Wednesday, 17 August 2022

Matters of public importance

Parliamentary integrity

The SPEAKER (16:01): I have accepted a statement from the member for Essendon proposing the following matter of public importance for discussion:

That this house notes the public reports in the Age on Tuesday, 2 August 2022, regarding secret arrangements between the member for Bulleen; his former chief of staff, Mitch Catlin; and a Liberal Party donor and that the member for Bulleen continues to refuse to answer the most basic questions regarding this scandal.

Through the course of debate on this matter of public importance I remind all members to comply with standing order 118, which prohibits imputations of improper motives and personal reflections on members. Imputations are disorderly other than in a substantive motion, and as members know, the MPI is not a motion. I will be listening closely to the debate.

Mr PEARSON (Essendon—Assistant Treasurer, Minister for Regulatory Reform, Minister for Government Services, Minister for Housing) (16:02): I rise to speak in support of the matter that I proposed. I was surprised to read the reports in the Age of 2 August, because it is something that runs completely at odds with the regime that was installed by the Andrews Labor government during the course of the last term. Specifically what I think has got everyone particularly focused and paying close attention is the quote from the former chief of staff to the Leader of the Opposition:

Hey MG. Attached is the proposed agreement between [the donor]—

Mr Munz—

and Catchy Media Marketing and Management …

It’s as per the original email agreement between you and me.

Can I leave you to forward onto him?

Though brief, it speaks volumes.

It is 101 days until polling day. It is 14 weeks from Saturday. The election will be a contest of ideas, as it always is, and it is an opportunity for Victorians to have a very clear focus on who they want to lead this state over the next four years.

Mr Wynne: Who do you trust?

Mr PEARSON: Indeed, member for Richmond, who do you trust? Who is the best person to lead the state? I, like many of us during the course of 2020, watched the daily press conferences that the Premier gave—111 press conferences in a row. He did not have a day off. When you think about that for a moment and the endurance required, it was not like, ‘I’m going to spend the next 111 days coming up and talking for half an hour about all the great things and the wonderful things’. These were tough, difficult conversations to have with the community for 111 days, and they went not for half an hour, they went for 45 minutes, they went for an hour, they went for an hour and a half, talking to the Victorian people about people who had died, talking to the people about who had been hospitalised, telling people that the freedoms and liberties that they had enjoyed all throughout their lives had now been curtailed in order for us to deal with this pandemic. That was the standard set by the Premier. That is what he did day in, day out for 111 consecutive days. The Leader of the Opposition has ducked and weaved and gone to ground and will not answer basic questions about what is in his sent folder in his Hotmail account. This goes to a question about leadership and character and who is the best person to lead the state.

It is very clear, with the reforms that were passed by the Parliament that came into effect on 25 November 2018, that there were caps and there were limitations on what could or could not occur in relation to fundraising. These are the most strict and strident donation laws in the country. It is about making sure, for example, that there is a cap over the course of a parliamentary term of $4320. It is about making sure that foreign donations are banned. It is putting those limits and putting a disclosure regime in place so that the person who is making the donation as well as the recipient need to be able to be honest and up-front and disclose to the Victorian Electoral Commission what is transpiring.

Because the Leader of the Opposition is not answering basic questions, we just do not know what has been occurring in his office. We do not know if this was a one-off, you-beaut special deal for Mr Munz or whether it was more wideranging. We do not know whether it is a case where other people were involved. We just simply do not know because basic questions are not being answered. I note the fact that lawyers were allegedly engaged to draw up a contract. That leads to its own questions. Which firm? Who was the firm? What were the drafting instructions for the contract? According to Mr Munz it was an unsolicited email that was dismissed out of hand; why would you engage lawyers if it was just simply a one-off. Who paid for it? Who was the client in this instance? Was it the Leader of the Opposition? Was it his former chief of staff? Was it someone else? Where did the funds come from? We do not know, and these are basic questions.

Again, I just come back to basic questions of integrity and leadership and being honest. It is about showing up and explaining what has occurred. I come back to what the Premier did back in 2020: 111 press conferences in a row. These things are very, very straightforward—or they should be—and I think that Victorians have a right to know. Very soon Victorians will be going to vote. It is 101 days till polling day. It is probably 80-odd days until pre-poll starts. People have a right to know. I think the other point to make is, if you come back to the quote that was in the original email:

… the proposed agreement between—

Mr Munz, the would-be donor—

… and Catchy Media Marketing and Management …

It’s as per the original email agreement between you and me.

Can I leave you to forward onto him?

Where is the original email agreement? What was the email agreement? Who was involved in these discussions? Was it the Leader of the Opposition? Was it Mr Catlin? Was it both of them? Were other people involved? Were there other members of this place or the other place—who? At what point did this occur in relation to these discussions? Why was it that this was agreed to and forwarded on? Why did that occur? Indeed if you follow the Leader of the Opposition’s logic to its conclusion, I think the line was, ‘Well, there was no agreement because it was rejected by Mr Munz, so nothing to see here’. Then why is Mr Catlin no longer the chief of staff to the Leader of the Opposition? I mean, if he did nothing wrong, why is he no longer there? Again, these are questions that need to be dealt with.

The proposed agreement: what is the agreement? We know that there is a dollar sum. We know that there was potentially going to be a payment in excess of $100 000. Well, are those the sum details? What were they buying? What was it that they were buying? If it was $100 000 to potentially be paid to Mr Catlin’s private company, where was that money going? Was that going just to Mr Catlin? Was that going to be forwarded on to the Leader of the Opposition’s office? Was it going to go back to the Liberal Party? Was it going to go to individual campaigns? Again, we do not know. Where was the money supposed to go, and why was this entered into? What was the purpose of the discussion? And why was this—

Members interjecting.

Mr PEARSON: Well, I think the issue here is that there are a number of significant questions. If you want to defend this, you go right ahead.

Members interjecting.

The SPEAKER: Order! Through the Chair.

Mr PEARSON: This issue is: what happened? Why did you have a situation where this was even contemplated? Why did it get to a stage where lawyers were involved? Why were lawyers involved?

What were the internal processes in the opposition leader’s office that led to the decision that they thought this was a good idea? In terms of the donation laws it is very, very clear. It is $4320 across a parliamentary term. Why did the Leader of the Opposition or anyone in his office think it would be a good idea to shake down a would-be donor for a contribution of over $100 000? Why was there going to be an increase in the payment made between the would-be donor and Mr Catlin in the event that the opposition lost the election? Why was it that the agreement would only stay in place while Mr Catlin was employed by the Leader of the Opposition? The implication is that it is nothing more than a donation because what other explanation could there possibly be for funding being paid but only in the event that the person, Mr Catlin, remained as the chief of staff to the Leader of the Opposition?

Again, these questions need to be answered. The reality is that the Leader of the Opposition has not been forthcoming in answering any of this. If you look at the contribution that the Leader of the Opposition made in Wodonga on Friday, which was somewhat confusing, he was referring to items which were both on budget and off budget. I would have thought that running opposition room staff, where you have got probably anywhere between 20 and 30 or 40 staff, is a case where funding goes in and the bulk of it would be going out on salaries. So the question is: what is the difference between on budget and off budget? I would have assumed that the funding that would have been forthcoming was money that was solely focused in relation to there being one budget for paying salaries. Why was the Leader of the Opposition using this notion of what was on budget versus off budget? Again it does not make sense, because there should just be one budget.

Mr Wynne: It’s a confection.

Mr PEARSON: Indeed it is the only conclusion that could possibly be drawn, member for Richmond, because you think about it and say, ‘Where would the funding possibly come from other than one source?’. Mr Munz indicated:

I do not know how many people received this unsolicited and unwanted email …

So was it just a one-off email to Mr Munz, or was it circulated far and wide? Again we do not know the answer to these questions, because the Leader of the Opposition has not been forthcoming. If it was just to one potential donor, then the issue would be: why would you engage lawyers, who engaged the lawyers and for what purpose? Again, we do not know the name of the firm, we do not know the drafting instructions for the contract, we do not know who was engaged, we do not know the payments which were made and we do not know the conditions.

The other point to make is, being this close to an election, what was the purpose of the original proposed engagement? Effectively, what was Mr Munz going to get out of this in the event that he had agreed to it? Have other people similarly been subject to these contracts and made these payments since 25 November 2018? I note the member for Malvern has been very clear on this. He has indicated very clearly that those arrangements did not exist while he was the Leader of the Opposition, but have these engagements been occurring since the now Leader of the Opposition continued his position?

These are questions I think the people really are entitled to understand because of where we find ourselves in the cycle. It is 14 weeks till polling day. People have a right to know, and we just do not know what has been occurring in relation to this. That is why I think it is important that the work is being done and that the information be provided.

The opposition leader said he was not sure whether he had a draft contract to provide the electoral commission. Why wouldn’t he have a draft contract? If it was in his sent items in his Hotmail account, why wouldn’t he be able to be very honest and up-front and say, ‘Yes, here it is. I’ve provided it’. We also need to ensure that in relation to the way in which the integrity agencies conduct this investigation there is an opportunity to be able to be very clear in terms of making sure this material has been provided and will be provided. You need to make sure that the integrity agencies have every opportunity to do their job, to review this material and to be very clear as to what has been occurring. Again, the fact that the Leader of the Opposition seems confused about whether these materials are in existence or not is questionable.

