Friday, 28 August 2026

 Jaclyn SYMES (Northern Victoria – Minister for Energy and Resources, Minister for Environment, Minister for Climate Action, Minister for the State Electricity Commission) (10:03): I move:

That:

(1)   all current temporary orders be rescinded on 1 December 2026;

(2)   the proposed changes to standing orders as set out in tables 2.1, 2.2 and 3.1 of the Procedure Committee’s report on the standing orders review 2026 be adopted and the standing orders of the Legislative Council be amended accordingly, to take effect on 1 December 2026;

(3)   joint standing order 25 be rescinded effective from 1 December 2026 and a message sent to the Legislative Assembly seeking their agreement;

(4)   the resolution of continuing effect adopted on 30 April 2019 relating to the Parliamentary Integrity Adviser be rescinded effective from 1 December 2026 and a message sent to the Legislative Assembly seeking their agreement;

(5)   standing order 12.12 be omitted and replaced with the following new standing order to take effect on 1 December 2026:

‘12.12 Personal explanations

(1)   Where there is no question before the Chair and with the consent of the President, a member may explain how they have been misrepresented or explain another matter of a personal nature.

(2)   A personal explanation must be brief, factual and not infringe Standing Order 12.18.

(3)   A member must provide their proposed personal explanation to the President in writing before consent may be granted.

(4)   Unless there are exceptional circumstances, a member must provide their proposed personal explanation to the President at least one hour before it is made in the House.

(5)   A personal explanation will not be debated.’; and

(6)   standing order 16.02(2) in table 2.1 of the Procedure Committee’s report on the standing orders review 2026 be amended by inserting ‘substantial’ before ‘intervening debate’.

This motion is in relation to standing orders and is a reflection of the work of the Procedure Committee. At the outset can I thank the Procedure Committee. The chair is the President and the deputy chair is the Deputy President and we have Mr Davis, Mr Erdogan, Dr Mansfield, Mr Mulholland, Ms Terpstra and me. We had conversations about the operation of the standing orders that were very well facilitated by the Clerk Robert McDonald and other clerks in terms of Richard Willis. A big shout-out to Annemarie Burt, Juliana Duan and Tom Mills, assisted by Natalie Tyler.

I like to describe these meetings as being a little bit of therapy for the clerks, because this is an opportunity for them to identify issues with the procedures of the Parliament, and our chamber in particular. They are the experts in this. They are who we go to for advice when we want to know how certain rules work, and I thank them for that. The chamber would not function half as smoothly as it does without that wise counsel. It also means that they identify things that are perhaps not modern, need changing or maybe frustrate their workplace. This is their workplace, and they help us so much. So there is a little bit in here about updating things, making things more seamless and making things a little more sensible. It was a good process with the committee because there was a lot of consensus and a lot of common sense that was brought about in this report, which will hopefully be reflected in updated standing orders for the next Parliament.

In particular I just want to call out a couple of the amendments that I think are particularly sensible. They improve the efficiency of the chamber and reflect a bit of common practice that has evolved in the chamber. I particularly think that the standing order 14.10 change on the circulation of amendments will hopefully speed things up. We know that what often happens is that we end up waiting for amendments to be signed off by the Office of the Chief Parliamentary Counsel and run through the papers office, which forms the very helpful run sheet that we know we cannot operate a committee stage without because we would all lose our way. But often we end up having to put additional speakers on at the second-reading stage to facilitate that process that we know is going to happen anyway. Then what happens is we end up in clause 1 for a significant amount of time. This amendment will allow the ability for amendments to be flagged and for the process to catch up in the committee stage. I think that is a sensible change that will work well because members are pretty open about what is coming et cetera. I think that will save us a lot of time. As we know, we have been doing long hours; we are doing four sitting days a week. Any opportunity to identify saved minutes I think is particularly valuable so that we can get through the important work of the house.

Also on saving minutes, I think Mr Galea is particularly interested in the change to standing order 16.02. Again, it is a slight reflection of what is happening in the chamber regularly, reducing 4-minute bells to 1-minute bells when we know that people are around, rather than having to wait for 4 minutes for a division. The proposal is basically to insert the word ‘substantial’ before ‘intervening debate’, which will just effectively reflect the chamber’s practice and avoid the groans when you have to go to the 4-minute bell sometimes. Again, it is just to build in some of that common sense.

