Wednesday, 19 February 2025

Motions

Sessional orders

David DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan) (10:23): I move:

That until the end of the session, unless otherwise ordered by the Council, sessional order 2 is revoked and replaced with the following sessional order to come into operation on the next sitting week:

2. Order of business – Wednesday

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)

Private member bills – moving second readings of bills for which precedence has been ordered

Short form documents motions (up to 2 motions)

General business

At 12.00 noon Questions

General business (continues)

At 5.15 pm, or after 300 minutes of general business has elapsed (whichever is later) Statements on tabled papers and petitions (30 minutes)

Petitions (qualifying for debate) (30 minutes)

Government business (maximum 60 minutes)

Adjournment (up to 20 members).

This makes a modest change to the order of non-government business – general business. It does it –

Members interjecting.

David DAVIS: President, I am just trying to make a sensible –

Members interjecting.

David DAVIS: And what it does is ensure that –

Members interjecting.

The PRESIDENT: Order! Mr Davis, without assistance, please.

David DAVIS: What this does is make a modest change to non-government business – to general business – and indeed allow a clarity that non-government MPs who wish to move –

Members interjecting.

David DAVIS: President, we might want to just stop the incessant interjections over here. What it will ensure is that there is an opportunity for non-government members to move a second reading; it will ensure that there is an opportunity for up to two – so it will cap the number of documents motions in the short form; and then it will enable the three 90-minute slots to operate and allow up to 10 minutes in the 300 minutes for the opportunity occasionally for divisions and so forth – that is additional time.

What we know has happened a few times is that government members have kicked up a bit and decided to try and filibuster and run out the day in an unconstructive way and to do that with the explicit aim of running the third 90-minute slot out at 5:15. What we want to do is make it clear that the three 90-minute motions will operate and that the three who are rostered on from the non-government parties will have the opportunity to run their motions.

Members interjecting.

David DAVIS: President, there is an incessant series of interjections.

The PRESIDENT: There is a bit of incessant interjecting. I think it is Mr Galea who can rein it in, and Mr Batchelor has got a booming voice. Can we please rein it in. Mr Davis, without assistance.

David DAVIS: There are a number of changes that we could make to sessional orders, for both non-government days and more broadly. We are happy to discuss those at the Procedure Committee, and I am going to suggest that we –

Members interjecting.

The PRESIDENT: Mr Galea, I am not going to kick you out, because you are going to take the chair now, otherwise you would be hitting the showers. Over to you.

David DAVIS: I am trying to be thoughtful here and to make it clear that what we seek to do today is to make this change to sessional orders so that the ability is there for the three 90-minute slots to operate without interference. It is clear that 5:15 is the objective, and we can work our way through that. President, just before you leave I might just say that I would be asking that you perhaps convene a meeting of the Procedure Committee to look at a number of matters. I think there a number of matters that we could look at at the Procedure Committee. The Leader of the Government has raised adjournments as a matter, and I am happy to have that discussion. I am yet to meet a non-government member who is in favour of cutting the time on adjournments, but we are happy to have that discussion. Equally, we have a number of issues with the way the government is handling documents and the return of documents, and we would want to discuss that at the Procedure Committee.

What I am suggesting is that we pass this motion today and that there can be further discussions on these matters and other matters at Procedure Committee. We are quite open to those discussions. Either the President can convene that himself or, if necessary, I would be happy to move by leave a very short motion that the President convene a meeting of the Procedure Committee. I am just trying to be thoughtful here. I indicate that this is an important motion to ensure that non-government MPs are able to move the motions that they seek to move and to get their proper time allowance. What I am concerned about is that for interruptions – there have been examples of where it was the government in fact, but for whatever interruptions that could occur – we have an arrangement where the three slots in particular are secured and able to be delivered. That is what this motion seeks to do. The 300 minutes is comprised of two parts: three times 90 is 270, plus 10 minutes if there was a vote on each of those motions. Often there is not a vote, as people in this chamber would know, so the 300 minutes is generous. But having said that, the aim – and I make this commitment here – is that 5:15 is the objective, and I think through cooperation across the chamber by both non-government members and government members we can easily get to the 5:15 time as a routine arrangement. This does not impact government business in a negative way. It moves all of the matters after general business a little later if it went over the 5:15 time, and that would be a reasonable outcome to ensure that the 90-minute slots are preserved.

So if the government is happy to work with this, we are happy to work with them on this. The crossbench as a group I think have a strong view –

Members interjecting.

David DAVIS: Well, I have just laid out some mechanisms so that we can talk about these matters but broader matters as well. I have nominated one that the Leader of the Government has herself nominated and indeed has a motion on, which has been sitting on the notice paper. I have nominated one area that I would like to discuss as well.

Lee Tarlamis interjected.

David DAVIS: This is on the notice paper. We are offering a sensible way forward here, a way that will guarantee that non-government business is preserved in a reasonable way and we can go forward with a very clear and strong outcome.

Sarah MANSFIELD (Western Victoria) (10:32): I will keep my contribution fairly brief. We will be supporting this motion today, and I thank Mr Davis for putting it forward. I think all of us on a Wednesday have at some point experienced the problem of potentially running out of time. It is a situation that arises and we often have no control over how that has come about; we just happened to have drawn the short straw and have the third spot of the day. We would like to get to a vote; we realise the clock is going to run down. Sometimes we have been able to get the cooperation of the house to get people to agree to pull speakers and limit what they say on different things so we can get to a vote, but sometimes that has not suited the politics. That is fine, but it has meant that if you happen to have the third spot you cannot get to a vote on something. This is something we have tried different ways of working through amongst the crossbench and the opposition, and we still find that on a Wednesday time mysteriously often blows out through various interruptions through the day.

I think this is a good outcome. It does not impact government business days. Putting aside that this was something that we ran up against last week, it has occurred on a number of different occasions and I am hoping that the effect of this is that it will actually impose a bit of discipline. As Mr Davis said, we all want to get out of here too; 5:15 is still the aim, but what it allows for is each 90-minute slot to be completed and divisions to occur if they need to occur. If we get through all of that in time, then 5:15 still stays as the deadline. What we found in most of our experiences is that we run out of time by 5 or 6 minutes at most. It is rarely much more than that. This really just builds that bit of a buffer in so that we can ensure that everyone gets their fair allocation.

It is particularly an issue for crossbenchers, who do not have many slots through the year to put something forward in this chamber. We do not get that many opportunities. Some of the crossbenchers might only get two spots a year, and if they are faced with having the third spot of the day, they run out of time. I think it is only fair that they should be able to get to a vote even if what they are putting forward is something where it would be much more desirable in a political sense not to get to a vote on it. It has suited us on some occasions for something not to have gone to a vote, but it is not how this place should work.