Now, the reality is that these donation laws were brought into this place by the Andrews Labor government. They became law on 25 November 2018. Those opposite opposed the legislation in the other place, but the reality is that you have got an obligation to follow and adhere to the laws of the state. The legislation is very clear on this matter: if you are found guilty of breaching the act, then there is a fine and 10 years imprisonment. This is serious. As Catherine Williams from the Centre for Public Integrity mentioned last week:

It’s appropriate that the regulator looks carefully when allegations of conduct that might constitute a breach of electoral law are raised.

So it is important that this occurs, and it is important that the Leader of the Opposition complies and provides all relevant information to the Victorian Electoral Commission.

Again, there are just so many questions in relation to what has occurred in the Leader of the Opposition’s office. It is not clear to anyone on this side of the house whether this was just something that was cooked up in the opposition leader’s office between the Leader of the Opposition and his chief of staff or whether it involved other staff members. Were other staff members being similarly paid for by other donors, or is it more wide ranging? Why was this raised in the first place? Why were lawyers engaged? Why was this even entertained by the Leader of the Opposition?

It comes back to integrity, and indeed in relation to Mr Munz, in the event that the Leader of the Opposition became the Premier of Victoria, how on earth could he deal with Mr Munz or any other of these donors without fear or favour? There are so many questions that remain unanswered, and Victorians have the right to know. It comes down to a test of character and integrity, and the Leader of the Opposition is lacking.

Ms STALEY (Ripon) (16:17): I rise to speak on the matter of public importance, which I see is about public reports of questions needing to be answered, and so I also would refer to public reports of questions that need to be answered. I refer specifically to the Herald Sun of 10 August, which ran a series of questions—48 questions—which definitely need to be answered. I will start with those:

(1) Why did the Premier and his Labor MPs refuse to cooperate with Victoria Police over the red shirts rorts investigation despite saying, ‘everybody should cooperate and everybody will’ in July 2018?

(2) Who made the decision to hire private security guards for hotel quarantine in Victoria that led to 801 Victorian deaths and the world’s longest lockdown?

(3) Why did the Premier say in his follow-up statutory declaration to the Coate inquiry, ‘I have no knowledge of what was discussed between Ms Ratcliff and Minister Neville’, despite his own phone records indicating he spoke with both immediately after the conclusion of national cabinet?

(4) What secret deal did the Premier make with United Firefighters Union boss Peter Marshall over alleged firefighter pay deals and political support for the Victorian Labor Party?

(5) Why did the Premier dismantle the CFA to satisfy union demands?

(6) Why has the Premier been questioned again by the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission in relation to secret dealings with property developer John Woodman?

(7) What did the Premier promise John Woodman for his sponsorship of the Premier’s golf day?

(8) Why does the Premier’s office continue to delay and refuse to produce correspondence between the Premier and Mr Woodman, as ordered by the Parliament, when the Premier has previously said no such documents exist?

(9) Why did the Premier invite Mr Woodman to his post-election celebrations party?

(10) Why did John Woodman’s consultant Megan Schutz tell the corruption commission, ‘He’—the Premier—‘gave me a kiss on the cheek and he said “Say hi to John, Megan, say hi to John”’ and that the Treasurer said, ‘Megan we work together, we work together to achieve outcomes’?

(11) Why does the Premier continue to lie about the $2 billion that has been cut from—

Mr Pearson: On a point of order, Speaker, it is unparliamentary language to impugn the Premier—

The SPEAKER: Yes, I was just about to pull the member up on that. That word is unparliamentary.

Mr Walsh: Why did he tell a mistruth?

Ms STALEY: Why does the Premier continue to tell a mistruth about the $2 billion that he has been cut from this year’s health budget?

(12) Why did the Premier approve an unsolicited bid by Transurban to build the West Gate Tunnel project whilst the Treasurer was a direct shareholder in the company?

(13) Why does the Premier say he respects John Lenders, the mastermind of an almost $400 000 theft and misuse of taxpayers money as part of the red shirts rorts?

(14) Why did John Lenders’s statutory declaration to the Victorian Ombudsman detail that the Premier had a red shirts campaigner in his Mulgrave electorate?

(15) Why is the Premier refusing to repay more than $1.3 million misappropriated from taxpayers, as confirmed by Operation Watts, for party political gain?

(16) Why did the Premier’s office launch a targeted social media campaign against former Minister for Health Jenny Mikakos?

(17) Why did the Premier’s private office control the media appearances of chief health officer Brett Sutton?

(18) What factional deals did the Premier agree to in appointing the current Minister for Planning, given her brother, John-Paul Blandthorn, is a director of major Labor-linked lobbying firm Hawker Britton?

(19) Why does the Premier continue to accept political donations from the CFMEU, collecting more than $3 million in total?

(20) Did the Premier instruct Trades Hall to donate to the Transport Matters Party prior to the pandemic legislation vote?

(21) Why did the Premier stand by staff who admitted to destroying a journalist’s dictaphone that was stolen from the ALP state conference?

(22) Why did the Premier bully a Liberal MP about being overweight and allegedly slur another female MP who was suffering from bowel cancer?

(23) Where are the 4000 ICU beds that the Premier announced in 2020 and denied he announced in 2021, which has meant our most vulnerable are waiting in the rain outside an emergency department because there are not enough beds and are often being sent home?

(24) Why did the Premier approve a $10 million grant to Trades Hall, some of the largest financial supporters of the Victorian Labor Party?

(25) Why did the Premier endorse more than 90 of his former ministerial staff being parachuted into plum public service roles?

(26) Why have at least 21 people died waiting for an ambulance?

(27) Why did the Premier break his promise of an injecting room in metropolitan Melbourne in a deal to secure preferences at the Northcote by-election?

(28) Why does the Premier continue to hide the report into the second injecting room and further plans for suburban injecting rooms?

(29) Why did the Premier break Victorian law by approving $1.7 million in taxpayer-funded political advertising attacking the previous federal government?

(30) Why, despite the warnings from the corruption commission and the Ombudsman, did the Premier confirm he would break the law again?

(31) Why did the Premier breach the Victorian charter of human rights with the five-day hard lockdown of nine public housing towers in Melbourne in July 2020, which was found by the Victorian Ombudsman to not be based on direct health advice?

(32) Why did the Premier restrict Victorians from their home state, which the Victorian Ombudsman branded ‘downright unjust, even inhumane’?

(33) Why has the Premier’s ministerial staff budget increased by over 100 per cent from 2015–16 until now?

(34) Why did the Premier’s handpicked Speaker and Deputy Speaker—these are a previous Speaker and a previous Deputy Speaker—rort taxpayer funds by misusing parliamentary entitlements?

(35) Why did the Premier’s handpicked Deputy President’s office rort taxpayer funds by misusing parliamentary entitlements to stack Labor Party branches?

(36) Why has the Premier spent nearly $1 million in taxpayer funds to buy friends on Facebook?

(37) Why has the Premier spent taxpayers funds to take the Victorian Ombudsman to the High Court to stop himself being investigated for red shirts?

(38) Why did the Premier back a minister who was caught chauffeuring his pet dogs around in a ministerial car?

(39) Why can’t Victorians expect an operator on the other end of a 000 call?

(40) Why has the Premier backed a minister who kept a $2000 bike given to him by a major events company?

(41) Why has the Premier blocked an investigation into his breaches of the code of conduct for bullying three senior public servants?

(42) Why did the Premier fail to launch investigations into accusations of bullying and intimidation of senior female MPs Kaushaliya Vaghela and the late Jane Garrett?

(43) Why were lockdown measures like playground closures and curfews made when there was no health advice to support them?

(44) Why did the Premier refuse to release the health advice that was behind locking us down, which was later revealed to be based on Big Brother political focus group polling that breached privacy and monitored public sentiment and also cost the taxpayer over $4.5 million?

(45) Why was the IBAC Commissioner, Robert Redlich, gagged at a parliamentary committee, shut down by the government when he mentioned the Premier’s name?

(46) Why does the Premier continue to back Nancy Yang as a Labor Party staffer?

(47) Why did the Premier cut the budget to the corruption commission, then mislead a parliamentary committee about it?

(48) Why has the Minister for Transport Infrastructure and Deputy Premier failed to comply with the law requiring the production of an integrated transport plan even after being caught out by the Auditor-General?

They are some questions that have been in public reports, and the Premier continues to refuse to answer these most basic of questions. In fact when asked questions under oath, his favourite response is to say ‘I don’t recall’. The member for Essendon asked the question: who is the best person to lead this state? That is one question I can answer for the member for Essendon, and that would absolutely be the current Leader of the Opposition, the member for Bulleen, because the current Leader of the Opposition, the member for Bulleen, does not have 48 instances of where he has misused public funds—misled people about the answers on that. Over and over and over again this government is corrupt to its core, and as soon as that starts being called out they get a bit noisy on the other side. They want to shout that one down. They do not like the facts being put out there that this government is corrupt, deeply, profoundly corrupt. It sees no difference between the interests of the Labor Party and the interests of the Victorian government. They are not the same thing. But this Victorian Labor Party sees no difference. Red shirts—that is fine. Fine to use people’s electorate budgets to pay. Where is the member? The only one of those who actually made it into the Parliament, the member for Buninyong. I note she is not here now, but she was a red shirt.

A member interjected.

Ms STALEY: Yes, we have got a great photo of the member for Buninyong going in to be questioned. That was before, of course, she stopped answering any questions. The Premier had said that they would cooperate fully, answer any questions. No members of the Parliament then would accept that. They said, ‘Oh no, we had legal advice. We can’t do it’. Well gee, why? Why would you not answer those questions? Why wouldn’t members of the government answer those questions—

Mr Battin: Because they are guilty.