The other one, which I think people know I have been working on for a while, is in relation to condolence motions. This is not a reflection of a lack of respect for anyone. I will put the rationale for this amendment back on myself. In this place it is great that we acknowledge anybody that has passed that has been in this place, and I think that is absolutely appropriate. Saying some nice words and reflecting on their achievements is absolutely appropriate. But the automatic hour’s adjournment for former ministers, presidents, leaders of parties et cetera I find unnecessary – not every time, but most times. I will say it in these terms: when I pass, future people of this chamber, it would be lovely if you say a few nice words, but I do not want you wasting an hour in your office after you have said those few words. I will be certainly opting out of an hour’s adjournment for the future people of this chamber when my passing comes, and I do not think my family will have an issue with that at all. What this amendment does is just take away the automatic hour’s suspension after a condolence motion, and it can be agreed between the house. Obviously, if somebody has a particular issue, it is not something that is going to be denied. I do not think it will be politicised. I just think that we know how important the business of the house is now. I want to make sure that in the future people have that option to just keep getting on with business after they have had their minute’s silence and the like. That is something that I have been carrying on about for a while. The fact that we have got a little bit of an option, hopefully, in the next standing orders is something that I certainly welcome.

Again, I thank the members. I have been on this committee, I think, every Parliament since I have been elected. President, thank you for your expert chairing. It was a very smooth and collaborative process, and I commend the motion to the house.

 David DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan) (10:10): I will just make a few short comments on the standing orders review of 2026. The Procedure Committee has, as it should do and has traditionally done, looked at the standing orders at the end of the Parliament, where the lessons from that session can be learned and minor changes can be agreed. These are largely agreed changes, I think I would describe them as – things that are unexceptionable, that are mild but actually not necessarily unhelpful and that actually make things a little smoother and a little faster. I do want to agree with the Leader of the Government in thanking the clerks for the work that they have done. A remarkable amount of work was put into this, thoughtfully working their way through the standing orders and proposing minor adjustments as we went. They have largely been accepted, and this report, in essence, is agreed.

There are one or two things where I would say there is some level of disagreement. One relates to the production of documents. There is in the opposition, and I think among some in the crossbench too, a lingering annoyance and anger at the government’s failure to produce documents in even a remotely timely way on a legendary scale. This is a legendary scale on which they have actually failed to produce documents. So we do want to mark that. It is a matter of regret that we did not pursue the government more vigorously on this, in my humble view.

Members interjecting.

David DAVIS: Well, there are a lot of reasons and matters on that, and it is not necessarily needed to put all those on the public record, but it is something that has weakened the chamber’s scrutiny capacity, and that is unfortunate.

I also draw the attention of the chamber to the minority report, which just highlights a point of principle that the opposition – the Liberals and the Nationals – have regarding the treaty changes that were made to the standing orders recently. We will seek to reverse those with an amendment. We accept that others in the chamber have a different view, and we are respectful of that, but that is our view. In this circumstance I flagged at the Procedure Committee meeting that we would proceed to move that amendment. But equally, I was very concerned to make sure that that in no way is seen to reflect on the overall process, where across a broad front there is overwhelming agreement. With those comments, I will leave it to the others to contribute.

The PRESIDENT: Was that an amendment to this motion?

David DAVIS: Yes.

The PRESIDENT: Can we get that circulated, please?

David DAVIS: I did flag that at the meeting, President.

The PRESIDENT: Yes, but I have not seen it. I want to see the amendment.

David DAVIS: It is in the report.

 Sarah MANSFIELD (Western Victoria) (10:13): I rise to speak briefly on this report. I would like to thank the President, fellow committee members, the clerks and other secretariat who provided support during this committee process. I think it was, as others have said, a very constructive and collaborative process. Obviously, there are a few points of disagreement, but I think, sensibly, any disagreements will be deferred to the next Parliament. It is appropriate that they decide the rules that they will be operating under.

