are currently in force to set out that process to streamline and improve the current and future documents motions in this place. I mentioned in the last contribution that I made in the chamber the effect of the very wide net that some of the documents motions that have been moved seek to cast. There have been instances, and this was demonstrated in the Attorney-General’s letter that she tabled in the Parliament with respect to some requests that were made with respect to housing developments, where it would take several years, millions of dollars and a lot of effort to produce the entire list.

But we are willing to work constructively. We are willing to engage constructively with the members of the crossbench who are seeking that, in order to target the documents motions with which those people seek to get access to those documents to find out the core of what they are looking for, following the due considerations of government processes – in the way that the government, for example, dealt with Mr Limbrick’s request with respect to the illicit tobacco regulation paper and with respect to the way in which the government dealt with the request for the report on the medically supervised injecting facility, in which following the considerations of the cabinet, following the claims of executive privilege which were made having been resolved, documents were provided. When those requests are done in a way that enables the government to consider them and deal with them as efficiently as it possibly can, you are seeing from the government a willingness to engage constructively with those motions and a willingness more broadly to take a look at the short-form documents motions processes that were introduced without discussion and debate, without reference to the Procedure Committee. The government at the time thought that it would be best if these were considered by the Procedure Committee and that what we have now is a willingness to improve those processes, to improve the processes of the chamber and to improve the accountability mechanisms that are so fundamental to this chamber.

The consequence of the motion that Mr Davis has moved would be to deprive the people of Victoria one of their elected representatives from the service of this chamber. For the 130,000 Victorians in Northern Victoria Region who voted for the Leader of the Government as a member for Northern Victoria, it would deny them representation in this chamber for a period of time. That is a very serious thing, but it would also deny this chamber the ability to ask questions of the Attorney-General and Minister for Emergency Services for a period of time, and that is denying all members of this place the ability to properly hold the executive accountable through the procedures of this chamber in the manner in which every member has a right to do. They are serious consequences. They are serious actions. The debate should be taken seriously.

The government is taking seriously the question of how we best get to the actual heart of the questions that we seek to resolve and get to the very heart of the policy questions that members of the chamber are seeking documents in relation to in a way that does not involve, as one of these motions did and as I mentioned last time, every single email associated with a consultation process, which casts such a wide net and would take such a long time to deliver on that it would render the process of seeking documents through this manner absolutely unworkable and which in other contexts would definitely be seen as unreasonable diversions of resources. These are serious issues; the government takes them seriously. We are engaging seriously with members of the crossbench to improve the processes, and we believe that that is a much preferable approach to denying elected members of this place the ability to participate in its business.

Sarah MANSFIELD (Western Victoria) (13:52): Yes, here we are again discussing documents motions and this motion again. At the outset, I actually take issue with Mr Batchelor’s characterisation of this motion. I think it is quite disingenuous to describe it as political opportunism. This is about a matter of principle and a very important one.

We have a lot of sympathy for the arguments that Mr Davis has made with respect to this motion and the issues that it addresses, and that is why we have supported it the previous two times that it has come to this chamber. We have entered into these discussions and engaged with the government in good faith about this to improve processes, but some of the framing and characterisations of the debate that were provided just now potentially give us some pause to question how much those discussions did occur in good faith. Nonetheless we do welcome the government’s commitment to provide some more of the documents that were requested in that original motion. We understand that they will be providing documents around the public housing towers, kangaroo harvesting and the medically supervised injecting room, albeit with a revised scope and timelines, but this is a welcome development.

We do appreciate that the government has worked constructively with us to do this; however, had it not been for this motion threatening the expulsion of the Leader of the Government in this house, this would not have occurred. These document requests were made, as Mr Davis pointed out, some of them, beyond a year ago, and this only happened at the last minute before this motion was to return to the chamber. It should not take these sorts of threats for the government to comply with the will of the Parliament. We also note that there continue to be a range of documents on that original list that have not been responded to, and we would sincerely urge the government to show a similar commitment to producing those documents or at least work with the mover of those motions. Mr Batchelor, you outlined that you are willing to have these conversations but sometimes the requests are too broad in their scope or the timelines are unreasonable. Well, show that courtesy to the movers of the other motions, have that discussion, tell them what would be reasonable to request. This includes another of our motions that has not been responded to regarding the Hydrogen Energy Supply Chain project.