Ms STALEY: Because they are guilty as sin. Thank you. That is just one instance. They paid that money back, and then they tried another scheme to defraud the taxpayer, and they got caught out again. But they are not standing up saying they are going to repay that $1.3 million. No, no, no; they are not paying that one back. In fact when it was suggested to the Premier that he could follow the example that he had set with the other money and pay it back, no, he was not going there. He tried to say that there was no equivalence. Of course there is equivalence. He could at least pay that money back. In fact if we are talking about questions that have appeared in the media in public reports, I can refer to a further media release from Wednesday, 10 August, and that said, ‘will Labor repay $1 348 750 of stolen taxpayer money?’. So far we have had an answer to that question. The answer is no. So we have an answer of either ‘I do not recall’—the Premier says ‘I don’t recall’—or, to the question ‘Will you pay back money?’, ‘No’. ‘Will you cooperate with the police investigation?’—‘No’. It does seem that this government can answer some of these questions. Unfortunately the answer is pretty consistent. It is a consistent ‘No, we won’t do the right thing’. Over and over and over again this government has fallen short when it comes to measures of integrity at every point. When we had the former minister chauffeur his dogs around, we thought there could not be anything worse.

Mr Wells: Patch and Ted?

Ms STALEY: Patch and Ted, yes. Then we had a former Deputy Speaker, the former member for Melton. Not only was he not entitled to get the allowance in the first place, he then moved himself fraudulently to a caravan that he did not actually live in to attempt to defraud taxpayers. He did, and then he refused to pay it back. He entirely refused to pay it back. So it is a pattern. This government is corrupt, and it needs to go.

Ms WARD (Eltham) (16:32): Interesting times. We thought earlier this week that the opposition liked public transport. We thought that they were getting on board with public transport. They wanted to give free public transport to nurses. They wanted to improve the access of working people to public transport, rather than what we are doing, which is actually giving health workers money in their pocket to show our respect and recognition for all that they have done over the last two-and-a-bit years. We thought that they wanted to go with public transport, yet now we find out that they want to cut the Suburban Rail Loop and they want to reduce access to public transport, not expand it. That means cutting 24 000 jobs. The Liberals confirmed this week that Cheltenham, Clayton, Monash, Glen Waverley, Burwood and Box Hill would never get the brand new train stations that are currently in early works were they to form government. Suddenly the Liberals do not like the eastern suburbs. The Leader of the Opposition will walk away from the train to Monash University, to Doncaster, to Deakin and La Trobe universities. There will be no orbital rail to connect Melbourne’s suburbs.

The SPEAKER: Member for Eltham, is this going to be tied back to the MPI before the house?

Ms WARD: Yes.

The SPEAKER: You have strayed far from the MPI.

Ms WARD: Thank you, Speaker. Just like we needed a city loop all those years ago, with discussions that began in 1929 and construction completed in 1981, our growing city needs more public transport and we need an orbital rail loop.

Mr Wells: It must be the wrong MPI. Someone’s given you the wrong MPI.

Ms WARD: I will get there.

Mr Wells: There’s nothing to say.

Ms WARD: Nothing to say? That is quite astonishing—to think that on this side of the house we have got nothing to say, when we have got a lot to say about the state of the opposition. We have got a lot to say about what our government is doing. We could talk about how the office is being run by the Leader of the Opposition. We can talk about his Hotmail account. We can talk about who is paying who. We can talk about where money goes. But let us talk about electoral success. Let us talk about how well that office is run and then lead into electoral success. Let us talk about a candidate who was unable to actually win council in 1993. Then where does that Leader of the Opposition’s chief of staff go next? He ran for local government, and then in 2009, as the former adviser to state opposition leader Ted Baillieu, he put his hand up to succeed Chris Pearce as the Liberal candidate for Aston, but again he was not successful.

We can try and cover up Hotmail emails and all the rest of it, but let us go back to electoral success. Only a few years after that he ran for Jagajaga. Again there was a lack of success. By 2015 this man moved to Sydney, where he then sought preselection for the federal seat of Berowra—unsuccessful. Then he had another crack—two years later, still in Sydney—for the preselection for Manly. Again, this is the person that the Leader of the Opposition is seeking to reboot. We have the Matt Guy, we have Matt Guy 2.1, 2.3, 3.1—I am not sure which one we are up to—trying to uncover what is happening with this Hotmail account. I am so glad that those opposite really wanted me to get to the point. After Manly and again not being successful, and not being successful in Jagajaga, he came to run against me in Eltham—and here I am. Here I am with the highest margin that the seat of Eltham has ever had. By 2019, after again failing electorally, we had newspaper reports saying that—and at that point he was the former Leader of the Opposition, but he is now back to being Leader of the Opposition; still nobody has come back to me whether we are at Matthew Guy 2.1 or Matt Guy 3.0 or is it Matt Guy 1.1—

The SPEAKER: Order! I ask the member to refer to members by their correct titles.

Ms WARD: Thank you, Speaker. I will take your guidance. The Leader of the Opposition told his colleagues, according to the Age, that he was:

… considering a new career in the private sector, but no definite decisions have been made.

But that—

according to the Age—

hasn’t stopped a shopping-list of hopefuls from stepping into the ring, ready for the seat of Bulleen if and when Guy goes corporate.

Close friend and perennial preselection hopeful—

the Age’s words, not mine—

Nick McGowan is understood to have Guy’s tick of approval.

Well, that did not go anywhere either, as you can see.

Now, in 2021 there was a challenge to the member for Forest Hill, and who was the challenger then? It was the current chief of staff of the Leader of the Opposition, who, according to the paper, is close friends with Mr Guy. However, there was a bit of a roadblock. There was a traffic bump here, because as the Forest Hill MP decided to not vaccinate himself, he, according to the Herald Sun:

… wrote to party delegates … urging them to vote against proceeding with the preselection on Tuesday night …

because he was unable to attend due to the health measures that were in place at the time. While party rules did not require his attendance, he would not have been able to be heard; he would not have been able to have his say. Who was he being challenged by for that seat, which will become the seat of Glen Waverley? It is of course, again as recorded in the paper:

… a close friend of opposition leader Matthew Guy …

the current chief of staff to the opposition leader. The paper says:

‘McGowan will be furious. What a mess’ …

Indeed an absolute mess. I am not actually sure whether preselection for Forest Hill/Glen Waverley for the Liberal Party has ever actually happened. It seemed to be that it all just got too hard or perhaps they were not happy with the candidates who put their hands up. I do not know. Maybe there was writing on the wall to say who would be successful and who would not. I do not know—again.

So we finally get to a point where he has now been preselected for the upper house, but he has failed numerous times to actually be elected—whether it be preselection or whether it be for an actual seat. He became a full-time member of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, appointed until 2024, without being interviewed for the role, according to newspaper reports. So he has done pretty well for himself despite the fact that he has been, for nearly 20 years, unelectable. Yet this is the person that they have got in charge of the Leader of the Opposition’s offices, who is to bring them to victory.

You have got an opposition who wants to rip public transport infrastructure away from communities in the east and invest in health. Well, this is quite amazing—invest in health. This is the party that has only recently discovered the importance of health care. In fact we did not see them for the last 2½ years because at every turn they have undermined the health messages. At every turn they have not supported the messages that have come from the chief health officer or from the health minister; they have undermined them. In fact we have seen them standing out there with those people who have continually protested against our health measures—those people who rocked up to the Royal Children’s Hospital.

The SPEAKER: Member for Eltham, you have strayed from the MPI quite considerably.

Ms WARD: Thank you, Speaker. It is a bit of straying, but it is important, and it is important when we are coming to how this state will elect a new government when it comes to November. Do they want to listen to somebody who does not care and is not interested and cannot actually manage themselves, cannot manage their own Hotmail account, cannot manage how to employ people and cannot manage conversations? Do they really want to put our state in the hands of such a person—a person who has such a chequered history, a person who has got to rely on his school friend to be his chief of staff to manage their business, someone who has nobody else in his corner to support him?

I am glad that the Liberals have finally discovered the importance of health care, despite in 2018 not supporting nurse-to-patient ratios, despite cutting TAFEs, which we have reopened. There is a health workforce that is needed in this state which this government is supporting, which at no point have those opposite supported. It is shameful to think that they have got a Leader of the Opposition who is such a lame duck, a Leader of the Opposition who had to go out to private industry to prop up, it appears, the financial support of a staff member; the wage of that staff member was not big enough—or was it a donation? What was it? What was it that actually happened? And how did someone get an email that was apparently never sent? Those opposite have got—what was it?—48 questions.

Mr WALSH (Murray Plains) (16:42): I rise to make a contribution on the matter of public importance proposed by the member for Essendon. In starting, I have often wondered what the definition of ‘being hit with a limp lettuce leaf’ was, and I have come to a conclusion—it is listening to the member for Eltham actually make a contribution on a government MPI. I just do not know what the point was of that whole presentation, and I do not think anyone that watched or listened to it or reads Hansard tomorrow will have any idea what the member for Eltham was talking about at all.