Also, a number of changes were made that incorporate things that have perhaps been practiced by convention but are not necessarily clarified in the rules. One thing I would say is that the functioning of standing orders, and sessional orders for that matter, does depend on all members of this place buying into the agreement that we will uphold those and that we will see them as the rules under which we operate. This process we went through is really a process whereby we agree on the rules of the game in this place. I think, as Mr Davis alluded to, throughout this term one of the more egregious examples of the standing orders not being followed has been in relation to the production of documents. While I think we have potentially landed somewhere with part of that process, there is still one area where the government members have failed repeatedly to follow what are very clear rules within the standing orders, and that is with respect to executive privilege.

We have had this debate many times, and the government has every right to claim executive privilege. But if they do that, there are a number of steps under the standing orders that they are required to follow, and not once have they ever followed that process. The process is very clear. The mover of the motion is allowed to examine the documents. They make a decision on whether they think the claim of executive privilege is reasonable. If there is a dispute about whether they think that is reasonable, an independent arbiter is appointed to resolve that dispute. The arbiter may decide in the government’s favour – that it is a legitimate claim of executive privilege. Alternatively they might decide that for some of those documents there is no claim of privilege that should be upheld and those documents should be released.

We see this happening all the time in New South Wales, and some really, really important public interest issues have been uncovered by the New South Wales Parliament as a result of this process. I highlight the work of my Greens colleagues in New South Wales, without whom many of the issues that have been uncovered around the scandals that have been occurring in the childcare sector would not have come to light. I mean, it was their work and their persistence in trying to get those documents released, and in their Parliament, as much as the government exercised its right to not have some of that information released, they went through the process, they followed the rules anyway, and documents were released. As much as maybe the government at the time in New South Wales did not like that information coming out, look at what the result has been. Yes, it has been awful to learn about it, but hopefully it has triggered a whole lot of really important reforms in the childcare sector, because there were terrible things, and there still are terrible things, going on in that space. We would not be there were it not for those documents being released. There is another process underway at the moment that is exposing some of the issues around food safety, labelling and product of origin that is really important, and I could go on.

There are a whole range of issues that are exposed through this process in the public interest that lead to better outcomes for the people we are meant to serve. So I would just implore the next Parliament to have a think about why we create these standing orders. They are only as good as the commitment we have to upholding them. I would implore the next Parliament to actually follow the rules. I hope we see an improvement in that space. Perhaps, depending on what the make-up in here is, views around that could change. I hope that is the case and that there will be a different attitude to the release of documents. Otherwise, I think this was a really good process. Sensible changes have been made, and hopefully it has created a great foundation for the next Parliament, whatever that might look like.

Sonja Terpstra: On a point of order, President, after receiving a copy of the amendment that Mr Davis circulated, I want to read that because in consideration of that amendment, my concern is that the amendment breaches standing order 7.06, which is the same question rule. The Council first dealt with the question around this issue on 2 April, when the chamber considered the government’s motion to include the statement of treaty compatibility provisions in the standing orders. That was in April of this year, and the motion passed this chamber – and that there would be no change to that. Today is only four months later, so the tabling of this amendment now would offend that same question rule, because it is within the six-month timeframe. Just to fortify my remarks, I draw to your attention, President, the ruling from President Grimwade:

The basis of the same question rule is to ensure that there is some finality in a matter and that the time of the House will not be taken up in discussing an issue that has already been decided.

Therefore, with that in mind, I would seek your guidance, President, and ask that you consider ruling this amendment out of order.

David Davis: Further to the point of order, President, it is also important to consider the context. In this context there has been a Procedure Committee meeting that looked at the standing orders on a wide front, and there have been agreed proposals to change the standing orders – in fact everyone across the chamber agrees – and the standing orders will be different than the ones that are in operation now. In that context we have proposed to move an amendment which will allow changes to reverse some of the points that were made at the time but in the context of these new changes that have been made to the standing orders.

