Wednesday, 27 November 2024
Members
Member for Berwick
Members
Member for Berwick
Sonya KILKENNY (Carrum – Minister for Planning, Minister for the Suburbs) (15:04): I move:
That this house condemns the member for Berwick for bringing neo-Nazis into the Narre Warren community by organising and promoting a divisive protest.
I rise to speak on the motion in my name. You would have heard me over many months now talking a lot in this place about our work to build more homes for Victorians: really good homes in great communities, with the infrastructure that Victorians need to lead healthy, happy lives, like schools, hospitals, public transport, kinders and parks – the things that really connect us. But while bricks and mortar build a home, we know it is the people that make the community. It is our connection to friends, to family and to neighbours, that feeling that we are accepted for who we are and that we belong in the community in which we live. But last week the member for Berwick and other members of the Liberal Party sent a very clear message to members of Victoria’s Sikh community. That message: you do not belong here.
The member for Berwick called a protest after the naming of a suburban lake in Berwick Springs, Guru Nanak Lake, named after Guru Nanak Dev Ji, revered as the founder and the very first guru of Sikhism. In calling this protest the member for Berwick has opened up division on religious and cultural grounds. He has built a house of hate. When you build a house of hate –
James Newbury: On a point of order, Speaker, on standing order 118, the words that the minister just used are clearly impugning the member and go further than the substantive motion that is being moved. They are clearly impugning the member.
The SPEAKER: The substantive motion is correct, member for Brighton. I remind members about unparliamentary remarks. Impugning members is not accepted. It is a substantive motion, though. I remind the member to be respectful.
Sonya KILKENNY: Talking about respect, that is the very essence of this motion here today, and I remind the member for Brighton of that. When people raise division in their communities, they cannot then complain about who attends those protests, because who were those guests at the protest organised by the member for Berwick last week in Narre Warren? Those guests were neo-Nazis. The member for Berwick rolled out the welcome mat –
James Newbury: On a point of order, Speaker, again on standing order 118, the member has denied those allegations emphatically. The minister has been such a coward; she has not been able to –
The SPEAKER: Order! What is your point of order?
James Newbury: Standing order 118, Speaker.
The SPEAKER: It is a substantive motion.
Sonya KILKENNY: As I said, the member for Berwick rolled out the welcome mat for those who might wish to attack Victoria’s Sikh community and Victoria’s multiculturalism, and out they came. Neo-Nazis were there. It is a fact. They were in our park in Narre Warren last week. Since then we have heard nothing from those opposite. They have actually tried to sweep this under the rug for three days, member for Brighton. For three days –
James Newbury: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, the minister is just lying.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member for Brighton knows that word is unparliamentary. It is a matter for debate. There is no point of order.
Sonya KILKENNY: I remind the member for Brighton that we are here talking about respect – respect in our communities and respect in our workplaces as well.
James Newbury interjected.
Sonya KILKENNY: You do not threaten me, member for Brighton. I remind you about respect in this workplace. As I said, for three days since that protest last week, we heard nothing from the member for Berwick – no apologies, no condemnation that neo-Nazis had attended his protest in –
James Newbury: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, on relevance, the member at the time immediately called police. What the minister is doing is grubby and –
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Before I ask the minister to resume, I ask the member for Brighton to remember that points of order are not opportunities to debate. I am sure he will probably seek an opportunity to debate later. The substantive motion is before the house – respectful debate, please.
Sonya KILKENNY: The member for Brighton can throw around all the words he likes. I am okay to put up with the member for Brighton.
Sonya KILKENNY: I will ask you to walk outside to put those comments to me, thank you, member for Brighton. What we know is that for three days after the event there was silence from the member for Berwick. He did not condemn those neo-Nazis who attended his protest, and that is wholly unacceptable to the Sikh community and to Victoria’s multicultural –
James Newbury: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, on the point the minister just made and standing order 118, the member called police immediately. The minister is telling an untruth knowingly. He reported it to police.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Brighton, hopefully I am making myself understood. Your point of order 118, imputations, is fine. However, the motion at hand is a substantive motion, which allows imputations in regard to the motion. Points of order are not an opportunity for rebuttal on the debate. You will have an opportunity, I presume.