There is a veil of secrecy over the Andrews government—there is a veil of secrecy over the government—and there is the smell of corruption from the Andrews Labor government, and it is getting worse. In the 48 questions that the leader of opposition business raised in her contribution on this, there are a number of questions that require detailed answers if we are ever going to have good governance in this state into the future, because at the moment we actually do not have good governance in this state from the Andrews government. One of those is the question about the 90 former ministerial advisers who are now embedded in key roles within the public sector here in Victoria. I speak on behalf of the forestry industry, who are really, really concerned about the fact that former Labor staffers are now giving advice around an industry that is worth billions of dollars to Victoria, creates tens of thousands of jobs in Victoria and replaces imports with the timbers that we produce. You have got Labor staffers giving advice, saying, ‘Close that industry down. Close it down, it’s bad’. That is about politics, not about good governance and about good decision-making for Victoria. The fact that we will see all those people put out of work because there will be no native timber industry, the fact that we will see an increase in imports of timber into the state because of those political staffers who are giving advice around closing that industry down—that is where there is this smell of corruption about Victoria, because the government is being run on nepotism, not being run on good governance into the future.

The other question that needs answering is, given that the Premier is apparently involved in three IBAC inquiries: why did the government actually cut funding to IBAC? You have got a Premier that is before three inquiries; there have been reports about that. Yet the Premier and the Andrews Labor government have actually cut funding to IBAC. Why did they reduce the legislative powers of IBAC? IBAC was set up by the Baillieu government and was something that had not been done in Victoria that was desperately needed in Victoria—to have an Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission here in this state. Having watched what had happened in New South Wales with their ICAC, there was definitely a need for an IBAC here in Victoria. It was set up. It had the legislation there. The Andrews government actually watered down the rules for IBAC and reduced their funding. That says to me: ‘Guilty, guilty, guilty. We don’t want to fund an anti-corruption commission that might be investigating us as a government’.

Why did the Andrews government reduce funding to the Ombudsman? The Ombudsman has done some inquiries around a number of things that were in those questions that the Manager of Opposition Business raised, particularly around the border closures during COVID and particularly around the lockdowns of the housing towers in Melbourne here—given the language that the Ombudsman would normally use, it was probably the strongest wording that I have ever seen in an Ombudsman’s report—about how bad that decision-making was for those people that were locked out of this state and for those people who were locked in those particular towers. So the questions that the Andrews government, particularly the Premier, need to answer are: ‘Why did you cut the rules for IBAC? Why have you reduced the funding to IBAC? Why have you reduced the funding to the Ombudsman?’. The member for Essendon in his contribution certainly did not make a case as to how this government has good governance, is not corrupt, has not failed in secrecy and is not being led by nepotism.

The other question that needs to be answered is the issue around the Premier actually endorsing the former member of the other place, John Lenders, as being a good citizen when he was found guilty of rorting $400 000 of taxpayers money. The guilt is there in the fact that the Labor Party actually paid that money back. They knew they had done wrong. They knew that it was something that you should not do here in Victoria. Yet Daniel Andrews praised the former member in the other place, John Lenders, for his integrity—

The SPEAKER: Order! I remind members to call members by their correct titles.

Mr WALSH: The Premier. Sorry, Speaker. From that whole saga we need an answer to: why did the government spend over $1 million of taxpayers money taking the issue to the High Court to try and stop it being investigated? If a Victorian who rang 000 and could not get an answer or a Victorian who rang an ambulance and could not get an ambulance knew that $1 million was wasted on lawyers to stop IBAC investigating the government, they would be very, very disappointed. They are the sorts of things that need to be answered.

And there is the very first question that the Manager of Opposition Business raised: why were ministers refusing to cooperate with police through that whole red shirts saga? If you are an office-bearer of the government, if you are part of the executive government of Victoria, you swear an oath to uphold the laws of the state, so why did those ministers actually refuse to be part of that investigation? To my mind, personally, they are actually not upholding the oath they take with the Governor when they go out to become a minister, because they swear to uphold the law of the state. They fought the law of the state, and they spent over $1 million of taxpayers money fighting that law and that investigation as well.

The other question that needs to be answered is: what discussions took place at the Flower Drum with John Woodman? If only the dumplings could talk—that would be a very interesting conversation to know if those dumplings could actually talk about what was discussed between John Woodman and the Premier at the Flower Drum at that infamous lunch.

What deals were done with Peter Marshall and the United Firefighters Union? What deals were done between the Premier, Peter Marshall and the UFU that absolutely destroyed the morale of volunteers in the CFA? That is the question that the CFA volunteers that I talk to want answered. What did Peter Marshall actually have over the Premier that would lead to that sort of thing happening to the volunteers in this particular state? That is another one of those questions that needs to be answered.

The question that was on everyone’s lips at the start of COVID during the issues around hotel quarantine was: who signed the contract? Who in the government actually signed the contract to spend something like $80 million to employ private security officers to run hotel quarantine? Tragically those decisions led to the deaths of over 800 people. Who signed that contract? Someone in government must have made that decision. How could anyone say that you would spend $80 million on a ‘creeping assumption’? I just do not know where this language of a creeping assumption can come in that you could spend $80 million which tragically led to the deaths of 800 people. How does a creeping assumption become part of good governance? Someone somewhere must have signed a bit of paper to spend that money to put in place those contracts to employ those private security officers.

The last thing I wanted to touch on was the Coate inquiry into those very same issues. We all sat there and watched the Coate inquiry on the TV, because you could not go anywhere at that particular time, because of lockdowns. We saw the Premier there, and from my count the Premier actually said to former Justice Coate 27 times, ‘I don’t recall, I don’t recall, I don’t recall’. Twenty-seven times the Premier said that. That is not being honest with the people of Victoria. That is the Sergeant Schultz defence: ‘I know nothing’. It is an absolute disgrace that we had the highest public office holder here in Victoria, the Premier of the state, someone who swore to uphold the laws of the state, appear before a judicial inquiry about 800 people dying and the whole issue of private security guards and hotel quarantine saying continually, ‘I don’t recall’.

I will finish were I started. There is a veil of secrecy over the Andrews government. There is a smell of corruption around the Andrews government. Unless they answer the questions that the Manager of Opposition Business put forward and unless they answer the issues that I have raised, no-one will believe them that there is good governance in this state.

Mr CHEESEMAN (South Barwon) (16:52): It is with some pleasure this afternoon that I rise to make my contribution to this matter of public importance. In thinking about this matter when it was proposed earlier today, I sought out a couple of definitions. One of course was Merriam-Webster’s definition of what corruption is, and it defines corruption as the abuse of entrusted power for private gain. I then sought out what the definition of ‘integrity’ is, and integrity is the practice of being honest and showing uncompromised adherence to strong ethical principles and values. I thought that seeking advice from the dictionary with respect to those two things was indeed very, very important. Of course in public life I think it is very, very important that we recognise and we respect those very things.

When it comes to the Leader of the Opposition, the member for Bulleen, of course he has had a very, very long career here in the state of Victoria as an elected member and indeed as a planning minister in the Baillieu government. In my part of the world for a very, very, very long time my community has been campaigning to have very, very defined town boundaries set up, particularly for but not exclusive to Torquay and all of the other Bellarine towns through that area. My community has indeed fought very hard against the former planning minister, Matthew Guy, when he had—

The SPEAKER: Order! I would ask you to refer to members by their correct titles.

Mr CHEESEMAN: The former Minister for Planning, the member for Bulleen, now the opposition leader, in that particular role through that particular debate wanted to establish town boundaries that would see an additional 2000 lots developed to the west of Duffields Road, which would be a very, very significant change to the town boundaries of Torquay. My community fought extensively against that planning decision, and he overrode the very thoughtful decisions of the Surf Coast shire, who were elected and under the Planning and Environment Act 1987 are effectively responsible for determining these things. He wanted to override them, and he started that process.

It much later on came out that the then planning minister, the now opposition leader, was active in having private dinners with developers who were seeking planning decisions that would be favourable to them, and he was at the same time raising dollars by holding those meetings. It came out through that that he enjoyed a very fancy dinner with alleged mafia figures. He enjoyed a very nice lobster dinner, and if only those lobsters could talk, if only those lobsters had that opportunity to spell out exactly what was discussed on that particular occasion.

I know that integrity is very important, that you do need to have an enormous amount of transparency about the decisions that you are making as an elected representative in this place, particularly when it comes to things such as planning. I know that the Victorian community, as will the Torquay community, will have another opportunity in less than 100 days to again pass judgement on the integrity of the opposition leader, given his very long history of making favourable planning decisions for Liberal Party mates in exchange for very, very large donations.

I must say what the Age recently exposed, as they did—that the opposition leader through his former chief of staff was utilising that office to solicit illegal donations for the purposes of private gain for the Liberal Party—is absolutely consistent with the definition as is spelled out by Merriam-Webster in terms of corruption. I have no doubt that the integrity bodies, which these matters have been referred to now, will conclude in the months to come that there are substantial questions that he must respond to, and I certainly am of the view that he should lay all of that out to bear now so that the Victorian community in some 100 days have all of those facts that they can consider when they are casting their vote. Making sure that we have integrity in the Victorian Parliament is exceptionally important.

I know that the Leader of the Opposition has a lot to explain. I certainly know that he must be much more transparent about property developers and decisions that he made when he was the planning minister of this state. Because of course there are people that have financially gained significantly through the decisions that have been made by planning ministers, and when those planning decisions have been tied to intimate dinners I think the Victorian community has a right to know all of those details so that they can weigh that up when they go and cast their votes.

It is clear to me, and I think it was clear to the journalist and I think it is clear to everyone who follows closely Victorian politics that the structure that they set up that was exposed by the Age newspaper only a number of weeks ago was a clear attempt to break the very clear donation law reforms that we have put in this country and in this state. It is very clear that they set to contrive a structure to get around those donation law reforms, and I simply ask this question in the remaining 35 seconds: is this the only time they have done this or are there others in that office that still today have a job and whose wages are being propped up by others outside of the normal legal structures of employment in this place? Is there an illegal laundromat of political donations that are going through the opposition leader’s office?