Sonja Terpstra: Further to the point of order, President, I can only point to the fact that there are rulings from the Chair in regard to these matters. I understand Mr Davis’s submission around this, but the thing is that there are no significant changes that would actually go to what Mr Davis is talking about. Again, the circumstances are the same in the context that this matter was discussed. The Procedure Committee met, and there were opportunities for Mr Davis and the others on that committee at the time to discuss this and try and change it then. But the point is that there was a motion before this house and the house dealt with it, so this is a backdoor way of trying to undo what the chamber had already decided, and that should not be countenanced. That is why this amendment should be ruled out of order, as it offends the standing orders.

Evan Mulholland: Just on the point of order, President, the motion that was put previously changed the standing orders in the positive to add in references to treaty. This is not the same motion. The same question rule deals with the exact same motion or question. This is an amendment that largely reverses those changes, and therefore it is in order. It is something that was flagged in the Procedure Committee and it is flagged in this report on standing orders, and therefore it is able to proceed.

The PRESIDENT: I will take all points of order, but in fairness to the chamber I just want to externalise my thoughts at this point. I count on my fingers, and I think it is within the six months. A question was put in a bill to insert –

Members interjecting.

The PRESIDENT: No. Show respect. I am externalising my thoughts, and I will give you a go to say if I am wrong. A question was put in a bill to insert these words into the standing orders as part of a bill. Within six months the proposal is to take out those words. My thinking is that a question was put; whether it is in the negative or the positive, it is the same question.

Members interjecting.

The PRESIDENT: You can say no all you want, but my thinking at this point is it is the same question. If there has been a change of circumstances, then the six-month rule can be deemed not to apply. I will take points of order, bearing in mind that what I need to be convinced of is that there has been a change of circumstance.

Sarah Mansfield: Further to the point of order, President – and apologies if this is not a point of order – I am just wondering about the question of whether you can even amend standing orders to override a requirement under legislation. I would have thought the legislation trumps the standing orders, so I am just wondering whether this is even a valid amendment.

The PRESIDENT: I am still stuck on the principle that I outlined. The question was put, and there needs to be a change of circumstances to offend the same question rule.

Sonja Terpstra: On the point of order, President, I am giving strong consideration and looking at what the ruling of President Grimwade was at the time, and you are absolutely, 100 per cent correct. What the ruling does say is that the Chair may consider if new circumstances apply, so it is not an absolute situation where, even if there were new circumstances, the ruling could be avoided. The wording was ‘may consider if new circumstances apply’ in allowing the same question to be put. I would say that in Mr Davis’s motion and the amendment he has failed to outline any new circumstances that would trigger any discretion on your part that may be involved to consider any new circumstances. I would say that there has been no submission received in these proceedings in this debate today that should enliven that provision.

The PRESIDENT: Thank you, Ms Terpstra. Mr Davis, in consideration of this, whether you believe the circumstances have changed, I believe, is the point that we are probably getting at.

David Davis: The context of this report is important. This is laying out the standing orders for the next Parliament. We are entitled to lay out the new standing orders for the next Parliament, and this is our view about how the standing orders ought to be in the next Parliament. I did raise it at the Procedure Committee, as you well remember, and indeed I did make the point that I understood there would be different views in the chamber, and consequently –

Sarah Mansfield: It’s the law.

David Davis: Well, in which case the government did not need to move such an amendment in the first place to the standing orders. They are not required to move that amendment. They believed that they should do that. Now, we have a different view. That is a separate point from what the President is asking. My point is there is a context here, and the context has changed. The context is different because we have a report from the Procedure Committee looking at the procedures for the next Parliament all the way through. This is an opportunity to do this right now for the next Parliament. The next Parliament of course can make further changes – there is nothing we can do to bind them – but this is a recommendation about the way we go forward with the next Parliament. That is the context, and that is the changed situation. It is quite a different situation from a single motion coming forward earlier. This is the contextual arrangement for the next Parliament.

The PRESIDENT: I am not convinced that a committee process is a change of circumstance as far as the same question rule goes.

Michael Galea: Further to the point of order, President, I was just going to say that Mr Davis, in his response, has given no explanation of any change of circumstance and that a committee report does not constitute a change of circumstance.

David Davis interjected.

Michael Galea: As much as you might like to try and spin things to your advantage, you have not in any way demonstrated how this is not a clear violation of the same question rule.