We also welcome the government’s commitment to working with the chamber to create provisions in the sessional orders for a more fulsome explanation each time the government is unable to meet a documents request within the advised timeframe and providing an opportunity for the mover to at least have a discussion with the government about revision of scope and timelines should they wish. We are yet to see the details of that proposal, and I think it is important that everyone in this chamber has the opportunity to contribute to those changes in our sessional orders. Again, it is important to point out that although it was framed as the government very generously putting this out there, this would not have happened without the pressure that this motion has applied. It is not just a sudden willingness of the government to work on a way to resolve this; this was a direct result of the pressure of this motion.

Some might reasonably argue, and we heard it from Mr Davis, that the government should just produce the documents that have been requested, that we do not need a modification of sessional orders – that it should not be required – that they should just comply with the will of the Parliament and that the government have repeatedly shown that they will just ignore these documents requests when they come up. But they have also demonstrated that when their feet are held to the fire they will find a way to produce documents. We are pragmatic. We recognise that not all requests will be able to be met within the scope and timeline that has been proposed, but currently, short of threatening sanctions, we have not been able to find another way to get the government to explain their failures to produce documents. It is not a sustainable approach to continue to threaten to expel the Leader of the Government or government members in order to get documents provided.

It is tempting to continue to use this, to continue to use government business time to highlight this issue, but given the commitments that the government have made, we are willing to give them an opportunity to demonstrate that they are genuine. However, I would say that this should not be read as the end of this matter. Should the government continue to ignore the will of the Parliament, should they engage in bad faith when it comes to introducing these new sessional orders, should they choose to simply ignore the sessional orders, we will have no qualms about reigniting this matter, including looking at sanctions or other levers that we have as a Parliament. And we note that this government has flagrantly disregarded the standing orders with respect to executive privilege. We discussed this problem at length last sitting week. That was with respect to the executive privilege claims over a whole range of documents that were requested by the Commonwealth Games select committee.

The motion that was passed by this Parliament calling for those documents to be released will be a test for the government. Should the government continue to ignore the standing orders with respect to executive privilege or any new sessional orders that are introduced, we will also have to consider what further options we have. What we have seen here is an attitude and a cultural problem in Victoria that does not exist in other jurisdictions like New South Wales, as we have heard from Mr Davis. As I said last sitting week, we do not want to be getting into the habit of kicking out members of Parliament, but the levers we have at our disposal are relatively limited and pretty blunt. As I also mentioned last sitting week, integrity experts have grave concerns, really serious concerns, about how this government treats documents requests and its failure to follow standing orders with respect to claims of executive privilege. They have suggested some pretty serious steps we should consider taking in the event of ongoing failures to abide by the will of the Parliament, and many of those are much more significant than the ones that we are contemplating in this motion. We are quite willing to entertain those steps if necessary.

We have achieved an outcome today that is by no means perfect, but it is an outcome that would otherwise not have happened. For that we recognise the value of the motion that has been put. We welcome the outcome. We are grateful for the documents that are being produced. We are grateful for the willingness to work on an improvement in our process via sessional orders to ensure that maybe more documents can be produced. We hope that this commitment from the government is a genuine one and that we will see improvements, because if we do not, I can assure you we will be back here arguing about the same thing probably sooner rather than later. We would love not to be in this position, doing this thing again, and the ball is really now in the government’s court.

Georgie CROZIER (Southern Metropolitan) (14:01): I rise to speak to Mr Davis’s motion and to make a few comments in relation to the comments Mr Batchelor and Dr Mansfield have said, and then I will move an amendment to the motion. As has been outlined by Mr Davis not just today but on previous days around the importance of these documents, the number of these documents that have not been provided by government and the length of time in which they have failed to be provided to the house I think is of concern.

Dr Mansfield talked about discussions that the Greens have had with government. We are not privy to those, obviously, and we do not know what the changes to the sessional orders are, and I am not sure that the rest of the crossbench do – Mr Bourman is indicating no. I think it is not the proper process to be going around the likes of the rest of the crossbench or the opposition and talking about releasing this when we have not even seen it or moving sessional orders when we do not even know what the government is planning to do. With these selective discussions that are being had around that, I think it is disappointing that the remainder of the crossbench and the opposition are not aware of what is being proposed by government and those discussions that are being had with the Greens.