I agree with Mr Davis that this is something that the Procedure Committee can and should look at. We can implement it and see how it is working for the chamber. I am very happy to provide a commitment that if there is an issue with that and the committee comes back with a recommendation to make some sort of further change or adjustment because we have found that it is not working for whatever reason, then we will consider that as well as other changes to our sessional orders that they might be wishing to put forward. I will note that that is a committee, like many of the committees in this place, that is government controlled and there is no representation from anyone on the crossbench on that committee, so it is just something that I point out. I would implore the members of that committee to at least engage with the crossbench in formulating any recommendations to this place, because I feel that we do have a legitimate place here. Wednesday is the day when we get to make our contributions to this Parliament. The functioning of this chamber impacts us as well, and it would be welcome if our views could be taken into consideration. I think I will leave it at that. I was hopeful we would land in a place where the whole chamber could agree on a way forward there. It appears that that is not going to be the case; I may yet be surprised. But as it stands, we will be supporting the motion that is before us that Mr Davis has put forward.

Sonja TERPSTRA (North-Eastern Metropolitan) (10:36): I rise to make a contribution on this motion standing in Mr Davis’s name, which is effectively to make a change to the sessional orders. I have had the benefit of listening to Mr Davis’s contribution and also to Dr Mansfield’s contribution. Not once throughout the contributions did I hear either Mr Davis or Dr Mansfield make mention of the implications that this will have on Parliament House staff. Whilst Mr Davis tried to downplay the extension of time that will necessarily happen as a consequence of this change, what they have failed to take into account is that Wednesday does not have a dinner break. We have no dinner break programmed into the order of proceedings on a Wednesday, so that has an impact on staff. What might seem like a simple change would actually add at least an hour and 50 minutes when we do not use our government business slot or 2 hours and 50 minutes when we do, so that is adding an additional 2 or 3 hours to the day. Again, there is no consideration of what that might mean to the staff. Mr Davis, you want to have WorkSafe Victoria turn up here again – we have had this in the past when we have done ridiculous all-nighters and the poor staff had to be here for hours and hours on end without a break – because again you do not care about workers, you only care about wanting to grandstand. I note Mr Davis admitted in his contribution – that the opposition are doing this because they are unhappy with the way that government is responding to documents motions, so there really is a fake premise.

David Davis: No, that’s actually not what I said.

Sonja TERPSTRA: That is what you said, and I am happy to go to the Hansard, Mr Davis, because I listened very carefully to what you said. You said that you are not happy with the way the government is responding to documents motions and that is the real intent of this: ‘Let’s punish the government. Let’s silence the government.’ Again, a very important convention, which I have heard mentioned many times not only in this chamber but also on committees, is that you should not spring things on either party – the government or the opposition or whoever is in the chamber – and you have failed to honour that convention. You would not talk to the government. You have sprung this on us at the last minute. There has been no proper opportunity to discuss all of the implications and one of the very important ones, which I have just pointed out. Had you agreed to refer it to the Procedure Committee in the first place, we would have been able to go through this in a lot more detail.

I was just talking to my colleague Mr Batchelor here, and I note that there are no Greens members on the Procedure Committee. I just heard Dr Mansfield talk about how they were concerned about how they manage their time, but if they were actually concerned about this, they might show up and want to be on the Procedure Committee. I am a member of the Procedure Committee, and there has been no referral of any of these sorts of procedures to the Procedure Committee, which is the appropriate place for it to be dealt with. I might just respond to the contention, the concern that Dr Mansfield raised, with the Greens saying sometimes they do not have enough speakers on something and they run out of time. This was the case with the motion that was moved last sitting week in regard to abortion. That was a stunt just to wedge the government, so again, if they really cared about this what they could have actually done is manage their speaking time within the allocated time and we could have had a vote. But they chose not to, so that is a matter for them. But putting it onto the government to say, ‘We want to gag the government and make this a problem for the government,’ just speaks to the fact that you are really about punishing government. You are ignoring convention, ignoring proper process and wanting to gag the government.

Again, it is about the unintended consequences, and I want it to be taken note of that I am standing here today calling this out because the unintended consequences are very clear. You have given no consideration to the staff. You have not referred this to the Procedure Committee. You have taken no steps of your own volition to manage your speaking time within the slots that you have been allocated, but you want to plunge this chamber into chaos and more late-night sittings. You have failed to consult the government on this approach. We provided a sensible and reasonable alternative, which was ‘Let’s refer this to the Procedure Committee first.’ Mr Davis in his contribution, which I listened to very, very closely, said, ‘We’re happy to work with government, but only after we’ve got this motion moved through the chamber’ – because you want to punish us. You want to punish us. There has been no opportunity to talk about this.

What we know on this side of the chamber as well is that crossbenchers like to use their adjournments and other things they move in this house as great social media opportunities, where they spread disinformation, they put it online and we do not have the opportunity to respond to it. Dr Mansfield said, ‘We have no opportunities to talk about things.’ Well, there are constituency questions. There are adjournments. You have the opportunity to move motions. There is plenty of opportunity for you to do those things. Every day you get an opportunity to do those things. So, again, we predict that there will be unintended consequences with this approach, and I have called a couple of them out now. I call out the lack of willingness on the part of Mr Davis and those opposite to recognise and take account of long-standing convention, which is to not spring something on the government or any party in this chamber by surprise. It does not matter about convention. He has no interest in honouring those conventions. It is very disappointing from you, Mr Davis, because you have been here for a long time.

Ryan Batchelor: A long time.

Sonja TERPSTRA: A very long time. And you should know better. But, again, this is all designed to gag the government. The proper way to handle this is to go to the Procedure Committee first, but there has been no attempt to have this put to the Procedure Committee, which is the proper way to handle it. It is a significant change to this sitting day. As I said, there is no dinner break. Why didn’t you propose that there be a dinner break, Mr Davis? Because you have not considered it. You have stuffed it up. Perhaps if this had been referred to the Procedure Committee we could have talked about that. That is the proper way to handle significant changes – and it is a significant change – to a sitting day. If the government proposed a major change to Tuesdays and Thursdays and sought to ram it through this chamber, the chamber would be, rightfully, outraged. But you have got the crossbench who want to support you, because you have probably done a deal with the crossbenchers on this as well. This is all about how you can maximise and get the most leverage out of something like this.