Sonja Terpstra: Further on the point of order, President – and I know we are kind of getting into a point-of-order-off – I think what is important is that in accordance with what you have been telling the chamber, I want to then turn to what Mr Davis has been saying. It is very clear, the ruling. What is the change in circumstances? What is different? Mr Davis talked about context. That is not a change in circumstance. I point to the fact, President, that every year and in every session of Parliament it is not an extraordinary thing for this chamber to consider its orders, sessional orders or standing orders. That is de rigueur for this chamber. That happens every time, so to try and say that somehow the Procedure Committee or the house reviewing its standing orders or sessional orders is unique does not have any force. It does not carry any force. And I still do not understand what Mr Davis points to in terms of context. He is saying that the Procedure Committee report represents that context, but the Procedure Committee has met a number of times. We also met in regard to the issue that both Mr Davis and Dr Mansfield talked about, which is production of documents, and we had information from New South Wales. The point I am making is to say that somehow the Procedure Committee meeting represents a change in circumstance is a fallacy. It carries no force. I draw everyone’s attention back to the standing orders and say again that there is no change in circumstance that would necessarily warrant the amendment that Mr Davis has tabled being accepted and then trumping what the house has already decided within the six months.

David Davis: Further, to the point of order, President, aside from the argument that I have made about the contextual situation, the change in circumstance, this is an unusual circumstance. We are going towards the next Parliament.

Members interjecting.

David Davis: No, this only happens once every Parliament; that is right. In this case we have proposed amendments for the next Parliament. This is a signal to the next Parliament, and that is why we have done that with the minority report and made our points clear there. So it is quite a different circumstance. But further to that, there is also the question of binding the chamber and binding the committee from dealing with these matters and being able to report to the chamber as it sees fit. In this circumstance the committee has reported, and it is up to the chamber how it treats that. In that circumstance –

Members interjecting.

David Davis: No. I make a further point, a third point, and that is: I am aware of no ruling that says a parliamentary committee – in this case, the Procedure Committee – or members of that committee cannot propose new ideas and changes of various types to the house. It would be wrong to bind such a committee. It would be wrong –

Members interjecting.

David Davis: No, but in the circumstances a structured, fulsome look at the standing orders has occurred, and that is the nature of the report. We have brought that report back to the Parliament. In this case there is also a minority report which makes a set of recommendations. It is not intended that the six-month rule stop that, and I am not aware of any situation where a proposed change to standing orders coming from a committee has been blocked from proceeding. That would be quite extraordinary; it would be very unusual. I am not aware of any ruling that you could draw on.

The PRESIDENT: There is a standing order – a six-month rule.

David Davis: Yes, President, but that does not necessarily deal with the fact that it is a committee report.

The PRESIDENT: I am happy to externalise my thoughts again, and I am happy for another round of points of order if people wish. A minority report to a committee is not a change of circumstance. A committee report is not a change of circumstance in terms of a question being put within the six-month period. So I will not put the amendment as a question. But as I said, in fairness to the chamber, if anyone else wants to, they can put a point of order in that regard.

David Davis: On a point of order, President, we intend to proceed with this matter. We think it would be an error, if I can be honest, for you to rule that out. It is a matter for the chamber. There has been a report put to the chamber making a recommendation, and that is a change of circumstance in and of itself.

Sonja Terpstra: President, further to the point of order, I think it is clear we have talked about the six-month rule, and I just want to refer to my previous remarks. This amendment seeks to undo the decision of this house within six months through a back door. The bottom line is that this amendment would also seek to bind a future make-up of this Parliament in the next session, and that cannot happen. If Mr Davis or anyone who is in this chamber in the new Parliament wants to do what Mr Davis is seeking to do, they can do it then. It is not a matter for this chamber to do that now and bind a future Parliament. If we look at the rulings and the standing orders that govern the way we operate in here, it is clear that Mr Davis has failed to elucidate what the change in circumstances is, because a committee report is something that committees do all the time. Minority reports are done all the time. There has been a failure to lay that down. Again, the six-month rule should not be undermined on the basis of a backdoor way of trying to undermine what this house has previously decided.