Mr Batchelor made comments around Mr Davis’s short-form documents motion – he was not correct. In actual fact that was not sprung on you; that was on the notice paper for two weeks, so to say that that was literally put upon the house and we had to vote was incorrect. I think when you are making these statements you actually have to be accurate around timing and indicating what was done, because Mr Davis followed the right process. He actually put it on the notice paper. It lay over for a few weeks, and we provided plenty of notice to the government and others around the short-form documents motion.

I want to just raise the issue around Albury Wodonga Health and what has been provided in New South Wales. In my absence Ms Lovell moved that documents from Albury Wodonga Health be provided to the house on 6 March, and we are still waiting. But we know that documents have been released from the New South Wales government in the Legislative Council to the members of the parties in that Parliament. That the New South Wales government can do it and this government cannot is exactly why we are in this position, debating this motion today and putting the pressure on the government to say, ‘You need to release these documents. They are there.’

We saw the issue around the Lay report. It had been with government for months and months and months – the last iteration for 12 months and previous iterations for God knows how long. But that report was first commissioned in 2020. These are the issues that I think the public have a right to see, and that is why they are important; that is why we have this process.

I will move to the amendment now. I move:

That all the words after ‘That’ be omitted and replaced with ‘this house:

(1) notes the failure of the Leader of the Government to comply with a number of resolutions of the Council requiring the Leader of the Government to table specified documents in the Legislative Council by particular dates, and further notes that orders for the following have not been complied with:

(a) Hydrogen Energy Supply Chain Project, on 22 March 2023;

(b) gas and electricity supplies, on 15 November 2023;

(c) redevelopment of high-rise public housing sites, on 15 November 2023;

(d) kangaroo harvest management plan, on 29 November 2023;

(e) Commonwealth infrastructure review, on 29 November 2023;

(f) Port of Hastings application for offshore wind turbine facilities, on 7 February 2024;

(g) Better Regulation Victoria’s review of Victoria’s approach to illicit tobacco regulation, on 7 February 2024;

(h) medically supervised injecting room in Melbourne’s CBD, on 21 February 2024, paragraph 2(b);

(i) Albury Wodonga Health, on 6 March 2024;

(2) affirms the privileges, immunities and powers conferred on the Council pursuant to section 19 of the Constitution Act 1975, and the power to make standing orders under section 43 of that act;

(3) affirms the right of the Council to require the production of documents;

(4) believes that the Leader of the Government’s failure to comply with the orders in paragraph (1) is unacceptable and disrespectful of the Legislative Council;

(5) requires the Leader of the Government to table in the Council by 12 noon on 18 June 2024 the documents ordered by the Council in the motions identified in paragraphs (1)(a) to (i); and

(6) permits that if the Leader of the Government has not complied with standing orders 10.01 in relation to all the documents listed in paragraph (1) within the timeframe specified in paragraph (5), the Council will, at the conclusion of formal business on Tuesday 18 June 2024 – or if formal business does not occur that day, at the conclusion of formal business on the next sitting day – give precedence for a non-government member to move, without leave, “That this house notes the failure of the government to comply with standing orders and produce documents for various outstanding production of documents orders.”.’

I urge members of the house to support this motion. As has been noted, this motion in the first instance has put pressure on the government, and they have released some documents, the Lay report being one. There are some in other areas that they say they are going to release, but that does not go to the heart of what the house has moved previously, and it is important that the government complies with the will of the house. Therefore I would urge all members to support the amendment to the motion.

Michael GALEA (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (14:07): I think I have seen this film before. I cannot say I did not like the ending because I have not seen the ending, because this is the third time now that we have debated –

Harriet Shing: Good pop culture reference.

Michael GALEA: Thank you, Minister Shing. This is the third time now that we have debated this –

Harriet Shing interjected.

Michael GALEA: Indeed. You nailed it – got it in one. But this is a serious motion. Whilst I rise with a foreboding sense of deja vu in this place today to discuss something that has been discussed in both the previous sitting week and the one before that, I note that we have yet another amendment from Ms Crozier, which would again seek to extend and extend and extend. We have spoken about standing orders; at this point I feel like the opposition will be seeking to have a weekly slot in the standing orders for suspending the Leader of the Government.