You have failed to consider the staff. Shame on you and shame on the crossbench too. I look forward to the union getting involved in this, and I hope they do. I hope we have WorkCover inspectors turning up, because the fact is you are plunging these people into a situation where they are not going to get a break, so well done. Again, this is a failure to consider all of the ramifications. Had we had a discussion in the Procedure Committee, we could have pointed this out. When this goes through I am going to take note of all the times that we sit late on a Wednesday and the fact that we have no dinner break and who is here in the chamber. I hope that the union takes note of it too – perhaps I might even let the union know that information – because we need to make sure that workers rights are protected. But you have no interest in that – you have no interest in that at all – and neither do the crossbench. Shame on the crossbench and shame on the opposition for doing this. It is very disappointing indeed. The government proposed a sensible alternative – to have this discussed in the Procedure Committee – but, again, it was rejected.

Just a comment on documents motions generally: our government consistently upholds its obligation to the Parliament to provide responses to motions whenever they are passed. We do not oppose documents motions really ever, and we consistently provide documents. The thing that you do not like is that they are not provided in the manner you see fit. You are moving so many documents motions that all our departments are consistently bogged down with these requests for information, but you think it is not fast enough. The problem is that you are creating a ridiculous workload for our hardworking public servants for them to be able to comply with these motions, but you are not interested in that. You are not interested in the mechanics of it.

It is an accepted principle that in some circumstances a government may withhold documents when disclosure would be contrary to the public interest. The basis for withholding documents is called executive privilege. The government receives legal advice, including from the Victorian Government Solicitor’s Office, to inform its decisions to claim executive privilege. It is not something we just make up. We do that based on advice. Based on that advice either we will claim privilege or we will not, but we generally provide documents. That is why we do not oppose documents motions. Matters that the government considers include whether documents would reveal directly or indirectly the deliberative processes of cabinet, would reveal high-level confidential deliberative processes of executive government or would otherwise generally jeopardise the necessary relationship of trust and confidence. I could go on about that. Nevertheless, those opposite do not want to hear it. Again, I will point out that there are two opposition members sitting on the benches on their day. This is opposition business day, and there are two members of their whole bench here. Wow. That speaks volumes about the seriousness with which they consider this.

Harriet Shing interjected.

Sonja TERPSTRA: They do not even want to make a quorum. We could have a lot of fun with that. We normally would support documents motions, but again – here we are, we have got another Liberal member here in the chamber – the government will be opposing this motion for all the reasons that I just mentioned.

Evan MULHOLLAND (Northern Metropolitan) (10:46): Acting President Galea, I always notice the jeers across the chamber are a lot quieter when you are in the chair, so it is good to be able to speak. I thank Mr Davis for putting forward this motion that specifically deals with non-government business day. All of a sudden we have got the government very interested in non-government business day, it being for the opposition and the crossbench to air grievances, seek documents, form debates, introduce bills, present petitions and debate petitions. We have seen it evolve over time. Mr Limbrick was quite instrumental in introducing our petition debates in this chamber and has been a key part of that. Sessional orders are not meant to be a static piece. They evolve over time, and one of the issues that we have had for a long time, and I know the crossbench has had for a long time, is the interference with non-government business day running up to the last 90-minute slot to prevent a vote and truncate our time on our day in order to not get to a vote. These have been very well crafted by all of the crossbench, actually, in consultation –

A member: Are you going to spread the blame around for when they –

Evan MULHOLLAND: No – and there may have been a number of other options, but what we do on this side of the chamber is consult with our colleagues, particularly our crossbench colleagues, in regard to sessional orders. We are open to a mature discussion about sessional orders. I understand Ms Symes has a change on the notice paper to try to limit the amount of time we can have for adjournment debates in this chamber. I am not sure that we could agree to that, but we are happy to have the discussion, and we are happy to have a discussion about what broader changes are needed that we could negotiate broad support for to make this Parliament work best for everyone.

What Mr Davis has proposed is a simple change – at 5:15 pm or after 300 minutes of general business has elapsed, whichever is later – in order to get the full three 90-minute debating slots, in order to fit the docs motions in and in order to fit in everything that we need to do, including notices of motion, members statements, question time, constituency questions and petition debates, on a Wednesday to make this Parliament and to make this chamber work for everyone. As I have stated, many in the non-government parties feel that the non-government business day is interfered with in order to not get to a vote on the motion of certain members on our third motion. It has happened to us, but it has also happened to many of my crossbench colleagues – Mr Limbrick and the Greens as well – where we have not been able to get to a vote. The government has filled out their speaking list on numerous occasions.

Lee Tarlamis: When? When did it happen?

Evan MULHOLLAND: On numerous occasions.

Lee Tarlamis: When? Name them.

Evan MULHOLLAND: One was just last week. One happened to Mr Limbrick. It has happened to us before. So it is important on a non-government day – and we have facilitated on government days, even – taking people off speaking lists and negotiating with the government to finish at appropriate times and things like that. All we want is to be treated reasonably. It is not a huge change to the standing orders. The way that the government members are carrying on it is like it is some massive, enormous change to the standing orders. It is a minuscule change to the standing orders which I am not quite sure why the government is so upset about. It is dumbfounding to me that they would be so upset with such a small change. If we had come in here and brought wideranging changes to sessional orders on non-government and government days, then sure, you would have every right to be upset. Something like that would definitely need to be discussed at the Procedure Committee, and we are very open to having future discussions at the Procedure Committee, but motions like this, which are very narrow, pertain to non-government business and have the support of the non-government members of this chamber, I do not think require that amount of time to be taken up by the Procedure Committee.

I think there is an important democratic principle here. It is not just the government that is elected to this Parliament. The people of Victoria, rightly or wrongly, have chosen that every single person in this Parliament be here – they have – including the minor parties and including non-government members. The people of Victoria have chosen this Parliament. Therefore those parties that they elect or the individuals that they elect should have the opportunity to be heard. That is the democratic principle at stake here, and when we deny members votes on particular issues and try to deny them the opportunity to get to a vote, that is a problem, because they have earned that spot to have a debate, to have a vote on a particular issue and to have the right to have that vote unencumbered by government interference.

I will leave it at that. This is an important democratic principle. The change is to non-government business days, and once again it is a very narrow change. I am shocked and surprised. The last time we changed sessional orders we had a whole bunch of members on the other side of the chamber with their talking points, reading about the wrong change to the sessional orders, so thankfully they have at least got this one right. That was one of the funniest days I have had in this Parliament, watching speaker after speaker read the same points on the wrong motion. They seem to have gotten a bit more cluey, I think. At least they are on the right track. Again, this is a very narrow motion about non-government business days and I think it is worthy of the support of the entire chamber.