Mr BATTIN (Gembrook) (17:02): I rise to speak on the matter of public importance submitted by the member for Essendon. I have to admit the first thing that came to mind when the matter of public importance came out, submitted by the member for Essendon, was the thought, ‘Oh my God. How bad is Labor that that is their attack dog?’. I remember Rob Hulls. You would watch him from home when I first came in here, and he would actually send shivers through oppositions. He would get up and speak and have authority. Even the member for Keysborough—when he gets up, you listen. He knows what he is talking about; I will give him that credit. When the member for Essendon gets up I have more fear that he is going to talk about a poet from the 1800s that has got no relevance at all to today, but yet they want to bring him out as the attack dog on the Victorian opposition. How sad a state is it when that is the case? Even worse, he has decided to bring in a matter of public importance around reports and unanswered questions. That is what this matter of public importance is: reports and unanswered questions.

I am going to start with one. What secret deal did the Premier make with the United Firefighters Union boss Peter Marshall over alleged firefighter pay deals and political support for the Victorian Labor Party? At what stage does the Andrews Labor government, particularly the Premier, think it is okay to not answer questions when they currently have Supreme Court action to stop the IBAC report getting released? What questions need to be answered by a Premier who has been into IBAC on three separate occasions, most likely two of them in relation to UFU deals, one of those—pretty public now—Operation Richmond? What does the government know and what does the Premier know around deals that were made or what Peter Marshall was referring to in the media when he said that he would release the information he had on the Premier? What was the information? Does the Premier know? I am sure he would have to know. The Premier must know what happened that led to a deal that is now costing over a billion dollars here in Victoria for our fire services.

And the improvement? The response times are down. That is the improvement we have seen in the fire services from FRV. The firefighters in Victoria, and the ones that I have managed to meet along the way, have been fantastic, but interestingly whilst those on the other side will talk about all of their union mates it is actually members from the union now that are concerned about what deals were made and what impact they are having on the services they can deliver.

Operation Richmond is based around the deals made between the government office, the Premier’s private office, and the influence it had in that enterprise bargaining agreement. There is also another operation underway in relation to who leaked information between MFB, CFA and the Premier’s office. What information was leaked? Was there ever an Excel spreadsheet that was colour coded with who should get promoted and who should not get promoted, because that would be corruption. If someone in the union ever marked up a sheet and managed to have every person that was in the branch committee of management team of the United Firefighters Union as green and those that did not like Peter Marshall, for example, in red, and then if we went and compared that today to the management versus those that did not get promoted, if that aligned perfectly, that would be corruption. If the Premier was aware of that or his private office was aware of that, he does not only have questions to answer, he should have charges to answer. That is the difference in what is happening here in this state at the moment.

The Labor Party have put up a question about questions to be answered. I put to the Labor Party: you have charges to answer. Money has been stolen here in this state. Report after report has highlighted how much money was stolen. You admitted it by paying back $388 000. If you pay a fine for speeding, that is an admission of guilt. That is what the law says. If you pay the fine in a 28-day period, that is an admission of guilt. Member for Footscray, I know you are looking at that. That is true, isn’t it? That is 100 per cent true. If you pay the fine, it is an admission of guilt. So why did the Labor Party pay $388 000 for their fine? It was an admission of guilt. Why was no-one charged? All of a sudden when they realised this was the case, they did not want to pay back the next $1.3 million. A $1.3 million payment would be another admission of guilt.

This government continues to rip off, steal. The corruption is just unheard of, of how much can happen in one state. A former Deputy Speaker came into this place and could not claim the second residence allowance because he was not in an area where he could claim it, in Melton, yet decided to get a caravan down at Ocean Grove and claim a second residence allowance even though he did not go to that caravan other than for an occasional holiday. He ripped off the Victorian people, stole over $100 000, pocketed it during that time, and when he got caught he did not come out honestly and say, ‘Hey, I’m being honest now. I want to admit my mistake’. He came out because he was caught and then he said, ‘I’m not paying it back’. He said, ‘Up yours, Victoria, I’m not paying it back’, and it was only when the Premier realised it was affecting polling that he turned around and said, ‘We’re going to make him pay it back, but we’ll make him pay it back in instalments over a period of time. We don’t want to affect his income at the moment’. A man sat in this place stealing money and was not charged. What was the answer from the Victorian Labor Party? ‘We’ll change the rules on how you can claim and who can claim the second residence allowance’. So the answer was, ‘Because we’re corrupt we’re going to change the rules, and everything is okay. We’ve said sorry again’. A former Speaker of this house, who should be above everything in this house, who is everything about our democracy, was stealing from the Victorian people whilst sitting in that chair, and when he got caught—not to be good—he came out and said, ‘Oh, I’ll pay it back, and I’m sorry’. Victorians get sick of politicians who want to steal their money, who want to continue that corruption and who, when they get caught, turn around and go, ‘I’m sorry. I’ll pay it back. That’s how we’ll fix it’.

And we know the member for Burwood has got no confidence in the government at the moment. He has got so little confidence he has decided to run for an entirely different seat. He is moving seats now over to Ringwood. Why? Because he knows that he is attached to a rotten government in Burwood and it was going to kill him. He was going to be pushed out in that seat. Well, unfortunately he has picked a seat where we have got an active candidate out there who I am pretty confident will take that seat on 26 November, and I look forward to it—to getting rid of the member for Burwood who wants to be the member for Ringwood because of the issues he has had in this place.

One of the other things that has been raised on so many occasions is John Woodman. For a development that goes through the member for Cranbourne’s and the member for Narre Warren South’s area where funding was put forward to those members to ensure they could get up and be elected—now they need to answer questions. What answers does the member for Cranbourne have about funding she got in exchange for positive influence on those making the decisions? At what stage will the member for Cranbourne and the member for Narre Warren South come out and explain exactly what money they got from John Woodman, the Ferrari-driving John Woodman? What money did they get in exchange for handing over advice and positive views on behalf of the development? At what stage does the Victorian Labor Party think it is okay that dead people signed membership forms? At what stage does the Victorian Labor Party think it is okay to use taxpayers money and electorate staff to campaign for them? I think that is the problem here.

The problem is these are questions that the government do know the answers to. They know the answers to every single one of those questions. They refuse to answer them. Why? Because they are more interested in protecting their seats, in protecting their access to the big white cars, than they are in being honest and open with the Victorian community.

Ms CRUGNALE (Bass) (17:12): Ventnor, Ventnor, Ventnor! Hear ye and hear ye! I bring forth to you perhaps a vociferous oration, certainly a fairytale not, nor a divine comedy. It is a tragedy indeed. I present to you the very lamentable history and the torrid back catalogue of greatest hits that is the tragedy of Ventnor brought to you by the Leader of the Opposition.

The Leader of the Opposition recently made a visit to Phillip Island in my electorate of Bass, a glorious place famous for penguins and the nature parks, wild beaches and the Ramsar wetlands of Western Port Bay. Now, making a visit to Phillip Island is not in itself unusual; millions come every year. So why would a visit from the opposition leader seem so uncharacteristic and so special? I wonder if, as he drove down the hill and saw the bridge, shivers ran down his spine. As the Phillip Island & San Remo Advertiser noted under their July 2022 headline ‘Guy still in the shadow of Ventnor’:

The ghost of Ventnor again raised its head …

and like Hamlet it is a ghost none in Ventnor or the whole of Phillip Island is wanting to forgive and forget. Really, I did not have to actually write anything for this matter of public importance debate; I just have to read the headlines. I wish to share some quotes from the local and national papers. The ABC on 22 September 2011 under the headline ‘Minister asked to change decision on Ventnor zoning’ reported:

The Bass Coast Council initially refused to rezone a 24 hectare block of land near the coast for residential development.

But Mr Guy overturned the decision saying the rezoning would make housing more affordable.

I said this was not a comedy; well, perhaps it is a comedy of errors. The tragedy continues. In the Guardian of 5 September 2018 is an article headed ‘Victorian Liberal leader allegedly settled $2.5m planning case’—and I am quoting here—‘to protect his career’. Fairly framed in the Bass Coast Post of 14 September 2018 under the headline ‘Ventnor victory one for the ages’ was this:

It was a David and Goliath battle, pitching a small community against the might of a minister of state.

…

… then Liberal planning minister Matthew Guy tried to rezone a 24-hectare Ventnor paddock for housing, against the wishes of the local community and Bass Coast Council, and against the advice of two planning panels and his own department.

And in the comments section of this very article, a fellow called Andrew says:

As a former Liberal Party member, the actions undertaken by former Planning Minister and former Opposition Leader Matthew Guy was corrupt & potentially criminal to say nothing less.

I can tell you the community at Phillip Island have not forgotten the tragedy of Ventnor. They have not forgotten the bizarre actions over those two weeks—the rezoning backflip that cost Victorian taxpayers $2.5 million plus costs, so a total of approximately $3.5 million. What happened next? Well, the community breathed a sigh of relief, but the property owner sued him. To quote an article from the Age on 26 June, going back to 2013, headlined ‘The minister, the landowner and the rezoning backflip that is heading to court’:

The woman behind a contentious housing subdivision proposal at Ventnor on Phillip Island says she received a favourable hearing from Planning Minister Matthew Guy when she briefed him on the scheme at a kitchen table meeting in her home months before he controversially approved it in 2011.