Sonya KILKENNY: I presume that the member for Brighton will have his opportunity to respond to the motion in due course. It is wholly unacceptable that the member for Berwick has not apologised to the Sikh community, that he has not apologised to Victoria’s multicultural community and that he has not apologised to all Victorians.
So how did we get here? It actually started with a pretty simple proposition, and that is that the names we give our public places should reflect the communities who live there. That is just fair. It is the right thing to do. As the minister responsible for Geographic Names Victoria, I know the value of place naming and the role that a placename can have in nurturing that real sense of belonging, that sense of inclusivity and that feeling of being welcome.
In France, do you know there is a little village called Villers-Bretonneux? The Anzacs saved this village during World War I, and a British general who had received the Victoria Cross said that the Australian attack was perhaps the greatest individual feat of the war. The French were so grateful that they put up a sign in the village school, and that sign is still there today. It says ‘Never forget Australia’. The school is now named Victoria School, and the main street through this French village is named Melbourne Road, and on that road is a restaurant named the Kangaroo. Every year the school – Victoria School – in this little French village commemorates Anzac Day. Let me ask you this: how do you think Australians feel when they visit that little village of Villers-Bretonneux? Let me tell you: they feel very, very welcome.
And so it is with the names we choose to give our streets, our parks, our footy fields, our creeks, our reserves, our mountains – our public places. They send a message about the type of community we live in. They tell a story, they tell a history and they let people know they are welcome. They reflect who we are and where we have come from, and you can certainly see that today in our existing placenames. We have so many placenames named after Christian figures. In fact it is hard to find a community without a street or public name that is named after a saint, and that makes sense given the role Christianity has played in our state’s history.
In Berwick in particular you will find street names with the names Daniher, Duckworth, Neagle, Madden and Watson – 14 in total – all named after Essendon players from the 1980s. We have places named after cricketers, the Napoleonic wars and famous Olympians, like Edwin Flack Reserve in Berwick, which I visited just last week with Lee Tarlamis from the other place. We know that there is a person, a story and a history behind the name of every street, park, reserve, footy field – whatever it might be. But we also know, because the data tells us this, that the names of our places do not adequately reflect the members and the diversity of the communities who live there. So accepting this, we must also ask: whose stories and whose histories are we silencing? Our task now is to really work with communities to make sure that our placenames reflect Victoria’s rich diversity and that we tell the stories and share the histories of all Victorians. So over the next three years our government will be working with communities to come up with 6000 new names for new places.
That brings me to Saturday 9 November. It was a beautiful morning when I travelled to Berwick Springs, a beautiful, crisp Saturday morning, and there I joined the Minister for Multicultural Affairs the Honourable Ingrid Stitt and the member for South-Eastern Metro Region Lee Tarlamis in the other place as well as many colleagues from this place – the member for Narre Warren South, the member for Cranbourne, the member for Pakenham and the member for Hastings – and so many members of Victoria’s Sikh community to celebrate what was a truly joyous occasion, the naming of Guru Nanak Lake in Berwick Springs named in honour of the first guru and founder of the Sikh faith. The announcement really was an opportunity for pride and celebration for the Sikh community, and it was to recognise their contributions to Victoria’s cultural and social fabric, and I want to take a moment now to really acknowledge and recognise the significant contributions from our Sikh communities. We have seen that firsthand, particularly with food relief, following natural disasters in Victoria.
The Sikh community have shown the best of us, but in the last few weeks what they have received in return from those opposite, led by the member for Berwick and Mrs Hermans in the other place, has been a display of the absolute worst of us. The member for Berwick and Mrs Hermans organised a protest following the naming of Guru Nanak Lake. This is a name of such profound cultural, spiritual and religious significance to the thousands and thousands of Sikh community members who call Victoria home. This protest, organised by the member for Berwick and Mrs Hermans in the other place, runs right along religious and cultural divides, and it really has picked the scab of division. They authorised and enabled the very kinds of responses we have unfortunately seen, because this is exactly the kind of grievance, exactly the kind of division and divisive rhetoric, that is shared with neo-Nazis. It resonates with neo-Nazi groups, it emboldens them and it invites them right in. And the neo-Nazis answered their call. They accepted the invitation, and they showed up in Narre Warren just last week.