David LIMBRICK (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (10:54): I also rise to speak on this motion, which seeks a change to the sessional orders in order to fix a problem. The problem that we have is that we have a fixed time when we go to statements on reports, and yet the amount of time that can be taken up before that is variable. Occasionally what happens is that we run out of time and the person who is unfortunate to have the last general business slot of the day gets cut short. Mr Mulholland referred to me, and I had one of my slots cut short due to this occurrence. I will note, though, that the Government Whip did facilitate a vote, so it did get to a vote. Nevertheless, there were potentially members – it could have been members of the government – that may have wanted to speak on that motion that were not able to, because of this problem.

The solution proposed is to, instead of having statements and reports start at a fixed time, have a variable time. I do take note of Ms Terpstra’s comments about Parliament running too late, and I do actually sympathise with that. We should not be placing undue demands on Parliament staff. That is why I had discussions with the government, and I note that Ms Symes has a motion on the notice paper to reduce the length of adjournment matters from 3 minutes to 2 minutes. I would happily support that. I think that is fine. I think that we should be able to get our requests out in 2 minutes, and I also note that the option is still available to email them if you have something rather more lengthy that you might want to quote from. I would actually support that, and I am also very open to discussions about changing times on other things to manage this better. Nonetheless, this is a solution proposed to a problem. The government said that this might have other unintended consequences. In order to look at that, I am also quite open to and happy with having the Procedure Committee look at this and see if there are problems and come back to the chamber. I think that that would be a sensible thing to do.

There are many other issues that we have discussed around the sessional orders and how they operate. I thank the government for ongoing discussions about documents motions, for example, and how we might better manage that. The feedback that I have had from the government is that the scope of documents motions is not variable. The government does not have the option of varying scope. Building in a process to allow negotiation by consent with the mover of the motion to narrow the scope of documents motions I think is a very sensible thing, and I am very happy to work with government on fixing the sessional orders to allow that to happen. I think that one of the existing unintended consequences of documents motions is that because many movers of motions do not get anything back they probably do not target their request as well as they might otherwise if they did expect that the government might give them something. They sort of think, ‘Well, the government’s not going to give me anything anyway. I might as well cast a wide net.’ I am guilty of that sort of thinking. If I thought it far more likely that the government would give me a response, I would probably pay a lot more attention to exactly what I was asking and try to make sure I was not asking for things that are onerous for departments to provide.

Nonetheless, I think that this is not a huge change. Like I said, I am happy to work with the government, the crossbench and the opposition to try and manage it so that this is not even necessary when it comes up, but I am also happy for the Procedure Committee to look at this. I do think that especially for crossbenchers from minor parties, when you only have two general business slots per year of 90 minutes each and they get cut because you unfortunately end up with the last slot of the day, it is a bit rough. I did not complain about it when it happened to me at the time, because basically I just wanted to get it to a vote, but maybe there were people that wanted to speak on a motion that did not get an opportunity to, because of the current standing orders. With that in mind, I will be supporting what is being proposed by the opposition here. That said, I want it on the record that I am very open to looking at ways to make the day more efficient, to manage the workload of Parliament staff and also to make some of the other sessional orders more efficient. It is unfortunate that we could not come up with a solution that everyone agreed on this time, but certainly I am open to that and I would support Minister Syme’s suggestion to shorten adjournments to 2 minutes.

Harriet SHING (Eastern Victoria – Minister for the Suburban Rail Loop, Minister for Housing and Building, Minister for Development Victoria and Precincts) (10:59): Well, what a wideranging opportunity we have had today to talk to the discussions that people bring on a Wednesday which are of significant and often very personal relevance to people who stand up to make contributions only to find that the time is not sufficient for them to do so. It seems that on the one hand we are prepared to countenance motions during the rest of the week and contributions during the rest of the week that go to the same sort of subject matter, but on a Wednesday debate and discussion is not able to continue in a way that is sufficiently fulsome to ensure that the very issues that bring us here are able to be ventilated and we are able to do the work that we are here to do. I want to make reference to a particular example of that. Last sitting week we had a motion on reproductive rights and bodily autonomy. I was, I think, only a couple of minutes into my contribution hearing incessant interjections from people about allegations of filibustering and of wasting time. To my mind this speaks to the very nature and the very rationale and the motivation that sits under this particular motion here today, because to have calls coming from around the chamber that I ought not be in position to make a contribution on bodily autonomy, on reproductive rights or on being able to access abortion and termination services, is something that says issues should be canvassed and dealt with extensively except for when it is not convenient to the business of the chamber.

In rising to oppose the motion today put by Mr Davis, I want to put on the record just how unfortunate and, frankly, really disappointing it was to receive notice of a motion seeking to amend the sessional orders with one day’s notice. This is something which the opposition constantly take issue with, and yet when they propose the same sort of timeframes all of a sudden it is acceptable in the interest of expediency for this chamber. No consultation was taken on the proposal that is being put forward today, and Mr Davis, back in the Leader of the Opposition’s office in this place once more, should know that the proper way to bring forward a proposal like this is via the Procedure Committee. Mr Davis, this is not your first rodeo. That is perhaps something that others may despair about, but we are where we are. It is a committee that the Leader of the Government in this place, Minister Symes, and you, Mr Davis, as Leader of the Opposition, are members of.

The purpose of the committee, just for avoidance of any doubt in the course of this conversation, is as follows:

The Committee considers any matter regarding the practices and procedures of the Legislative Council and makes recommendations for change.

Let us just go through some data, because data is important for the purpose of this conversation. The Procedure Committee met in the last Parliament at least 16 times. In this Parliament the committee has only met four times and it has not produced a report. I note also that the Leader of the Greens in this place is not a member of the Procedure Committee. Is that correct? Yes, it is. To that end, these are mechanisms which exist for the very purpose of addressing the issues that we are here today discussing. Mr Davis has come here and in fact today talked about the importance of the Procedure Committee in being able to address these very issues. Mr Davis talked in his contribution about the importance of enabling the Procedure Committee to deal with matters just like this. But having a bet each way, which appears to be Mr Davis’s political form throughout his 960-year parliamentary career, he has indeed refused to acknowledge that the Procedure Committee ought properly be given an opportunity to do the work of this motion.