I just want to address some of the key points Mr Batchelor has already gone through. I do want to assure the house – and I appreciated Dr Mansfield’s contribution as well – that this is absolutely something that has been done in genuine good faith. The government has already, as I understand it, started that process but is committed to working with the chamber to come to a solution on making a change to these standing orders that makes the compulsion of documents in the sessional orders more effective – that is, more effective both in terms of what the house can secure from the government but also more effective in what is reasonable and realistic.

Like Mr Batchelor, in the spirit of not risking tedious repetition, I will not go into all the things that I outlined in my speech last week, but the example of housing is a good one. You have a motion that is quite broad and could be taken to include 200,000 documents, which is estimated to include up to $2 million in legal fees. That is something that is obviously not going to be achievable within a two-week timeframe. Touching on Mr Batchelor’s points, that is exactly why these sorts of discussions should as a matter of course be done through considered debate – not rushed in – and indeed through the Procedure Committee. I note in response to Ms Crozier saying that it was put on the notice paper: well, that may be true, but it certainly was not put through to the Procedure Committee, which is obviously the normal forum for those sorts of things. If it is not to be used in this scenario, if not for this, the question that I would ask is: then what would you have a Procedure Committee for?

I would also like to emphasise the point that the government will be releasing the documents that we said we would and that where that commitment has been made, that will be adhered to and kept by the government. I would also like to note that the government has very much appreciated the constructive feedback it has received already from the crossbench in particular. The purpose of a future amendment to the sessional orders is to ensure that any of the outstanding documents motions of interest to this chamber, which have been discussed ad nauseam both this week and in previous weeks, will be dealt with as soon as possible once their scope has been revised. This includes, for example, the housing towers motion and the kangaroo harvesting documents as well as others, and indeed this will be applicable to all future documents motions as well.

Ariana Grande or Taylor Swift aside, this is a serious discussion, and it is one that government has taken very seriously as well. As I outlined in my contribution 14 days ago now, when we last spoke on this, it is an important function of a chamber of Parliament – any chamber of any parliament – to be able to, as it requires, request documents from the government and for it to be supplied with those documents, barring extreme extenuating circumstances. But I will reiterate again that the proposal that has been put forward by the Liberal Party in today’s motion is extreme. You can delay it as much as you want – and frankly that shows a great deal of disrespect, I think, to your own motion – and you can try to twist it as much as you want, but it is at the end of the day a very extreme measure to be looking at the prospect of suspending any member of this place. Indeed, as I referred to last sitting week, that member in this place is the only government representative for the Northern Victoria Region. She is the only government representative for the seats of Eildon, of Euroa, of Shepparton, of Ovens Valley, of Benambra, of Murray Plains and of Mildura. Indeed, as I said, that is 132,000 primary votes for Minister Symes that would not be listened to and would not have their voices heard in this place. So whilst I understand and I hear the frustrations of Dr Mansfield, I really do wish to assure the house that this is a genuine act of good faith and that we do want to get the sessional orders into a space where these documents motions can be as effective but also as reasonable as possible, so that we can get the functions of this place working as smoothly as possible.

Again I would say in reference to Ms Crozier’s remarks about the Procedure Committee: that is something that really should have been looked at if you were going to bring this short-form documents motion in in the first place. We have seen – and we have had genuine examples of this – that of the three 90-minute blocks that members in this place have for general business on a Wednesday, we do have a recurring issue where the final one of those three blocks does get cut short by statements on reports. While I am sure that was not intended by Mr Davis, that is the sort of thing that is worth taking the time to work through with colleagues across the chamber, whether it is through the Procedure Committee or in more direct conversations. That is the reason why you do these things in a more considered way, so that the recipient of the third spot on any given Wednesday of general business does not get unfairly penalised or unintentionally penalised by that short-form documents motion amending the sessional orders that was put forward by Mr Davis.

I just want to note again that we appreciate the constructive feedback that we have already had – the government is continuing and will continue to engage in those conversations – and from the crossbench in particular; I thank them as well. I also note that the purpose of a future amendment to the sessional orders that the government is seeking to introduce into this place will be based on the conversations had with members from the crossbench in particular but also with members across the chamber and on the feedback of all members. Again, I do note that the documents which have been the source of much discussion, including but certainly not limited to those pertaining to housing towers and to kangaroo harvesting, will be provided by the government as part of that demonstration of good faith. I just want to reiterate that point as well.

