Wednesday, 25 May 2022

Member conduct

Mr NEWBURY (Brighton) (17:01): In 2018 Victoria sent the strongest possible message in this place. It sent a message that we on this side of the chamber heard. My first words in this place were that I had heard that message. On Saturday Victoria sent the federal Liberal Party just as strong a message. In part the community was saying to the federal government and the federal Liberal Party that they did not accept that the Prime Minister had not responded to certain inappropriate behaviour. That is one of the chief reasons why Scott Morrison was toxic. But he is not the only person who in this state is toxic. The only person in this state who is as toxic as Scott Morrison is the Premier of this state. The difference between the former Prime Minister and the Premier is that while the Prime Minister did not act as he always should have—and that is a fact—the difference between the Prime Minister and the Premier is that he is the cause of inappropriate behaviour. He is the cause of inappropriate behaviour, he is the centre of corruption, he is the centre of bullying against women and he is the central denier of responsibility for 801 deaths and 21 ambulance deaths.

Mr Carroll: On a point of order, Acting Speaker—I think it is standing order 118, ‘Imputations and personal reflections’—referring to the Premier as ‘the centre of corruption’ and the cause of bullying, I just ask if you could reflect on that, and I seek some guidance as to if that is out of order.

Mr NEWBURY: On the point of order, Acting Speaker, this has been a wideranging debate where a member of the other side used an opportunity to reflect on people’s families. The suggestion put by the Minister for Public Transport is silly.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Morris): I am not going to rule a point of order out of order because it is allegedly silly, but I will seek some advice, having not been in the chair earlier. It appears to me that the member’s comments are in conflict with standing order 118, and I would ask you to confine your remarks.

Mr NEWBURY: Thank you. Sorry, Acting Speaker, what did you say? Did you say to continue?

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Morris): Bear in mind that we could have another point of order if you—

Mr NEWBURY: Thank you. The Premier has been a part of corruption investigations in this state.

Mr Carroll: No. I am sorry, Acting Speaker—

Mr NEWBURY: Well, he has been. He has admitted he has been a party to—

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Morris): Order!

Mr Carroll: No, no, no. His exact words—

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Morris): Order! The minister on a point of order.

Mr Carroll: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, under standing order 118, ‘Imputations and personal reflections’, the member’s exact words were, ‘The Premier has been part of corruption in this state’.

Mr NEWBURY: Investigations in this state.

Mr Carroll: No, no.

Mr NEWBURY: I said ‘investigations’.

Mr Carroll: No, no. Happy for Hansard—you said, I heard it very clearly—

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Morris): Order! Minister, through the Chair, please.

Mr Carroll: The member clearly said the Premier has been part of corruption in this state, and I seek a withdrawal.

Mr NEWBURY: I did not say that. I said ‘investigations’.

Members interjecting.

Mr NEWBURY: That is right. It was not a personal reflection on you.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Morris): The minister cannot ask a member to withdraw on behalf of another member, but can we please—

Mr NEWBURY: Thank you. Thank you.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Morris): Member for Brighton, can we please have some regard to standing orders or this is going to go on.

Mr NEWBURY: Thank you, Acting Speaker. When the Premier was asked about corruption investigations that were occurring, his words included things like ‘I’ll not give a running commentary’, ‘I’ll not be making comment’, ‘I’ll not be making comment about these matters’, ‘Let me make it clear: I’ll not be making comment’, ‘Sorry, I won’t be making comment’, ‘I’ll not be making comment about these matters’ and the list goes on and on and on. The Premier has hidden behind ‘due process’ and ‘a right time and place to comment’ and uses each of those tactics to deflect answering questions. The worst instance of that behaviour took place in the Premier’s evidence before the hotel quarantine inquiry, where almost 30 times the Premier said he did not recall who was responsible for almost 800 deaths. He did not recall. I had never heard the Premier use the words ‘I do not recall’ until that testimony, let alone almost 30 times, but I have been found more recently to be wrong, and I will admit it to the chamber. I had never heard the Premier use the words ‘I do not recall’.

A member: He couldn’t recall it.

Mr NEWBURY: He could not recall. But I found another instance. When asked whether the Premier gave his personal mobile phone number to corrupt John Woodman, guess what he said? ‘I could not recall’. So he said it again, this time when dealing with a crook. You do not want to stand up and check whether or not John Woodman is a crook—a Labor identity is a crook. The Premier used the words ‘I do not recall’ when asked whether he provided his mobile phone number to property developer crook John Woodman. I stand corrected; he has used the words twice: once when it comes to 800 deaths and another when it comes to a phone number.

Mr Southwick interjected.