If you were to browse, Mr Davis, the reports of the committee produced in the previous Parliament, you would actually find a report from 2022 reviewing the standing orders and their operation. That was about following proper process. To that end I note, and this was a contribution made by Mr Limbrick identifying a motion that has been on the notice paper for a significant period of time around the duration of adjournments, having been here in the chamber for up to 20 adjournments – actually it is usually between 17 and 20 adjournment matters each evening – that members, including members of the crossbench, frequently make their contribution for the purpose of a reel or a quick shout-out on social media and then disappear. They are not there for the answers that they seek even where the minister on duty has carriage for the portfolios upon which they are seeking an action.

I would say to that, ‘Let’s use parliamentary time in a way that serves the purpose for which it was developed in the first place.’ That is the purpose by which adjournments can be put and tabled in writing. That is the purpose by which adjournments can be put in the chamber and answers can be sought where the relevant minister is on duty. I can count now on, I suspect, not even two hands the number of times that members in this place have put adjournments and not then just disappeared. If you were actually serious about using parliamentary process for the purpose for which it was intended, you would at the very least stick around. What an indictment on those opposite – to have taken cheap deals to push through changes themselves, to the detriment of the Parliament.

There are ongoing issues relating to the third general business slot not always getting to a vote. We are not opposed in principle to the motion brought by Mr Davis here today, seeking to amend a sessional order to enable that third slot to receive a vote if required. Again, I want to speak to that third slot, being something that I was in the middle of making a contribution on – bodily autonomy, the right to termination and abortion in Victoria. I did not get to complete my speech, and indeed I was accused of filibustering on that particular issue, an issue which was pressed as being so important that it warrants inclusion in the constitution and yet this place did not enable a contribution to be made at the same time that a vote was being pressed, thereby seeking to have my contribution cut short. I am concerned that the proposed fix has been rushed, particularly when we look at Mr Davis’s own contribution, with reports of numerous iterations floating around the opposition and the crossbench inboxes – notwithstanding the fact that it was given a period of 24 hours before it was put to government, Mr Davis. There has been no ability to examine potential ramifications of the changes proposed, and that is really relevant given arguably we have arrived at this issue today after previous changes were rushed through. So it is either rushing or it is taking our time – it is doing work without cutting corners or it is doing work for the sake of political expediency and a quick stunt.

We have concerns around the consequences of the change, particularly if it leads to an extension of the sitting day, which it will, and how this will impact parliamentary staff – the clerks, the table officers, chamber support staff: no dinner suspension on Wednesdays. Again, this is not for the purpose of us sitting around a table in an antiquated fashion enjoying a buffet. This is actually about staff being able to have a break. This is about making sure that the business of this chamber and the business of this Parliament as a workplace appropriately balances the rights and the entitlements of people who work here. This is about making sure that when and as we move into committee work – and we note the requirement for the chamber to continue until such time as committees have the opportunity to sit and to hear evidence in hearings. Anybody in this place who is part of a committee, with one of the many, many inquiries that are being undertaken at this point in time, will know the impost and the workload associated with heading directly from a day of business in this chamber into hearings – not upon ourselves, because we have a seven-day-a-week job, but upon the people who need to be there for the purpose of secretariat work, Hansard work and the business of the house, including the attendants, the staff and security. This is not an exercise that occurs in isolation in a way that enables us to sit in a vacuum of antiquity. This is a huge workplace, and again, cavalier attempts to undermine this process and run roughshod over the broader considerations of this place as it stands as a Parliament, as a whole, are not only ill-considered and they are not only being done for the purpose of a cheap stunt, but they are frankly irresponsible.

It was the intention of the Leader of the Government to move an amendment seeking referral of the motion to the Procedure Committee and a proposed report back to this place on 20 March, noting the committee’s purpose to provide recommendations for the house. It was the leader’s intention to do that in consultation with every member of the crossbench as part of this process. But given the lack of support around this and the way in which the complete lack of time has been countenanced for political purposes, the government and the leader have chosen not to do this.

I have mentioned already the notice of motion that the Leader of the Government has had on the notice paper since November 2023. It is actually really embarrassing that the adjournment process is taken in such a cavalier fashion for the purpose of external social media related matters. Unlike those opposite and those from the crossbench who have supported this utter shemozzle, we will consult first, and therefore we cannot support this motion.

Ryan BATCHELOR (Southern Metropolitan) (11:09): It has been an interesting debate today; it says a lot of things. But I think what this morning’s motion says to me more than anything else is that at a time when there are so many pressing matters of public policy – whether it is the cost-of-living issues our communities face, whether it is our education system, whether it is how we improve health care, whether it is how we improve our community or whether it is what we can do to strengthen the state’s economy and help to create jobs – the Liberal Party thinks that the most important thing that we in this chamber could be talking about on a day when they get to set the agenda is ourselves. The most important thing that the Liberal Party think should occupy the time that they have complete control over in this chamber today – Wednesday, a non-government business day – and the first thing they want to talk about is changes to the sessional orders. I think it says a lot about the priorities of the Liberal Party – maybe it is about the priorities of the new Leader of the Opposition – that what matters to them most is what goes on within these four walls and what dictates what we do on a Wednesday.

The government responds to the priorities that are set on Wednesday. We do not determine the issues that come before us. It is our obligation to respond to the debates that are put forward. But the fundamental point that I want to make at the start of this debate is I think it tells you everything you need to know about where the Liberal Party are today when they think the most important thing that we can be talking about today – the one issue, the first issue – and the most important issue of general business they can think about today is the sessional orders. Their priorities are all wrong.

I want to come now to a few things that have been said in the context of this debate to justify what is occurring here today. We are here making these changes to these sessional orders – the second time we have made changes to the sessional orders in the life of this Parliament – because the last time changes were made to the sessional orders Mr Davis made a mistake.

Harriet Shing interjected.

Ryan BATCHELOR: Shocked as you may be, Minister Shing, to hear that about something that Mr Davis brought into this chamber, with all of the fanfare and the sense of his own import, he brought in a series of changes to the sessional orders in November 2023 to introduce short-form document motions. At the time we said a number of things, one of which was that the very short speaking times would in fact disenfranchise members of this place who wanted to speak on those motions, and that has been borne out time and time again. The other point that we made at the time was that it would have consequences for the shape of the rest of the day and that by making up these sessional order changes, bringing them to the chamber without any consultation, doing a quick deal with the crossbench and telling them it was all going to be okay, in the end the members of the crossbench would be the ones that would to lose out because of Mr Davis’s concoction of new sessional orders. That was because of the operation of the standing orders and because when you add time at the start of the day, you lose time at the end of the day, so the third slot of general business was at risk of not being concluded because of the changes that Mr Davis proposed to the sessional orders – not the government’s changes, but Mr Davis’s changes. We pointed it out. They said they were going to manage it; somehow it was going to be managed.