I am very heartened to see that progress does appear to have been made and that we can avoid the situation of having this debate come up for a fourth time. If it does, I will have to find some more interesting things to say without repeating myself. Hopefully, I will do a much better job than I am doing this week. But suffice to say, whilst I am happy for us to be spending the time today, we may even have a later finish than we thought and my colleagues in this place Mrs McArthur and Mr Puglielli and I, who will be sitting in for a good session of the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee later this week, may not personally be so thrilled about a late night tonight.

Bev McArthur: I cannot wait.

Michael GALEA: I cannot wait either, Mrs McArthur; we are going to have a good time. It is another important part of the accountability process that we will have in just a few days – in two days time – just upstairs here in the Legislative Council committee room. But for today, this is a serious motion, and whilst we have a lot of important legislation to be putting through and discussing in this place, I am happy to spend my time here today outlining those points and outlining those assurances to the house as well.

David ETTERSHANK (Western Metropolitan) (14:17): Firstly, my apologies for the mix-up in the speaking order there. I did not want to interrupt Mr Galea’s repetition or some of the valuable new information that he was providing to the chamber.

Can I first of all make the point in reply to Mr Batchelor that we are not actually here to simply score points or to waste time, nor are we here to be lectured to by the government. The issue at question here, the issue at the heart of this matter, is the responsibility of the government to release documents that have been resolved by this chamber as needing to be exposed to the public light. We hear these really amazing statements – ‘It is going to cost millions of dollars and take hundreds of years to produce the documents’ – as though we were contemplating a journey to Mars rather than a bit of photocopying.

Having said that, I guess I would just like to indicate that Legalise Cannabis Victoria is very happy to have today received some undertakings from the government that strike to the release of a series of documents, including those pertaining to the public housing towers that have been mooted for demolition against the face of apparent common sense; a motion relating to kangaroos that was raised by Ms Purcell; and thirdly, documents relating to the medically supervised injecting room that are still subject potentially to government claims of privilege. I would also indicate that we are in the process of discussing with government a procedure for shaping future documents motions. There remains a significant backlog of documents, as Ms Crozier and Mr Davis alluded to, that is yet to be addressed, and that remains an issue. But I think it is appropriate that, apart from dealing with the backlog, we also have an eye looking forward to prospective documents motions. As Nietzsche perhaps said, those who do not learn from history are destined to repeat it; so hopefully we can learn from our experiences to date on documents, jointly with the government and the opposition, and try and develop some processes so that we do not continue to repeat this process.

In terms of Ms Crozier’s amendment, I was taught, coming up in the trade union movement, that threats repeated ad nauseam tend to have a diminishing marginal return. If you are going to punch someone in the face, do not keep on telling them you are going to punch them in the face – just punch them in the face. I need to be careful here, President. I am very mindful that you have warned me previously about fruity language, so if I may paraphrase the fruity language that is in my mind, there is an expression that if one wishes to urinate, one should do so or perhaps vacate the lavatory, and this is such a case in hand – do it or get out. I think in terms of the resolution that has been proposed, it is just a threat repeated and repeated. If it is not followed through, it means nothing, and we should move forward. Accordingly, we will not be supporting the amended motion.

Given the government’s response, what we would like to say is that the proof will be in the pudding –I seem to be dropping a lot of metaphors here at the moment. Anyway, we will be keen to see what the government delivers. There are multiple documents that should be the subject of release over coming weeks. There will be discussions about how we improve these processes in the future, and accordingly we will reflect that in our voting today. That said, we would be more than happy to return to this motion should the government fail to deliver in the spirit that has been discussed.

Council divided on amendment:

Ayes (16): Melina Bath, Jeff Bourman, Gaelle Broad, Georgie Crozier, David Davis, Moira Deeming, Renee Heath, David Limbrick, Wendy Lovell, Trung Luu, Bev McArthur, Joe McCracken, Nick McGowan, Evan Mulholland, Adem Somyurek, Richard Welch

Noes (21): Ryan Batchelor, John Berger, Lizzie Blandthorn, Katherine Copsey, Jacinta Ermacora, David Ettershank, Michael Galea, Shaun Leane, 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 negatived.