You only need to look at the comments on the Facebook of the member for Berwick. One comment called for a supporter of the naming of Guru Nanak Lake to be deported, and another reads:
The purpose of war is to take over a country by force. The purpose of immigration and multiculturalism is to take over a country by stealth. Immigration is genocide.
As of last night this comment was still on the Facebook of the member for Berwick. He should be rightly condemned for his actions, and these are the responses that they have brought.
So now a question for the Leader of the Opposition: what is it with Liberals and neo-Nazis? And why the silence?
James Newbury: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, the sentence that the minister just outrageously uttered had nothing to do with the substance of the motion, which relates to one specific member.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I ask all members to consider debate with respect. The statement was not outside the standing orders, but I ask the minister to continue with respect for all members in the house.
Sonya KILKENNY: Thank you, Deputy Speaker. Why the silence? The member for Berwick did not condemn the attendance of these neo-Nazis at his protest. Let us share some facts here. He posted on social media. The post is still there on social media. In not one place in that social media post has he acknowledged the presence of neo-Nazis at that protest. He had the opportunity to condemn the presence of neo-Nazis at that protest. He chose not to. For three days he said nothing. He even tried to hide it, for goodness sake. The only reason the member for Berwick said anything is because he got caught out – the media called him out on it. That is exactly what happened. This is really turning into a leadership test for the Leader of the Opposition. For goodness sake, we have all been observing the Leader of the Opposition in this defamation case with Moira Deeming in the other place.
Members interjecting.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Member for Bulleen, I am sure you would like to stand on this at some point; that is my guess. It will be difficult for you to do so if you are not in the chamber.
James Newbury: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, the scurrilous, outrageous mudslinging of the member in no way relates to the substantive motion.
Iwan Walters: On the point of order, Deputy Speaker, the minister has been entirely relevant in her comments on the substantive motion. Moreover, what the member for Brighton is seeking to do I think goes to Deputy Speaker McGrath’s ruling way back in 1994. He is seeking to stymie good and productive debate by making continued vexatious points of order. I would ask you to rule him out of order.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: There is no point of order. However, I counsel all members to consider sub judice in regard to any matters that may or may not be before the courts.
Sonya KILKENNY: The notice given and the motion before the house relate to condemning a member for neo-Nazis attending a protest. I am suggesting that there is a link and a comparison to be made with another member, Moira Deeming in the other place, who the Leader of the Opposition is now in defamation proceedings with.
James Newbury: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, on relevance. What does this have to do with the original motion?
Danny O’Brien: On the point of order, Deputy Speaker, the Speaker herself has previously warned all members of Parliament to be very cautious of sub judice conventions and not to speak about court cases.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: That is a separate point of order. On the first point of order, I think the minister was providing context to the motion. On the second point of order, yes, let us all be very careful about that. There are a certain amount of things on the public notice. I think we are getting close.
Sonya KILKENNY: I have a question for the Leader of the Opposition and all members of the Liberal parliamentary party: how is the member for Berwick’s conduct any different? How is it any different? In fact the member for Berwick’s behaviour –
James Newbury: A point of clarification, Deputy Speaker, on relevance. As far as I understood, this is a debate on a motion. It is not question time. The minister is asking the clouds questions. This is a debate on a motion.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: On relevance, I think the minister is, as I said before, trying to contrast or compare, and again I caution the minister from going too far, but at this stage the minister to continue.
Sonya KILKENNY: Thank you, Deputy Speaker. I would suggest that the member for Berwick’s behaviour may be even more reprehensible because, unlike Moira Deeming in the other place, the member for Berwick tried to conceal the fact that Nazis had turned up.
His social media has been absolutely silent on the fact that neo-Nazis had attended. He refused to apologise. He refused to call it out. So I think the question that really needs to be answered is: why is the member for Berwick being held to a lower standard than Moira Deeming, a first-time female MP, and why is the Leader of the Opposition failing to call this out?