Harriet Shing interjected.

Ryan BATCHELOR: ‘Leave it to us. We’ll sort it out. We created the problem, we’ll fix it.’ Well, they did not.

What has troubled me in the course of the debate today is the blame that others in the opposition and on the crossbench are seeking to lay at the feet of others for mistakes that they made. We heard it from Mr Davis, who said that it is not the sessional orders that he introduced and got the crossbench to agree to that have caused the problem but that the problem is that what the government is doing is filibustering debate. Dr Mansfield in her contribution said that part of the problem on a Wednesday was that there were too many government speakers who wanted to speak – that it is just not good enough that there are too many members of the government who want to make contributions on matters raised by non-government members.

Renee Heath: On a point of order, Acting President, Dr Mansfield is not in the room, but he is verballing her and I would ask him not to do that.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Michael Galea): There is no point of order.

Ryan BATCHELOR: Mr Mulholland accused government members of interfering – of creating interference in the course of debate. Then, in an audacious pivot in his contribution, he went on to talk about important democratic principles. Well, Mr Mulholland, Dr Mansfield, Mr Davis, we think that a pretty fundamental democratic principle is the right of members of this place to make contributions on matters of importance – not that we decide on a Wednesday, because we do not decide. The government does not decide what topics of debate are on a Wednesday. We respond. They set the agenda and we respond, and now they have got the temerity to stand up and complain that government members want to make a contribution on those topics. They have the temerity to suggest that because we are passionate representatives of our local community – engaged members of this legislature – elected by the people to be one of their voices, somehow we should curtail our contributions to this place because they do not like the timing. I think that speaks volumes about the contempt which they are showing to this chamber, the contempt that is being shown by the way that sessional orders are being introduced without broad consultation.

Sessional orders today are being introduced to fix a problem that was of their own creation by adding short documents motions at the start of the day, which then pushed back business throughout the rest of the day. The sessional orders introduced by Mr Davis say there can be two short docs motions of 20 minutes apiece plus some divisions, so you have got about 50 minutes of extra time. Then we have introduction of private members bills – often they are introduced and, as there should be able to be, there is extra time there. We have now got petitions qualifying for debate; that extends further time in the day, and there is an opportunity for government business should it be required. So the addition of all of this time means that Wednesdays are growing by an extra hour or an extra hour and 50 minutes, plus any government business time that is being used.

Other speakers in the course of the debate have talked about the consequences and the impacts of that time on this chamber and on the people who support us to be here, and the fact that by not having a broad consultation many of those issues have been ignored. What we have consistently said and what the minister said in her contribution about the way that the government thinks these matters should be resolved is that they should be considered by the Procedures Committee before we move the motions, before we debate the motions and before we proceed with the motions. There may well be some unintended consequences of this change to sessional orders as moved by Mr Davis, because there were last time. We have seen a pattern of behaviour here where someone does something, cocks it up, tries to fix it and moves on. That is what we are witnessing here today.

I come back to the point I made at the start: what it shows us is a Liberal Party with exactly the wrong priorities, and I think that is the saddest indictment of all in today’s debate.

Michael GALEA (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (11:19): I also rise to speak on the latest concoction by Mr Davis that he has put before this chamber today, and in doing so I think it bears repeating the argument made by Mr Batchelor that indeed we have three general business slots today and the Liberal Party have been given all three slots today courtesy of Mr Bourman, and yet this is the number one item that they wish to raise. This is what they think Victorians care about. It is frankly astonishing, it is frankly tone-deaf and it speaks to a Liberal Party that is an inept as ever and that is as disconnected from the concerns of Victorians as ever.

It has been canvassed by others, but it really is worth going into the absolute shameless lack of consultation that occurred on this motion. Normally these things are discussed and they are given notice. In fact if you look at the notice paper you will see the motion from the government which is talking about reforming the adjournment for the reasons that Minister Shing went through. That has been on the notice paper since November 2023, and there have been many conversations – I have been part of some of them – with members, with those opposite and with the crossbench to ensure that we can get all views and come to a solution that is workable. That has not happened here. At 4:54 on a Monday afternoon, 6 minutes before the government business meeting, this got brought to our attention.

Lee Tarlamis interjected.

Michael GALEA: Two minutes before; I will take that correction, Mr Tarlamis. Two minutes before the government business meeting for the week is when this came to our attention. Either that is grossly incompetent, Mr Davis, or it speaks to a surreptitious, sneaky attempt to cause havoc and to punish the government as others have said. Either you are doing this is a deliberate ploy as a political attack or you are just plain incompetent. I do not know which it is. Perhaps it could be a bit of column A, perhaps it could be a bit of column B, but 2 minutes before the business meeting is not how we operate in this place. We on this side have always tried to be upfront with crossbench members and with opposition members about our plans for the week. Clearly what we are being told today by those opposite and indeed by the crossbench if they are supporting this is that that is not what they want and that is not what they expect from the government either. Because if that is what they will accept from the Liberal Party, that says a great deal about what they are prepared to accept in this place.

It is very disappointing because we are the chamber of review, the chamber of generally good-mannered congeniality with each other. We do get things done. We are much less tribal than the other place. But if that is the approach that the bumbling Mr Davis wishes to take after his recrudescent return to the leadership, then that will be very disappointing indeed – all the more disappointing because we have had this debate before when Mr Davis previously tried to change the sessional orders and he cocked it up. He completely cocked it up. We said that this would be an issue. We warned about the potential issues of this. We said this should be going to the Procedure Committee, but he persevered and the opposition and the crossbench pushed it through and they cocked it up. They assured us though that, ‘No, no, no, any issues with that that third slot of the day we will work out. We will come to an arrangement.’ In fact Dr Ratnam, the former leader of the Greens, made that assurance to us as well. Clearly her word is just as worthless as Mr Davis’s, because we have this situation here today where it has become an issue.

It is quite extraordinary for those that made this decision, that pushed this previous sessional order change through despite the fact that we warned you about all the things could go wrong and all the unforeseen things that could go wrong without putting it through a Procedure Committee, to come in here today and with an apparent straight face blame us again for apparently wasting their time by actually making a democratic contribution in this place. That, Dr Heath, is gaslighting. Ruining it, cocking it up and then blaming the government is gaslighting in its purest form.