Michael Galea: Further to the point of order, President, Mr Davis has claimed that this is a recommendation of a committee. It is simply not; it is from a minority report. It was not put in the substantive report, and I do not even see an extract of proceedings that shows it was put to a vote in the committee. It is a blatant misrepresentation to say that this is a recommendation of a committee. It is not. Mr Davis is furiously spinning his wheels, sticking himself in the mud and trying to deflect from the fact that this is a clear and flagrant breach of the standing orders and the six-month rule.

The PRESIDENT: I am going to rule on it. I appreciate, Mr Davis, that you may think it may be in error, me ruling on your amendment. I appreciate that. I have said a few times during this term that I do not own the standing orders. We all do. I take into account points of order here about future parliaments. If for the six-month rule it can be determined that that is a change of circumstance because there has been, as Mr Galea pointed out, a minority report to a committee report, then I think that would be a very bad precedent to set for a future Parliament. I am not going to put Mr Davis’s amendment to the motion. Does anyone else want to speak on the motion?

 Evan MULHOLLAND (Northern Metropolitan) (10:37): I will just point briefly to our minority report. Obviously I am quite disappointed that the amendment will not be put given that it was flagged in the minority report. It is something that we have committed to doing should we have the fortune of being elected by the Victorian people. I am looking forward to that debate and to joining many people – some obviously will not be here, some will – in that debate in the Parliament.

I would like to start by thanking the clerks and the President, but particularly Robert McDonald, Richard Willis and Annemarie Burt and the other staff that went into this. They do an amazing job in finding quirks. It is something that we politicians, wrapped up in the wrangle of parliamentary debate, do not always think about – some of the speed bumps and parliamentary potholes that might get in the way of the smooth operation of the chamber here in the Legislative Council. I note that some of the temporary rules from COVID that changed the way the Council divides and the Council operates need to be made permanent and some of them are no longer relevant and need to be changed.

I would like to thank all the members on the committee, including my colleagues Wendy Lovell and David Davis but also the President, Minister Erdogan, Dr Mansfield, Jaclyn Symes and Sonja Terpstra. It is quite an important committee for the operation of the Parliament, and it was reassuring and very good in the way in which it operated. If members of the public were able to see the amount of bipartisan agreement and colleagues of different stripes working together, there would be a lot more trust in members of Parliament. But these are important changes to standing orders.

I think a lot of the changes are very, very sensible, with changes to different rules of the Legislative Council, from Acting President rules to ringing of bells, to temporary orders being made permanent or being scrapped and also to moving between debates. The motion also makes important changes to the way that personal explanations operate, making sure they do not infringe on standing order 12.18, making sure they are brief and also making sure they are factual. I think this is an important change, and that was recognised by the entire committee.

I thank the committee for its work. I thank the clerks for the way in which they went about it. Changes to standing orders are not often the top news story of the day, but they are very important for a functioning democracy, so I commend the motion.

 Sonja TERPSTRA (North-Eastern Metropolitan) (10:42): I also rise to make a contribution in regard to the standing orders review and the work of the Procedure Committee and the motion moved by Ms Symes. At the outset I would like to thank you, President, for chairing this committee. I would also like to thank the clerks, Robert McDonald and Richard Willis, Annemarie Burt, Juliana Duan, Tom Mills, Natalie Tyler and the whole secretariat team and also the people who worked with us on the production of this report. I might say at the outset – I reflect on Minister Symes’s comment that it is a little bit like therapy for the clerks, but it is important because sometimes our procedures can be lumpy or clunky and sometimes practices can develop in this chamber that might not be perfectly consistent with the standing orders – that it presented a really good opportunity for the Procedure Committee to come together in a bipartisan way and look at how we could streamline things in here. I guess that is the best way to put it.

The sorts of things that the review was focused on were things like reviewing the temporary orders and the sessional orders; looking at incorporating temporary rules that the Council has operated under for some time into standing orders – and I will come back to that in a minute; aligning the written rules with the current practices of the Council; correcting minor language and grammatical errors; and clarifying contradictory and irrelevant rules that have made an application, explanation or interpretation of the standing orders difficult. These are the sorts of things that the Procedure Committee was focused on in the first place.