When you remain silent in these kinds of matters, to do nothing is to be complicit, and complicity, the failure to act, really has to be one of the weakest human characteristics. Worse still, silence sends a strong message to oppressors, to people like neo-Nazis, that their behaviour will go unchecked. Those opposite, the member for Berwick in particular, have created the authorising environment –
James Newbury: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, this substantive motion relates to one member. The minister has just referred to other members. It is clearly outside the scope of the motion.
Nick Staikos: On the point of order, Deputy Speaker, the member for Brighton has been up at least a dozen times. He is being vexatious. These are frivolous points of order, and he should be brought to order. He is disrupting the debate on this motion.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Again – I think this is the third time now – I think the minister is allowed to debate the reasons for her motion in regard to context. In regard to continual points of order, the Chair is not aware of what a member may or may not say when they stand for a point of order, so it is impossible to decide not to hear it – well, it is not impossible, but it is very unlikely. I would counsel all members to make their points of order succinct and relevant to the debate at hand.
Sonya KILKENNY: The member for Berwick and Mrs Hermans in the other place have created the authorising environment. They have built this house of hate. It is a house of hate. We have seen who has shown up at these protests. These are hateful people.
James Newbury: On a point of order, Speaker, the minister has just impugned a member of the other place, which is not linked to the substantive motion. The minister did that by name. It is not in any way linked to the substantive motion. It is entirely in breach of the standing orders. You cannot impugn a Council member.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Impugning members is out of order. I did not hear the exact words as I was passing something to the Clerk. I encourage the minister to refrain from impugning members not connected directly to the motion at hand.
Sonya KILKENNY: We have seen the worst of society attend a protest organised by the member for Berwick. Most of us, most Victorians, the overwhelming majority of us, want to live peacefully and respectfully alongside our communities. We want to celebrate each other’s heritage and the diversity of our community. That is what a good society looks like, because our diversity is what makes Victoria strong. It makes us special and it makes us who we are, and we should be proud of that. It is a great place to live, and our multiculturalism is our strength. Labor recognises that. So instead of promoting division and fuelling hatred, we on this side will continue to promote unity and support social cohesion. We will make sure that instead of the division that we have seen most recently from the member for Berwick, there is unity. Instead of fear – those opposite operate on fear and distrust – there is trust. Instead of pain that they inflict on community members – in particular members of the Sikh community, who the member for Berwick has still refused to apologise to – there should be joy and there should be respect.
That may be encouraging greater diversity in our place names, like naming Guru Nanak Lake. It may be supporting multicultural groups to help us bridge the gap between different communities across all of Victoria and keep us really connected or it may be stronger laws like the laws that have been introduced this week into Parliament to protect members of our community against vilification.
We on this side of the house will stand strong with our Sikh community. We will call out the worst that we have seen, particularly last week in Berwick Springs where the member for Berwick called a meeting and enabled and authorised the types of people that we saw attend that protest. Unlike the member for Berwick, we will continue to work hard every day to ensure that all Victorians can feel proud of who they are, that they belong and that they are included in our communities and that they have a place – an equal place – in this state.
James NEWBURY (Brighton) (15:31): I move:
That the following words be inserted after the word ‘protest’: ‘and notes the member immediately reported the matter to Victoria Police; and that this house also condemns the behaviour of other Labor members of Parliament’.
This motion is about one thing. Last night in this Parliament a Labor member accused her colleagues of sexual harassment. Has the Premier done anything about that? She has done nothing. Today the government comes in with this crass, outrageous motion to cover up the sexual harassment claims made by a member in the other place.
Sonya Kilkenny: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, on relevance, could you bring the member back to the motion before the house.
James NEWBURY: On the point of order, Deputy Speaker, I have amended the motion. The reason I amended the motion to condemn other Labor members of Parliament is because of their cover-up of sexual harassment.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Brighton, would you like me to rule on the point of order? You have moved to amend the motion.
James NEWBURY: That is what we have now seen. We have seen a Labor member accuse her own caucus of sexual harassment, and she has asked the Premier to investigate. But what has the Premier done? Brought in this sledge motion to cover it up. What a grub. What an absolute grub to cover up what Sonja Terpstra said in the other place last night. I hope every single member of the gallery looks at her allegation, because it was not just sexual harassment that claims were made about. There were also claims about the male behaviour of Member Galea; Member Galea was also complained about in that speech.