I will stick on that point, because it is worth noting that on many occasions, despite those assurances being made by Mr Davis, Ms Crozier and Dr Ratnam, we have seen this come up as an issue time and time and time again. The government has repeatedly and regularly done its best to accommodate that and bring things to a vote. That does not mean that we are going to hold our members back from speaking on issues that are very important to them. Last week is a perfect case in point on that. I would not dream of telling any member in this place – any woman in this place – that they did not have the right to speak on such an important topic as reproductive rights. But that is what is being implied by other members in this place today. That is what is being implied by the opposition and the crossbench, that our members should not have that right, and that is frankly disgraceful. Despite that, where we can, we have regularly yielded and weighed things, made our changes to our list to enable third slots to go to a vote.

But we have this situation again. We have Mr Davis, who cocked it up the first time, now coming before us today with a solution that is slapdash, 2 minutes before the business meeting. Two minutes before the business meeting is no consultation at all, so we have no confidence that this will not completely cock it up again – no confidence whatsoever. What we have tried to say to those opposite, to crossbench members, is ‘Let’s do this properly. You’ve made this. You’ve buggered it up. Let’s put it to the Procedure Committee,’ which is what it is there for. Let the Procedure Committee do its job, fix the issue and come back with a proposal within a short space of time – I understand Minister Shing was saying 20 March. Let us come back to the chamber with a proposal that is workable for everyone, because the government from the outset has always supported the principle of all three non-government business slots being given their full 90 minutes. We have said so. We said so in the previous debate when Mr Davis cocked it up. But instead of listening to that, instead of saying, ‘Yes, let’s go to the Procedure Committee’, what we are told today is, ‘Nah, nah, nah. We will just push it through anyway and then we’ll go to the Procedure Committee.’ So members in this place, including Dr Mansfield, are admitting that it is not perfect, it is not right – ‘We’re going to cock it up again, probably, but we’ll support it.’ That is literally the most ridiculous concept. It is basically the same as the American attitude of ‘shoot first and ask questions later’. It really is the most ridiculous way to go about it and undermines the whole point and purpose of having a Procedure Committee in the first place.

One of the many other things that the Procedure Committee would be able to look at is to properly have consultation as well from the parliamentary staff, as other speakers have already spoken about. Now, that might not be a high concern for other members in this place, but it is for those on this side of the chamber. Whether it is working people in the retail stores, in the construction sites, in the hospitals or in the Parliament, working Victorians deserve safe and fair conditions at work. Again, it does not matter for our purposes as MPs whether we are here till 4 pm or whether we are here till 2 am. But for the staff, that can be a major consequential change, and that has been completely disregarded. I doubt that has even crossed Mr Davis’s mind once. I am not happy for the staff in this place to have their terms and conditions set by the capricious whims of a man who cannot even get his figures correct, who cannot even talk to people before he brings a motion in or give more than 2 minutes notice. That is not the example that I want to be following in this place.

The principle of the third slot going to its full time is very important – it should do so, and we have always said that. More often than not, including for Mr Limbrick and for others, we have supported that and we have changed things around, including holding back our speakers, in order to facilitate that. That should never mean, though, that we should be compelled – held at gunpoint, if you will – to pull our speakers back on very important topics, which, as Minister Shing so well articulated, occurred last week. That should never be the case and that is exactly why this should have gone to the Procedure Committee in the first place. We have seen the absolute bumbling mess of an opposition continue into now its third year in this term of the Parliament, still completely incapable of governing itself. Clearly the new Leader of the Opposition Mr Battin’s number one priority is making more changes to the upper house sessional orders. It is not about Victorians. It is not about those people working in the stores, on the construction sites, in the hospitals. It is not about how we best support Victorian students, how we best upgrade our outer suburban infrastructure – none of that. It is about navel-gazing once again, because that is all that side knows how to do. If they are not knifing each other, they are looking at themselves in the mirror and talking about how they can change things in this place, but they are not committed to changing things for Victoria, and that goes to the absolute heart of what we have before us today from those members opposite. This is a complete trainwreck of an opposition, led by a bumbling shadow minister over there who, again, cannot even be bothered to pick up the phone more than 2 minutes before a meeting. We will not be supporting this motion.

Tom McINTOSH (Eastern Victoria) (11:30): Well, well, well, Mr Davis has come into his new role and is certainly trying to make his mark, isn’t he? But as per usual, Fly Davis is on the fly, with no consideration and no consultation, and here we have yet another motion which is ill conceived, ill thought through and of course completely lacking logic and completely lacking consultation.

Mr Davis is someone who speaks so often about convention, about this place and about grand history. But in fact consider that we have a Procedure Committee that is there and its very purpose is to have a consultative, democratic process where changes like these can be considered in their full. Of all people who stand up and espouse the sort of language that he does, I would have thought that Mr Davis would have wanted to go to the appropriate committee for this to have its due process and for there to be the conversations and the consultation that should occur when we are talking about how our parliamentary process will run. What does not surprise me in what Mr Davis has done is him not having in his highest priorities, or the Liberal Party not having in their highest priorities, what is happening outside in the real lives of Victorians. The Liberal Party are not focused on Victorians, nor have they ever been.

It is interesting. I was just having a conversation this morning about past premiers. A premier had been quoted as making a comment around a particular piece of infrastructure in the media. I was going through the past premiers, and I was like, ‘Oh, it wasn’t any of these.’ I actually forgot that Dolittle and Nap Time had had their stints. Victorians forget that because they did nothing during those four years. They were ill equipped for government, as they are ill equipped now. This is why we see when we come to this place that we are not debating cost-of-living measures – whether that be getting kids to kinder, getting kids into education, getting parents back into the workforce, relieving costs for families and for parents or ensuring kids have the things they need, whether that is uniforms, books or whatever it might be – so people can get out and get on with their lives. There is a whole variety of things that this government has done to make people’s lives easier, to make people’s lives better, to make life more affordable and to make life more livable. It has not been, and nor will it ever be – as long as they hold the values that we have seen in recent decades in the Liberal Party – in their DNA to go away and put their time into improving the lives of Victorians.

This is why we are here on this motion, a motion that actually stems from a place of their own making. An incredible part of this is that we are coming back to November 2023. I know Mr Davis is not good on detail; we saw before the last election that details on just a minor thing, like their own policy costings, seemed to evade him and seep out of his mind. The attention to detail is not there. This is just another example of why the Liberal Party are not fit to govern in the state of Victoria. They are absolutely not fit. The fact that we are coming back to this conversation after they had a go at it in November 2023, the fact that it is being rushed through and is not going to the appropriate committee and the fact that it was put forward 2 minutes before a meeting was to occur this week is just breathtaking.

