Parliament of Victoria | Legislative Council | Production of Documents Motion 1028
13 August, 2025
David ETTERSHANK (Western Metropolitan):
I am just going to make a very brief contribution, but I would first of all like to thank Mr Davis for moving this motion and I would basically commend the very erudite comments from Dr Mansfield on this question. I think she very accurately reflected and provided a perspective on the sheer frustration that is felt by many of us on the crossbench and obviously in the opposition. This is not a laughing matter.
This is a contemptuous approach to the Parliament, and it is a contemptuous approach to the public of Victoria. It was noted that Mr Davis’s resolution is longer than the response we get from the government on our documents requests. That is at one level really funny, but at another level the opposite of comedy is tragedy, and it is tragic that the contributions we get from the government are so lacking in merit.
It is not just that this is a procedural question. If I could perhaps reflect on one of the documents motions, which struck to public housing – when it was put forward that we wanted documents on public housing, we got nothing. The government claimed executive privilege over the whole lot, and what we were seeking were very basic documents. Not a huge amount – we were looking for things like renovation plans, we were looking for business cases and we were looking for some basic understandings that the government had really seriously looked at this question before they announced that they were going to displace 10,000 public housing residents. The government claimed executive privilege, commercial in confidence, cabinet in confidence and released nothing. I think we might have got one document that was heavily redacted.
But I think where it starts to move from farcical into sinister is that whilst the government claimed privilege over all the documents, when this matter went before the courts, with the action carried by Inner Melbourne Community Legal centre, the government got up and said there were no business cases. So on the one hand they were claiming privilege, that they could not release it, and then when it went to court, they were saying, ‘There’s actually nothing for us to hand over. We’re not going to allow for this discovery. There are no business cases.’
I do not want to get into the realm of potential defamation, but I think it does raise questions that are deeply disturbing about who is being told the truth.
[Sonja Terpstra interjected]
I am not selectively quoting. I am talking directly from history and am more than happy for the public to look into this, or for you, Ms Terpstra, to tell us that it is different.
Sonja TERPSTRA (North-Eastern Metropolitan Region):
On a point of order, Acting President, I would ask that Mr Ettershank direct his questions or comments through the Chair, and I would also ask that he stop misleading Parliament and selectively quoting from things that are factually incorrect when he refers to a court decision. When he refers to the court decision, it is incorrect for him to say what he said because the court did uphold the government’s position on executive privilege.
The ACTING PRESIDENT (Gaelle Broad):
On the first point of order I will just remind members, as I have this afternoon, because we have had it happen several times, to talk through the Chair. The second point of order is more just a point of debate.
David ETTERSHANK (Western Metropolitan):
No doubt Ms Terpstra will, if I do not talk to her, hopefully not continue to badger from the sidelines.
We have a situation where there is, it would seem, in government a collective myopia about how serious this matter is, and that really disturbs me. If the government cannot see the seriousness of this matter and how it strikes to accountability in government, I think that is really depressing.
I would like to just talk about process, in conclusion. Mr Davis has been very open and has been very good to work with on this question. Clearly we do share the same frustrations, but we did put to Mr Davis our concern that the clause (5) provision, which gave the government a very short period of time to produce an enormous amount of documents, was too short, and he amended the motion to reflect a longer window.
We also indicated to Mr Davis that we felt that the proposed punishment, for want of a better word, in terms of expelling the Leader of the Government from the house, was actually not a very effective form of punishment, because I suspect that the Treasurer would be delighted to have a couple of days off to be able to get stuck into her ministerial functions, and that I suspect within Labor ranks being thrown out of the Legislative Council on a procedural matter like this is probably a badge of honour.
We actually were the people, if I may speak inclusively for Dr Mansfield and myself, that asked Mr Davis to adjourn this off. It is in the context specifically of welcoming this proposal from the government to enter into discussions around appropriate process, and we think that is a step forward. We would be keen to get into that in a positive and open-minded manner, and hopefully we can resolve these issues in, dare I say it, a grown-up manner.
On that basis, whilst we commend this motion, we are happy that it is being adjourned off, and we look forward to exploring it on a good-faith basis with the government, recognising that if that is not forthcoming then we will look forward to this matter being brought back on before the house again.
[Debate adjourned]