Members interjecting.
James NEWBURY: Oh, you can give it, but you can’t take it.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Brighton, that is unnecessary.
Emma Vulin: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, I bring the member back to the motion.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member is actually on the motion and the attempt to amend the motion.
James NEWBURY: Exactly. I am speaking on the amended motion. Thank you, Deputy Speaker, for confirming. That is what this government is now doing: trying to cover up that speech that was made last night. I am sure that if people did a little bit of digging they could find out who the member was accusing of sexual harassment in the caucus. I also know that the Premier’s office was made aware of the speech last night, as was the President of the Council. Both were involved immediately after the speech was given, but what have they done? Nothing.
Nick Staikos: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, the member for Brighton is showing an unusual degree of aggression. He should be brought to order.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The point of order is not a point of order.
James NEWBURY: I also note that the member in the allegations put allegations against the President of the Council for silencing her. So we now have a substantive speech given by a Labor member of the Council with a set of 16 allegations. And not just in this place – she has also put it on social media. Not only has she had the courage to say it in the other chamber, but she has put it out into the community. She has taken away the veil of privilege and put it on social media. What has the Premier done about those 16 allegations? What has she done? She moved a sledge motion against one of our members which is entirely baseless, and that is why I have amended this motion. The member immediately called Victoria Police, as he rightly should.
Nathan Lambert: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, my understanding is you cannot move an amendment to a motion that completely changes the substance of the original motion, and I ask for your clarification as to whether the member for Brighton’s amendment is in any way related to the substance of the original motion.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: A member may amend a question that has been proposed by omitting certain words or inserting or adding words. An amendment must be relevant to the question it is proposed to attend. It is a bit of a catch-all, but it continues on from the condemnation of the first, and I have accepted the amendment as such.
James NEWBURY: Look at the faces on that side. They know that the Premier has done nothing about the speech that was given last night. The minister who moved this motion came in and did so when there were fresh allegations against that minister. Yesterday a former staff member of that minister wrote to me to say that in her office she was, quote, cold-calling residents in the area during election time to see their views on the Labor Party and who they would probably be voting for – what an outrageous red shirts affair. In writing a former staffer has blown the whistle on a minister who moved a motion in this place to hold us up to some standard when her own former staff are putting red shirts allegations against her.
Tim Richardson: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, I think the member for Brighton has failed to recognise that he was not called to give evidence in the court case and is having a bit of FOMO and a bit of imposter syndrome that he is missing out.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: There is no point of order. I am not amused.
James NEWBURY: I note the red shirts investigation –
James NEWBURY: I would not be talking, member for Mordialloc. The minister who moved this motion was a recipient of the red shirts affair.
Mary-Anne Thomas: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, on relevance, I understand that the motion before the house has been amended, but nonetheless I cannot see how any of the contribution that is being made by the member for Brighton has any relevance to the motion that is before the house. I ask that you ask him to come back to the motion and that he might also amend the tone and tenor with which he presents in this house.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The minister was given context in regard to her debate. The member can continue.
James NEWBURY: I do note the point of order from the Leader of the House, who was also a recipient of red shirts. I can understand why the member might wish to have taken a point of order. So we have a minister who has moved a motion in this house, there are fresh red shirts allegations against her by her own former staffer and the Minister for Planning has previously been found to have been a recipient of red shirts, as has the Leader of the House. But it certainly does not stop there.
Belinda Wilson: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, I am just wondering whether the member for Brighton is aware of the volume of his voice. Perhaps he has got a hearing problem. It is actually giving me a migraine. Could he sit down?
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Unfortunately that is not a point of order.
James NEWBURY: I refer to the IBAC inquiry into Woodman. We have just spoken about the Minister for Planning, as we have also other members, who probably will not take a point of order anymore, I would not think. It seems that the member for Carrum was also a beneficiary of Woodman. So we have a minister coming to this place –
Mathew Hilakari: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, I could not hear, with the barrage of sound, whether he was disassociating himself from neo-Nazis and those colleagues who stand with them. I am just checking if that is what he was doing.