A little bit of advice to those opposite: you might like to give a bit more attention to what is going on in the lives of Victorians out there. When you talk to families who have received the $400 school saving bonus this year, it has made a real tangible difference in people’s lives – whether that is with uniforms, whether that is with excursions or whether that is with textbooks – and in making sure that our kids can get to school and get a world-class education. Things have been put in over the years, like the school breakfast program, that make sure that when our kids do get to school they are equipped to start the day on an equal footing and are equipped to start the day in a way where they can learn to their maximum and go on to have the most productive lives for themselves, for their families and for their local communities and so in the future this state can be productive and generate as much productive activity as possible.

Things like the V/Line fairer fare are ensuring that regional and rural Victorians get the same access to public transport travel as metropolitan Melburnians do. We know that was not the Liberal plan going into the 2022 election, but I am proud it was the Labor plan. I am proud that when we are talking about skills shortages we are supporting people getting into apprenticeships and people getting into traineeships as they go through those pathways. We are going to have a generation go through a pathway of three- and four-year-old kinder and then into world-class infrastructure in the education system with our primary schools and secondary colleges. For those that want to go on and do a traineeship or an apprenticeship they can go into our TAFE system, a system that we have invested in since the Liberals went and cut it to shreds. They can go in there, and for the courses where we know we need them most they can get fee-free TAFE and go on and earn money in jobs that are in demand and, as I said before, go and make an incredibly productive contribution to our state. But what is more, they can be in jobs where they can set their own lives up, where people can get on with living and they can support their families, support their local communities and make a real contribution to the thriving state that is Victoria – a state we can all be absolutely proud of. And when they are in those apprenticeships, there is free rego. How good is that for our young apprentices who are doing the work and training up to get skills?

We know those opposite do not believe in training a pipeline of workers up. As we have seen whenever they have been in government, there have been layoffs and cuts and they have got rid of the pipeline for the workforce that sees people enter, build their skill level and be able to deliver a high-quality skill level in whatever profession it may be, which is so important to an economy that is highly productive. I will not go into a whole lot of different things about productivity, but when you talk about level crossing removal and when you talk about ensuring that people in our city are getting from A to B, people are getting the skill sets and parents are getting back into the workforce, all of that is ensuring the productivity of our state. The fair fuel plan to make sure that people can see where they can get the cheapest fuel is supporting people to get from A to B in the most economically beneficial way possible.

It is all this that is important, and it all starts from a set of collective values of wanting to see the best outcomes for Victorians. When that is your starting point, you come together – as we do on this side – as a party and collectively as a team with your colleagues and you map it out: how are we going to continuously improve the quality of life for Victorians so that every day Victorians can get out and contribute and continue to see our state being an incredible place to live? As I have demonstrated just briefly, it starts from the start of people’s lives and goes all the way through, and it is about ensuring that that quality, that care and those services are there to support people. It does not matter whether it is in child care or in aged care, the education is there and the health system is there to support people’s physical health and people’s mental health and their ability to engage in their local community and their ability to live their life to the absolute fullest. When that is at the heart of planning and when that is at the heart of policy creation and development, that is what drives incredible outcomes for a state. It is not waking up one morning and, with a lack of consultation, coming in and throwing something on the floor 2 minutes before a meeting starts and Mr Davis and the Liberals saying, ‘Do you know what? We stuffed up what we did in November 2023; we’re going to have another go on the fly.’ Mr Davis, I do not support this motion.

David DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan) (11:40): This is an important motion, a motion that brings forward a sensible change to the sessional orders which will enable the chamber to work more efficiently and effectively and will enable the crossbench and the opposition to ensure that our motions are able to be debated in the way that is intended. As I have indicated, we are prepared after the motion is passed to spend some time at Procedure Committee working our way through a number of these points that have been raised by others in the chamber. The Leader of the Government has raised points around the adjournments. I certainly have matters around the return of documents that I would like to discuss at Procedure Committee. So I think there is an important role for Procedure Committee. Ms Shing pointed to a large number of Procedure Committee meetings in the last cycle, and that is true – there were. I am not against having Procedure Committee meetings. We have opportunities to talk about a wide range of matters, and I think at the behest of the President the committee could be convened to discuss a number of those issues that people in the chamber, crossbench included, wish to discuss. This is an important point that we want to see dealt with. I also just want to make one other point here: never forget –

Michael Galea: On a point of order, President, even though it is for his own members, I would call on Mr Davis not to point at other members in the chamber, please.

The PRESIDENT: That is not a point of order.

David DAVIS: The point that is salient here is that the government in recent weeks has used occasions to filibuster in a number of ways.

Members interjecting.

David DAVIS: Well, last week –

Members interjecting.

David DAVIS: No, I was about to explain something very important. The large number of –

Members interjecting.

The PRESIDENT: Order! There is too much noise. Mr Davis without any assistance.

David DAVIS: I do think that last week there were significant attempts by the government to push out an agenda with the putting on of notices of motion, pushing to all of those points. We know what occurred. But let us look at this by looking to the future. Let us make the change – a sensible change that will guarantee every crossbencher gets their opportunity when it is required. It will guarantee that in a sensible way. The focus is to aim at 5:15 each Wednesday so that we can finish at a sensible time. That opportunity will be there, and we will certainly be working with the crossbench and the government to achieve that. Again, this is a very modest change. The broader changes that people might make we are happy to have discussions about in good faith at Procedure Committee, and it is up to the President to draw that point. But let us make this sensible change today, which will protect non-government business, protect the crossbench and protect the opposition.

Council divided on motion:

Ayes (24): Melina Bath, Jeff Bourman, Gaelle Broad, Katherine Copsey, Georgie Crozier, David Davis, David Ettershank, Anasina Gray-Barberio, Renee Heath, Ann-Marie Hermans, David Limbrick, Wendy Lovell, Trung Luu, Sarah Mansfield, Bev McArthur, Joe McCracken, Nick McGowan, Evan Mulholland, Rachel Payne, Aiv Puglielli, Georgie Purcell, Adem Somyurek, Rikkie-Lee Tyrrell, Richard Welch

Noes (14): Ryan Batchelor, John Berger, Lizzie Blandthorn, Enver Erdogan, Jacinta Ermacora, Michael Galea, Shaun Leane, Tom McIntosh, Harriet Shing, Ingrid Stitt, Lee Tarlamis, Sonja Terpstra, Gayle Tierney, Sheena Watt

Motion agreed to.