I just want to focus on one of the things in terms of practices that have happened in this chamber. When I was first elected to this chamber – and some people who have been here longer will also remember this – the way that we used to conduct divisions was that members on different sides of the house, depending on what they were voting on, had to actually walk across the floor and sit in another seat. Then, when they were sitting on the other side, the Deputy President at the time would appoint tellers to conduct a count. That would invariably be one MP from one side and one MP from another. Both would conduct an independent count and then come together, and hopefully the numbers they had counted would align. It was always funny when sometimes that did not actually work and then another count would happen. That style of conducting a division in terms of procedure was lengthy.

Then came COVID, when because of the need to have distancing requirements in place, with walking across the chamber, the process began of people just standing in their place and rising to be counted by the clerks. I actually think it is far more practical and, in a commonsense way, works better. Standing in your place and having the clerks count – they are the ones that are doing it. They tick it off and then pass whatever they have counted to the President. I think that is a commonsense and much more practical way of conducting divisions. I know Mr Davis interjected and said he did not like it, but I think every other member I have spoken to in this place actually likes the way that we do divisions these days. It is a lot less disruptive for the chamber and makes more sense. That is just one example.

Again, there is also the removal of clunky language, legalese or superfluous words that are not necessary and do not actually add anything to the rule – things like that. I actually recommend that MPs in this chamber have a read of it, because obviously these will be the standing orders that will apply for anyone who is in this place in the course of the next Parliament.

Also, I think one of the things that Mr Galea talked about was the ringing of the bells. We have all been in here on very late evenings when there are a lot of amendments to bills and the like. The standing orders talk about the ringing of division bells for 4 minutes. If everyone is in the chamber and it is agreed, why not ring the bells for a minute? That is just common sense. That is just the practical reality of streamlining the way we do things, and that can be reflected in the temporary orders as well.

Again, these are just a reflection of the practices that are developed, and the clerks are alerting us to the fact that it would be better and more appropriate to have these sorts of procedures and practices actually reflected in the standing orders, so if there is any disagreement or concern or misunderstanding about what is eventuating, it is clear to everybody what those things are.

The Procedure Committee is a committee for all members who are on it to come together in a bipartisan way, because – as the President just remarked on previously – when we are dealing with an amendment, the standing orders, the sessional orders, all those orders, are owned by this chamber. Not one person or one party actually owns them, and it is about how the chamber itself decides it wants to operate. We may not agree on everything, but oftentimes we land on a position that people can live with. It is not going to be perfectly aligned to everyone’s points of view, and that is often sometimes where we land.

I do just want to take a moment to talk about the points that were raised by Mr Davis and also by Dr Mansfield in regard to the production of documents. I note that the views of Mr Davis and Dr Mansfield were that perhaps this review also was a bit of a missed opportunity to further refine things, I am gathering, because they are still not happy with the way in which documents are produced in this chamber. But what I want to say is that the Procedure Committee met and had a detailed review of that process. We had information from clerks in New South Wales, a different jurisdiction to us, and we learned a lot about how other jurisdictions deal with the production of documents. When we did that review, it was pretty clear that we said, ‘Well, let’s see how this goes.’

Again, it is a matter for this chamber that if people are still unhappy with the way those things operate, then there are opportunities to review that. I do not see that this review of the standing orders brought by the clerks was actually a point to raise that. Nevertheless it is something that I remember because I was on the committee, and I am sure others who were on it as well remember this. We all agreed that if there is not any improvement seen, there is an opportunity to review that in the future, so it is not like closing the door. I get a little bit disappointed with remarks like ‘Oh, nothing’s changed.’ We did say, ‘Well, let’s try this and see if it improves things.’ It might be that one or two individuals might have a view about that, but it is a matter for this chamber to make a decision about those things. So if it is the will of this chamber to look at those things in a future Parliament, then so be it, and there can be all sorts of views put about it as well. The Procedure Committee is not an opportunity for partisan politics. It is an opportunity in a bipartisan way to look at how this chamber can operate effectively.

I will conclude my remarks there. It is a good report. I do encourage members in this chamber to have a read of it. I commend the report to the house.

Motion agreed to.