Members interjecting.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: There are a number of things going on with the member for Bulleen right now. The member for Brighton to continue. There is an amendment.
James NEWBURY: It is worth noting that the minister who has moved this sledge motion has tried to throw a bucket onto the other side of the chamber.
Pauline Richards: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, it is not a sledge motion, it is a substantive motion, and I would like you to remind the member that he ought to be referring to things using the proper forms of the house.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Correct titles are always appreciated. The member for Brighton to continue.
James NEWBURY: I will use the correct title following the point of order from the member for Cranbourne – the member for Cranbourne who got a $20,000 brown paper bag from Woodman.
Members interjecting.
James NEWBURY: I was not going to name you again, Minister.
Mary-Anne Thomas: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, the contributions from the Manager of Opposition Business –
Members interjecting.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Members on my left, if you want me to hear the point of order, I need to be able to hear it.
Mary-Anne Thomas: It goes to relevance, and it also goes to the fact that the member is impugning or attempting to impugn a member in this place, and I ask that he refrain from doing that. We all of course remember the member for Brighton was filmed bullying an older woman in his electorate –
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the House knows points of order are not an opportunity for debate. I would counsel outside –
Members interjecting.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Cranbourne! The member for Brighton should be careful about impugning members.
James NEWBURY: It is a substantive motion.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: It is a substantive motion on one member.
James NEWBURY: No, I amended it.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: However, the amendment refers to a collection of members. To then impugn single members concerns me. Members in the room are able to respond in kind if they feel aggrieved.
James NEWBURY: They absolutely could speak, and I would suggest that the Leader of the House may want to speak to the allegations, and the member for Cranbourne. The Leader of the House took $10,000 in a brown paper bag from Woodman, so a recipient of red shirts and Woodman; member for Cranbourne, red shirts and Woodman; Minister for Planning, red shirts and Woodman. What a bunch of crooks. To come into this place while one of their own caucus members has live allegations against her colleagues that have not yet been answered by this government – you cannot believe it, can you?
The government has come in here with a sledge motion today – an outrageous sledge motion. The truth about this sledge motion, the absolute core of it, is there were 16 allegations put last night in the Council, including against the President of the Council, one of the most senior people in this entire building, one of the most senior office-holders in this entire building, and I know that he was aware of it immediately. I know that a number of members raised their concerns about those allegations and are waiting for a response – a response that has not been delivered. No response has been delivered. The member who made those allegations in the other place did not just do that by speech under the cover of privilege, unlike the minister who moved this motion, who sledged and refused to walk outside and say it, because she knows it is not true and defamatory. The member in the other place put it up on social media. So for the government to try and cover up these most serious allegations is an absolute disgrace. How can they have done that? How can they ignore allegations that were put in the other place, including of sexist behaviour, harassment, bullying – there are 16 of them, so there are a lot of allegations – puerile behaviour, sexist and juvenile behaviour, overt toxicity. They are the most serious allegations that could be put.
Mathew Hilakari: On a point of order, Speaker, is the member reflecting on his time in the federal Parliament or is he referring to some other matters?
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: That is not a point of order, member for Point Cook. It is Frank Costanza all over again.
James NEWBURY: The minister came in earlier and made a number of baseless allegations and asked questions, so the question for the Premier is: what has the Premier done about these 16 allegations? What has the Premier done? Nothing but organise her team to come in and throw mud in this place. Earlier today, when I became aware of this motion being moved in this house, I said to the government that it is absolutely beneath this place to try and have the type of debate that the government chooses to have purely to cover up their own internal problems. I made that point to the government. I said to the government that they should not use this place in this way, especially because there were outrageous allegations made in the other place that have not been dealt with.
Belinda Wilson: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, on relevance, I do not believe we need to know about his personal conversations that he has with the government.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I think the member is being as relevant as anyone else.
James NEWBURY: That is right. Again I made the point. I went to the government and said, ‘Do not do this this afternoon in the Parliament. You will demean this place. It is wrong.’ I said clearly to the government that it was wrong.
Nathan Lambert: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, my understanding of standing order 118 is that it is there to protect members and give them an opportunity to defend themselves against impugnations. I do not believe that a member can stand up and move a motion that simply says ‘I want to impugn anyone I like’ and then say anything they like. The substantive motion was specific to a single member. I do not believe you can use 118 in this manner. I seek your ruling, Deputy Speaker.