Ms Nicholls said:

Surely the community should be able to take a minister at his word when he exercises his ministerial powers. But how can the community trust this minister at his word now?

There is the rub; how can a community indeed trust his word now? And the quotes move on. An article from the Age, 7 September 2021, headlined ‘The greatest controversies of Matthew Guy’, goes on:

The botched rezoning of farmland on Phillip Island in 2011 cost taxpayers millions of dollars and left a major question hanging over Mr Guy’s judgment.

…

… Mr Guy spent millions of dollars of taxpayers’ money to confidentially settle a lawsuit over the decision because he feared he would lose his job if the matter went to court.

From the Age, 3 September 2018, headlined ‘Matthew Guy paid out millions to keep his job: documents’—well, there were a lot of documents in that whole process:

… including the potential misuse of taxpayer funds to avoid the public airing of detail about the most damaging controversy in his tumultuous stint in planning.

These are all quotes, and they go on:

Opposition Leader Matthew Guy spent millions of … taxpayers’ money to confidentially settle a lawsuit over a botched planning decision because …

again, he feared he would lose his job if it went to court. From an article from 4 September 2018, headlined ‘Labor plots to force fresh probe into Matthew Guy over Ventnor deal’:

In 2011, Mr Guy used his ministerial powers to rezone 24 hectares of farmland at Ventnor, disregarding—

as we said earlier—

the advice of two expert planning panels, the minister’s own department and lawyers, and the unanimous position of the local council.

He was later forced into an embarrassing backflip.

And the article states:

“This may be winnable @ law but this is a political fight and it is unwinnable,” Mr Guy is recorded as saying in confidential notes by the Victorian Government Solicitor’s Office in 2013.

However, Mr Guy told reporters that he did not remember making that comment.

On the same subject from the ABC on 4 September 2018, ‘Matthew Guy says Phillip Island settlement avoided “lawyers’ picnic” over Ventnor rezoning’, Mr Guy is quoted in a file note again, saying:

“This can’t go to court. I shall not be in the job if it goes to [court]”.

…

Another record said Mr Guy was worried about being cross examined in court:

“I’m v. good in Q time [question time]. But Q time is very diff to a court of law!”

Mr Guy today—

going back to 2018—

said he “was not responsible” for someone else’s file note.

But here is the sad and sorry story: $3.5 million later in the tale of Ventnor on Phillip Island the land is still farmland, but the locals have not forgotten. And moving on to the distinctive area and landscape, according to the Phillip Island & San Remo Advertiser, 6 July 2022:

We would stick with the council planning scheme and it would lead the process,” he said.

Mr Guy also fully supported the introduction of a Distinctive Area and Landscape (DAL) proposal for Bass Coast.

“These were instigated by me as planning minister,” he said.

“We began it and I would support it.”

He may well have done some tinkering, but let us be really super clear here: it was our government, the Andrews Labor government, that did the work and introduced the legislative framework. Further on the distinctive area and landscape, on 4 November 2018 our Premier’s media release headlined ‘Stopping developers ruining Phillip Island and the Bass Coast’, says:

Under the Liberals, the town boundaries of Cowes and Cape Paterson were changed against the advice of independent planning panels.

To quote the former Minister for Planning:

History will judge Matthew Guy’s intervention in Ventnor as one of the darkest days in the history of planning in this state.

The imprint on this community from Mr Guy’s botched planning decisions cannot be understated. It is not just Phillip Island, as I said, but Cape Paterson and the whole of Bass Coast. We could probably bring in the green wedges of Pakenham and also the City of Casey area as well. The hoodwinking continues. When Mr Guy recently visited Phillip Island—

The SPEAKER: Member, please refer to the member’s correct title.

Ms CRUGNALE: Okay. When the Leader of the Opposition recently visited Phillip Island for a funding announcement the comments in the local paper went crazy. Janet Carlson said:

Matthew Guy and Aaron Brown sniffin’ around looking for votes with promises—

eye roll emoji—

they won’t keep … obviously. Give it a break fellas …

angry emoji. Nat Muir:

The only way he’s getting in down here, is if he pays for the pool … no one trusts him.

Cyril Oppenheimer:

Lobster on the menu?

Stephen Urquhart:

Dodgy. Says it all.

Jay Long:

Not really welcome here Mr Guy. We haven’t forgotten.

Sally Busby:

More empty promises?

And Joe Esposito:

Don’t believe it, we have been promised so many time and when it come to the crunch they have no money to do it or it’s not important. Only to buy votes.

So we draw to the end of this lamentable tale, the tragedy of Ventnor. How can the Leader of the Opposition seriously consider that the residents of Ventnor, Phillip Island and surrounds to all across the shire and the electorate of Bass and indeed across Victoria will take anything that he says at his word? How can they take him seriously and how can they trust him?

Give him heedful note. For I mine eyes will rivet to his face. And after we will both our judgements join in censure of his seeming.

Ms CUPPER (Mildura) (17:22): I rise to speak about the matter of public importance submitted by the member for Essendon, which he drafted in these terms:

That this house notes the public reports in the Age on Tuesday, 2 August 2022, regarding secret arrangements between the member for Bulleen; his former chief of staff, Mitch Catlin; and a Liberal Party donor and that the member for Bulleen continues to refuse to answer the most basic questions regarding this scandal.

Without going into too much detail on that necessarily I just want to talk generally. To me at its core the matter that the member for Essendon has written is about integrity and it is about trust. Based on what I have read in the media it is not entirely clear, I believe, what motivated the behaviour that is referenced in this matter of public importance—whether it was designed to get around the donation laws or whether it was to help a ministerial chief of staff to supplement their public salary—but for the purpose of my comments today I will focus on the second possibility, mainly because I think that aspect is of greater interest to my community.

Firstly, there are things that we can do as MPs to build trust with our constituents and also things that we can do to rip it apart. What builds trust with our constituents, in my view, is working hard and achieving results. I think it is important to find common ground and to share experiences and use that common ground as the basis for our work. It means acknowledging our privilege. I think that is an important connector, and I am very conscious of my privilege. Recently someone commented to me on Facebook about how much I earned and suggested it was too much for anyone, let alone someone like me who did ‘nothing’, which was his word, not mine. Look, in terms of the very broad general point—and I was not defensive about it—I agreed with him. I acknowledged that it is true that all too often the people who do the toughest, most monotonous, dangerous—I have got the word ‘shitty’, which I probably cannot say in Parliament—jobs are paid the least, and not only are my conditions more comfortable but I am also getting paid better than a mum who has to leave her kids on a Saturday for a 10-hour retail shift or a person who has to get up at 6.00 am on a Sunday to make coffees. But where I am now—and I think that this is important—is not what shapes or drives my politics. What drives my politics is where I am from.

Just to indulge the house a little bit on that, I do not come from poverty—I am not claiming that—but I was lower middle class. Until I was 13 we were a one-income, one-car family. We had enough money to build a house, which is a privilege, but not enough money to finish it, so we moved in. Well, we did two houses like that. I think I was six for the first house and about 14 for the second house. It was barely at lock-up stage, so the curtains were sheets and the floor coverings in the lounge room were carpet offcuts on a bare concrete floor. I often tell people that Dad made our beds—but he literally made our beds with a hammer and nails. He went into one of the local furniture shops in Mildura and was writing measurements with a pen on his jumper. There was no internet in those days to get the measurements, so that is how he managed to work out how to make a bed. With interest rates over 17 per cent, we were lucky to own a house at all, but everything felt very precarious.

Things got easier when Mum went back to work—she got a job on the bottling line at Lindeman’s winery—but we still struggled. In year 10—and I am actually embarrassed to tell this story but I am very brave—I had two very fetching skivvies. One was grey, the other one green, and I would alternate between these when I went out to the cinema or places like that. They were not brand label. I did get the occasional Sportsgirl shirt—a total of two from memory—and the pièce de résistance, which was very high status, was a blue Esprit T-shirt.

Ms Addison interjected.

Ms CUPPER: I know, thank you, member for Wendouree. It was pretty impressive. I was gifted it for Christmas in year 7 and still wear it to bed and to 1990s theme nights.

Eventually by putting one foot in front of the other Mum and Dad edged their way ahead, and they were able to put us through university and pay off their house. Hard work was integral to their success, but so was the support of good government policies that welded rungs on the ladder of social mobility. Their success was helped by high-quality state education. It was helped by universal health care. It was helped by unionised wages that gave teachers and blue-collar workers a shot at buying a house and sending their kids like me to university. It was helped by a progressive tax system that required privileged people like me now to contribute more so that battler families like us then could overcome barriers that could not otherwise be overcome by hard work alone.

To the man on Facebook I referred to, I agree that I get paid a lot and I think politicians do. My wage is paid by taxpayers, many of whom work in much tougher fields with much poorer conditions than me. That is why every single day I commit myself to using my privilege and influence not to help people like me get richer but to support families like the one I came from to build better lives. That is not just a part of my politics, it is the whole reason I am here. To me that is integrity. It is what builds trust and connection. On the flip side, what undermines trust and connection and does our profession—what I think is a noble profession—a profound disservice are things like exclusivity, elitism, condescension and pretending to care about poverty and disadvantaged children while kicking out every rung you can on the ladder of social opportunity that gives those kids some chance at a better life. It is pretending to care about public health care, public education, public transport, nurses, public housing and a legislative and policy framework for fair wages and conditions when you are in opposition and then trashing those things when you are a government.