Mr NEWBURY: I say to the member for Caulfield, thank you. The member for Caulfield has actually found another instance where the Premier could not recall. I must confess I had not found this instance. The Premier said he could not recall whether he had any communications as part of IBAC’s Richmond inquiry. Thank you, member for Caulfield; I was wrong again. The Premier could not recall who was responsible for 800 deaths, he could not recall whether he gave his phone number to a crook and he could not recall whether he had spoken to a union boss as part of a corruption investigation. The only thing that I can be certain of is every time I hear the Premier say ‘I do not recall’ I must confess I question whether or not he is telling the truth, because the only time he cannot recall is when he is being asked about deaths and corruption—and he cannot recall.

I said earlier, which was cause for some consternation in the chamber, that the Premier had been involved in a number of corruption investigations—questioned, whatever language you want to use. Labor are very quick to stand up and try to pull the cord whenever these issues are raised. And what were those instances? I referred to ‘Dumpling’ Dan having dumplings with the property developer as part of Operation Sandon and him not being able to recall whether he had passed his phone number. I mean, he was not the only one, was he? He was not the only one involved in that investigation. Gee, there are a lot of people from that side of the chamber who are part of that investigation, including the Minister for Health, who was renting his property to the centre of the corruption investigation, renting his property in Main Street, Mornington.

Ms Green: Acting Speaker, I make a similar point of order to the one that was made by the minister at the table, the Minister for Public Transport—that if the member for Brighton wants to man an attack on another member who happens not to be here, he should do that by a substantive motion.

Mr NEWBURY: On the point of order, Acting Speaker, the Minister for Health put out a statement confirming that he was renting a property to John Woodman.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Morris): That is part of the debate. The issue is not beyond the bounds of debate, it is a matter of established fact.

Mr NEWBURY: Well, I mean, when the minister puts out a statement, who are we to second-guess him? He put out a statement confirming that he was the landlord—the landlord for John Woodman the crook. But I will correct the record in that he has sold the property. The minister has sold the property, I understand. He sold the property to one of the largest contractors to the Department of Health. So I correct the record—he is no longer the landlord. He was the landlord for about 15 years—at least 15 years. He had been the landlord for the whole time he was in Parliament, until of course the issue was raised by me publicly. Until that point he was the landlord. So it is not just the Premier who has been involved with John Woodman. The Minister for Health was his landlord. So Operation Sandon goes right to the heart of the Labor Party, and at the head of this investigation is the Premier.

It is not the only IBAC investigation that Labor are involved in, is it? Previous speakers have spoken to Operation Watts, where we heard evidence that Labor staffers were leaving their offices en masse to head down to Labor headquarters to do numbers—taxpayer-funded staff en masse. I mean, we do not know how many ministers’ staff were involved in that, do we, Minister for Public Transport? It is a shame the Minister for Health is not here; I could ask him the question. How many staff were leaving these offices en masse on taxpayers dollars to go down to Labor head office to do numbers for the Labor Party?

Operation Watts I think was covered in quite some detail by one of the former speakers, who also spoke about Operation Richmond—three investigations that go to serious corruption, serious misuse of taxpayer dollars, behaviour that the Premier has been on the record as having been investigated in relation to. He has been questioned in relation to it, but we do not know any more. I look forward to his public comments at some point when he can let the community know that he does not recall what happened, because that will be the next thing, won’t it? We know that in relation to Operation Sandon he did not recall, when it came to Operation Richmond he did not recall, and I am sure when it comes to Operation Watts—let me take a guess—he will not recall.

What I found most offensive perhaps in most recent days was the Premier’s behaviour over the recent ambulance deaths. Ambulance Victoria confirmed that 21 deaths occurred between October and March—we know at least 18—and in that time the government did not act. In that time the government did not put any money into the problem. The government did not make any major funding commitment in that time. Over six months people were dying because of a crisis in the ambulance system, and the government did nothing. They did nothing, including for children.

And what did we see yesterday from the Premier? A Premier who tried to deny the number of deaths. He denied them. He debated in this place whether or not 21 people had died—confirmed by Ambulance Victoria. I have never seen such a disgraceful display of behaviour, behaviour that I would expect from a weird backbencher, perhaps. But a Premier standing up and trying to deny the number of deaths in testimony before a parliamentary committee was abhorrent. It was abhorrent behaviour from the Premier, and he refused to use the word ‘sorry’, refused to say sorry to any of the families involved. The Premier and the Minister for Health both have blood on their hands. They both have blood on their hands—

Mr Carroll: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, under standing order 118, imputations and personal reflections—I just might read it out for the member:

Imputations of improper motives and personal reflections on the Sovereign, the Governor, a judicial officer or members of the Assembly or the Council are disorderly …

and I say that is disorderly.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Morris): Minister, I think we all know what standing order 118 provides, and in this case I uphold the point of order.