I think what undermines trust is accepting public money that is already generously allocated to us, saying it is not enough and then bending the rules to get more. What undermines trust is failing to acknowledge how bloody lucky we are. Here we are in this magnificent building, which is paid for by our constituents, many of whom I know in the Mallee are genuine battlers. We have nice offices with nice couches. We have cleaners, security and computers, and we have social status. Every time I come into this building I am conscious of my privilege. In my community 25 per cent of families live on less than $650 a week before tax. That has to pay for everything—rent, bills, school lunches, school shoes, child care.

I spent the last few weeks talking to autism families. Many of these families were battlers in the first place. Add to that the multilayered challenges of having children with a disability—the difficulty in maintaining employment if your child’s school needs you to be on call every day for assistance with toileting, the battle with the NDIS in getting services, the battle in paying for assessments in order to get a diagnosis in order to get the early intervention services your child needs in the limited window you have to have a meaningful impact on your child’s long-term adaptive development. These families cannot afford private services. What they experience every day is financial hardship; what we experience every day is not.

My community know I work hard, but they also expect me to be grounded, to appreciate the privilege I have as their representative in state Parliament and to keep that privilege in check. That means acknowledging that my wage as an MP is a very good wage and acknowledging that I have no reason to whinge. What worried me most about the Mitch Catlin scandal was a column that followed suggesting the root cause of that scandal was not greed or entitlement but the miserly pay that MPs and senior advisers get—this idea that unless our constituents pay us twice or three times the amount that we are getting now, what is the incentive to work in the public sector? Well, maybe the incentive is values. Maybe the incentive is the opportunity to represent your community and to be part of a bigger cause than yourself and your own wallet. What this scandal showed me above all was that we need to check our privilege. We are not the victims of anything. We are extremely fortunate. In Mitch Catlin’s case, if the honour of serving Her Majesty’s opposition for a healthy middle-class wage is not enough for you, that is all we need to know about where your heart is. Helping Kim Kardashian flog her make-up at Flemington is the right job for you; serving the public is not.

Ms HALL (Footscray) (17:31): I am so pleased that I was in the chamber to hear the contribution from the member for Mildura—the very hardworking independent member for Mildura—who serves her constituency with pride. I have learned more about Mildura from the member’s contributions in the last four years than I had learned in my lifetime as a person who has grown up in the city, in the suburbs, and I am very grateful for that. We all as individual members of this place have a very important responsibility, as the member for Mildura noted, to be mindful of our privilege and to be mindful that the things we say and do, whether they be in the media, via a Hotmail account or out in the community, have a real impact, can have a real impact.

Today I would like to make a contribution about a number of issues that relate to integrity and privilege and how they have impacted my community of Footscray and decisions that were made years ago that still impact my community of Footscray. I would like to speak particularly about the proud and hardworking members of the African community in my electorate of Footscray and how they have been impacted by commentary from the now Leader of the Opposition dating back to the last election campaign and the election campaign prior, when we were dealing with very serious planning matters in my community of Footscray. First I would like to speak about the impact on the African businesses and the African community of Footscray of the constant references to ‘African gangs’ by the opposition and the completely disgraceful imputations made about members of my community, many of whom have come to this country with experiences of the most profound trauma—hardworking people who were all of a sudden subject to the most extraordinary media scrutiny.

The Leader of the Opposition has said, ‘Our policy never mentioned the words “African gangs” because many of the gangs we were speaking about at the time were not African’. Well, we know that in January 2017 the member for Bulleen, the Leader of the Opposition, declared on several occasions that Victoria and Melbourne were becoming ‘the Johannesburg of the South Pacific’. In my community in Footscray—I remember this very well—we had TV crews turning up. We had journalists walking around Footscray trying to get a sense of the kind of Johannesburg of the South Pacific that the Leader of the Opposition had been speaking about. It was not just me that felt like this—and my community. My community responded in a beautiful way to support local businesses after the now Leader of the Opposition, Peter Dutton, joined in the chorus and said that people were too scared to go out and have dinner in African restaurants. It was my community that responded to those calls by urging everyone to go out and support our local Ethiopian and Sudanese restaurants in Footscray, which are terrific. I would encourage everyone to go and try the delicious African food in Footscray. The African National Congress released a statement in response, saying that, I am quoting here, the Leader of the Opposition’s:

… comments were “unfortunate” and “seek to portray South Africa in a negative manner”.

“These comments are regrettable, and feed into lazy stereotypes of African cities as crime havens … They serve to tarnish the reputation of the City of Johannesburg—known widely as the gateway to Africa; and regularly cited amongst several indices as a world-class city …

When I reflect on character and what one is willing to do to gain power, I often think about that as just a terrible failure of leadership. Footscray also has the Joseph Road precinct. People often talk about Fishermans Bend as one of the most egregious and well-known breaches of every rule in the planning book, but what happened in Footscray—we are still coping with the realities of decisions made by Leader of the Opposition when he was planning minister every single day. The residents of those apartment blocks that he approved have had to put up with dirt roads, no setbacks—I am glad that the Minister for Industry Support and Recovery is at the table; I have spoken to him on many occasions about our desperate need for a bike lane in front of these apartment buildings. It is going to be really hard to put in a bike lane on that section of Hopkins Street. Why? Because there are no setbacks. There was one rule for what happened on the Yarra and in the eastern suburbs and an absolutely different rule for what was approved in this City of Maribyrnong and on the Maribyrnong River.

You can now see a city of high-rise towers in Footscray that were approved by the then Minister for Planning. At the time the chief government architect urged him not to approve them. The City of Maribyrnong urged him not to approve them, because they went way beyond the height controls. The people of Footscray are not opposed to development or density as long as it is planned well, but to me the most outrageous thing for my community is that we were not provided with the public open space contributions or the developer contributions needed to build the essential infrastructure to accommodate 7000 new residents. Can you imagine for a minute developments being approved in any other part of Melbourne for 7000 new residents? A 35-storey development that planning permits were issued for and then were immediately flipped. He was the developer’s best friend. In Footscray we have not forgotten because we are still dealing with these issues every day, and those residents of Joseph Road, Footscray’s newest residents, deserve the infrastructure that is just basic when it comes to moving into a new community. They deserve asphalt roads as a bare minimum. But we, this Labor government, have had to introduce retrospective planning controls to make the developers cough up.

We have required the developers to make a contribution because the Leader of the Opposition thought it was absolutely fine to break all the planning rules—to take control of the planning requirements for that section of Footscray and say ‘Anything goes. The developers can do whatever they want in Footscray’. And they did. So now we have no setbacks. I am going to have to work very hard with the minister, and we are going to do that to talk about how we can get a safe cycling connection in there because there are no setbacks. We are working hard to retrofit pocket parks into these spaces. It overshadows the Maribyrnong River. You would never be allowed to overshadow the Yarra, but that was allowed in my community in Footscray. It is an absolute disgrace, and I will keep reminding people what the Liberal Party thought it was okay to do to Footscray and nowhere else in Melbourne. It was an absolute scandal, and it remains a scandal. We will work hard for the residents of Joseph Road and for that new precinct in Footscray. We will make sure that they have the infrastructure they need, which they were denied by the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr WAKELING (Ferntree Gully) (17:41): Deputy Speaker, I do not think I have congratulated you formally on your new appointment, and I sincerely congratulate you.

It is very interesting that here we are near the end of this parliamentary term and we have a discussion brought on by the government about integrity. Well, thank you very much from the opposition for the opportunity for us to highlight the issues that plague this government when it comes to integrity. We are not talking about issues from 10 years ago. We not talking about issues from 15 or 20 years ago. We are talking about issues that currently affect the actions of this government led by the Premier. My colleague the member for Ripon in her contribution addressed a number of outstanding questions that she has put to the government, and for the purpose of this important discussion I am going to place on record again these important questions, because they deserve answers—not just because the opposition wants the answers but because the Victorian public deserves the answers to these very, very important questions which the government to date has refused to answer.

So why did the Premier and his MPs refuse to cooperate with Victoria Police over the red shirts rorts investigations, despite saying ‘everybody should cooperate and everybody will’ in July 2018—an important question yet to be answered by this government. Who made the decision to hire private security guards for hotel quarantine in Victoria, which led to the deaths of 801 Victorians and the world’s longest lockdown? Why did the Premier say in his follow-up statutory declaration to the Coate inquiry that:

I have no knowledge of what was discussed between Ms Ratcliff and Minister Neville …

despite his own phone records saying he spoke with both immediately after the conclusion of national cabinet? What secret deal did the Premier make with the United Firefighters Union leader, Peter Marshall, over alleged firefighter pay deals and political support for the Victorian Labor Party? Why did the Premier dismantle the CFA to satisfy union demands? Why has the Premier been questioned again by the anti-corruption commission in relation to secret dealings with property developer John Woodman? What did the Premier promise Mr Woodman for his sponsorship of the Premier’s golf day? Why does the Premier’s office continue to delay and refuse to produce the correspondence between the Premier and Mr Woodman, as ordered by the Parliament, when the Premier had previously said no such documents exist? Why did the Premier invite Mr Woodman to his post-election celebrations? Why did Mr Woodman’s consultant, Megan Schutz, tell the corruption commission the Premier:

… gave me a little kiss on the cheek, and he said, ‘Say hi to John, Megan. Say hi to John’.

And the Treasurer said:

Megan, we work together. We work together to achieve outcomes.

Those on the opposite side can cast aspersions as much as they like, but these are serious allegations levelled against ministers of the Crown—serious allegations that have been levelled against the heart of this government. It is not a joke. It is not a laughing matter. It is serious. It is about the integrity of this government, something that the opposition takes seriously when it comes to these issues but something that the Victorian public takes seriously as well.

Why does the Premier continue to mislead about the $2 billion that has been cut from this year’s health budget? Why did the Premier approve an unsolicited bid by Transurban to build the West Gate Tunnel Project whilst the Treasurer was a direct shareholder in the company? Why does the Premier say that he respects John Lenders, the mastermind of an almost $400 000 theft and misuse of taxpayer money as part of the red shirts rorts?

Mr Carroll: We all respect him.

Mr WAKELING: Well, there we go. I want to place on record the fact that Mr Lenders, who was one of the architects of the rort, is respected by those in government. Talk about a tin ear.

Why did John Lenders’s statutory declaration to the Victorian Ombudsman detail that the Premier had a red shirts campaigner in his Mulgrave electorate? Why is the Premier refusing to repay more than $1.3 million misappropriated from taxpayers, as confirmed by Operation Watts, for party political gain? Why did the Premier’s office launch a targeted social media campaign against former health minister Jenny Mikakos? Why did the Premier’s private office control the media appearance of chief health officer Brett Sutton? What factional deals did the Premier agree to in appointing the new Minister for Planning, given that her brother, John-Paul Blandthorn, is a director of major Labor-linked lobbying firm Hawker Britton? Why does the Premier continue to accept political donations from the CFMEU, collecting more than $3 million in total? Did the Premier instruct Trades Hall to donate to the Transport Matters Party prior to the pandemic legislation vote? Why did the Premier stand by staff who admitted to destroying a journalist’s dictaphone that was stolen from the ALP state conference? Why did the Premier bully a Liberal MP about his weight and allegedly slur another female MP who was suffering from bowel cancer? Where are the 4000 ICU beds that the Premier announced in 2020?

Mr Carroll: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, I appreciate the matter of public importance is wideranging, but I just ask if you could caution the member opposite. With some of the things he is putting into Hansard I would argue, if they were said outside of this chamber, there could be a case. Just to be cautious—and it is a wideranging debate—we should all be mindful of the words we say and the impacts they may have.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: There is no point of order at this point.

Mr WAKELING: Thank you, Deputy Speaker. Why did the Premier approve a $10 million grant to Trades Hall, which has been one of the largest financial supporters of the Victorian Labor Party? Why did the Premier endorse more than 90 of his former ministerial staff being parachuted into plum public service roles? Why have at least 21 people died waiting for an ambulance? Why did the Premier break his promise of an injecting room in metropolitan Melbourne in a deal to secure preferences at the Northcote by-election?

Why does the Premier continue to hide the report into the second injecting room and further plans for suburban injecting rooms? Why did the Premier break Victorian law by approving $1.7 million in taxpayer-funded political adverts attacking the federal government? Why, despite the warnings from the anti-corruption commission and the Ombudsman, did the Premier confirm he would break the law again in regard to his previous activities? Why did the Premier breach the Victorian charter of human rights with the five-day lockdown of nine public housing towers in Melbourne on 2 July 2020, which was found by the Victorian Ombudsman to not be based on direct health advice? Why did the Premier restrict Victorians from their home state, which the Victorian Ombudsman branded downright unjust and even inhumane?

There is more than I could have read, but I think what that does is just provide the house with an overview of the litany of integrity issues that beset this government. This government has an obligation to answer those questions for Victorians, because hiding from those questions tells Victorians it has more to hide.

Mr STAIKOS (Bentleigh) (17:51): It is a pleasure to rise to speak on this matter of public importance (MPI) submitted by the Minister for Government Services. This is the worst opposition Victoria has ever had, for a number of reasons: (1) they are not good at politics, even though they think they are, and (2) they are not constructive. Oppositions, especially an opposition that has been in the wilderness for eight years, need to act like an alternative government. But they do not. They recycle leaders, and this current Leader of the Opposition, whose leadership is hanging by a thread, has a lot of questions to answer. He is ducking and weaving, and he is avoiding answering these tough questions about the issue of payments in his office, questions that the former Leader of the Opposition, the member for Malvern, might I add, was able to answer—that these sorts of payment arrangements did not exist in his office when he was Leader of the Opposition. The current Leader of the Opposition cannot, or will not, answer that question. He will not answer that question, and we need to know why.

We need to know what was agreed, as his former chief of staff claimed in that email. What was agreed? He said, ‘Dear MG, as agreed’. What was that agreement? The Minister for Government Services submitted in his contribution to this MPI a number of important questions in that regard. Why is the Leader of the Opposition unable to answer the most basic of questions, like what is in his Hotmail sent box? Answer that question. What is in his Hotmail sent box? Where is the original email? Who was involved in the original discussions? Why were lawyers involved? What were the drafting instructions to the lawyers? Who paid the lawyers? Where did these funds come from? Why, too, when Victoria has some of the most strict and transparent donation laws in the country? What were people buying? Was that month’s email a one-off or were there others? He refuses to answer these questions.

But we should not be surprised by that; we have seen this behaviour before. Of course in those dark four years between 2010 and 2014 when those opposite were in government—very forgettable years, might I add, because nothing of substance happened—the Leader of the Opposition was the Minister for Planning. There were a number of atrocities committed in that portfolio while the Leader of the Opposition was the Minister for Planning, but I think the most egregious of those was what happened at Fishermans Bend. That was an example, probably taught in universities right around the world, of how not to do planning in a capital city, because of course that was an example of old industrial land being rezoned to capital city without accounting for any infrastructure—no schooling infrastructure, no health infrastructure, no transport infrastructure and no open space. There was no accounting for any of that. He just went, signed the document, rezoned it to ‘capital city’ and made a lot of people very, very wealthy. And—‘Deidre Chambers, what a coincidence!’—they were Liberal Party donors who received that windfall profit when the Leader of the Opposition when he was the Minister for Planning rezoned Fishermans Bend. He did not cater for a single school, a single hospital, a single bus stop, any transport, a single park, a single kindergarten, a single playground or even just a Big W swing set—it was all about making Liberal Party donors very rich. Again—‘Deidre Chambers!’—some of them had even just purchased their land just before the decision.

Ms Addison: What a coincidence!

Mr STAIKOS: What a coincidence! It is a shame our windfall gains tax was not in place back then, because half of that windfall gain would have gone back to the people of Victoria, as it should have. But those opposite have never been interested in working for the people of Victoria. They built nothing when they were in government. They are only interested in looking after the top end of town, lining the pockets of their Liberal donors, and shame on them. They have not changed. They are the same people. He is the same old guy.

When we had a review into those decisions for Fishermans Bend, what did the report say? Well, I am going to quote from the report. The report said that this rezoning was ‘unprecedented in the developed world in the 21st century’—unprecedented in the developed world in the 21st century. Well, do you know what? There is another word for what happened at Fishermans Bend. I am not going to say that word because obviously imputations on members would be unparliamentary, but let me assure you there is another word for what occurred at Fishermans Bend.

This all goes to character, frankly, because this was a government, with the now Leader of the Opposition as the Minister for Planning, that built absolutely nothing, even in my electorate. Not a single school was rebuilt. They shelved the Metro Tunnel. All they were doing was lining the pockets of some very wealthy people who just so happened to be Liberal Party donors. What we do know about Fishermans Bend is that as early as 2011 they drew up the boundaries of that rezoning. But who was sitting around that table? Because we know—

Ms Addison: Tell me.

Mr STAIKOS: Well, we do not know. We know who was sitting around the table when he decided on Ventnor. We do not know who was sitting around the table when he decided on Fishermans Bend, but I can only imagine who was sitting around that table. When you look at the announcement today that they are going to shelve the Suburban Rail Loop because they would like us to believe they are interested in the health system—well, what a joke, what an absolute joke. Again, they will be ripping up a project that Melbourne needs. Melbourne is going to be the size of London by 2050. Imagine London without the tube. Those of us on this side of the house believe that Melbourne is one of the great cities of the world, and a great city of the world needs a transport system that is befitting a great city of the world. Only Labor can be trusted to deliver that.

Might I also say: only Labor can be trusted to invest in our healthcare system. Those opposite closed hospitals. They are trying to say they are going to build hospitals now. They closed 13 or 14 hospitals when they were in government. They tried to sack our nurses. They waged war on our dedicated paramedics. They undermined the response to the pandemic. They will not even wear a bloody face mask in the Parliament. Yet we are led to believe that these people care about our health system. I mean, give me a break. Give me a break.

It is only this government that can be trusted to invest in our health system, to invest in our hospitals, to rebuild after the pandemic and to ensure that this state and this very, very fast growing capital city have the infrastructure that they need for the future.

Frankly can I say, when you are in a position where after eight years in opposition you are trying to sandbag the seats of Sandringham, Brighton and Caulfield, you are in a diabolical situation, an absolutely diabolical situation. This is not an alternative government. This opposition is not ready for government. This opposition, frankly, is all over the place. I mean, they talk about Georgie Crozier as an alternative leader. You know your stocks are low when you are talking about Georgie Crozier in the other place as an alternative leader, someone who likes to claim she is a former nurse but has done her level best over the last couple of years to undermine our dedicated health professionals. Well, frankly, as I said at the outset, this is the worst opposition Victoria has ever seen, and like a lobster in boiling hot water, the leadership of the Leader of the Opposition is dead.