Members interjecting.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I could not hear the end of the member for Preston. Member for Brighton, I will call you on the point of order. I want to hear what the member for Preston said.
Nathan Lambert: The point, Deputy Speaker, is that you cannot use standing order 118 to generally attack a wide range of members, and I seek your ruling on that question.
James NEWBURY: On the point of order, Deputy Speaker, I was speaking specifically to the background to the motion being moved today. I was not even dealing with the substance of the motion. I was talking about the procedural facts.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I can rule on the point of order. For the member for Preston, imputations on members are disorderly. Referring to a collection of members is a matter for debate in the sense that if it is a collection of members it would have to be fairly grievous for that to be considered imputations on members. The original motion at hand refers to condemning a specific member. The amendment refers to a collection of members. I again encourage people to consider imputations on single members who are not in the substantive motion, and members have the right to stand and take offence.
James NEWBURY: I do note, as you have said, that every member I have referred to has the opportunity to come into this place and speak. In fact some of them are sitting here. The Leader of the House and the member for Cranbourne are here, if they want to stand up and defend themselves. By the way, these are public reports. I do not think an IBAC report or an Ombudsman’s report is an imputation. It is a fact. Here are their names.
To continue on the background to this motion, I want to make it extremely clear so there is absolutely no misunderstanding. I said to the government, ‘Do not do this today with this motion. Do not do this. It demeans this place. It is political, and it is untrue.’ I formally said it to the government, and the government said no. So they have chosen to bring on a sledge motion in this place, to demean this place, to use an hour of the time of this place, to use a multicultural group for their own political sledging. That is what they are doing.
Mary-Anne Thomas: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, the member on his feet is referring to conversations that he in fact had with me, and it is quite clear that the motion that was moved by the Minister for Planning was in fact about an event organised by the Liberal Party where Nazis showed up.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: There is no point of order that I heard.
James NEWBURY: I would put to the Leader of the House: rather than trying to hide behind a point of order, stand up on the substantive motion. I am sure that you can pull the strings to make sure you are next. The member can stand up and respond to any of these allegations rather than trying to use any point of order. I did not name out of courtesy the Leader of the House, who has just named herself as the person that I approached to ask that this motion not be moved, because it is untrue. It is manifestly untrue, and it is an outrageous political abuse of this house. What is so bad about this is that at the same time –
Members interjecting.
Mathew Hilakari: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, the members of the Liberal Party used to kick people out for hanging out with neo-Nazis. My point of order is that I cannot hear what the speaker is saying over the level of noise in the chamber.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: It is not a point of order.
James NEWBURY: I do not know what it was. Can I again make very, very clear –
Pauline Richards: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, members are interjecting from all over the place. They need to be in their seats.
Members interjecting.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Berwick! I really do not want to remove members from the chamber today, because I appreciate members might want to contribute. I am slowly losing it.
James NEWBURY: Again I make the point, and I make it clearly, because I was interjected on a number of times and could not make it clearly enough: the coalition went to the government and said, ‘Do not use the Parliament in this way today’ – because it is untrue, it is an outrageous lie –
Members interjecting.
James NEWBURY: This is frivolous.
Members interjecting.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Bentleigh: warned.
Members interjecting.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Bentleigh! Half an hour.
Member for Bentleigh withdrew from chamber.
James NEWBURY: The IQ of this place will not change.
Mathew Hilakari: On a point of order, Speaker, members continue to interject while not in their seats, and I would ask you to direct them not to do so.
The SPEAKER: I have not been in the chamber to see the interjections.
James NEWBURY: Again, a number of serious allegations were made last night, which the government has not responded to, by a Labor member about their caucus, including about the behaviour of women in the caucus towards her. As I said earlier, against the President of the Council –
Mathew Hilakari: On a point of order, Speaker, members continue to interject from outside their seats.
The SPEAKER: I remind members to be in their correct places if they wish to make commentary in the chamber.
James NEWBURY: This motion is an outrageous use of this Parliament’s time based on untruth – purely partisan – while 16 allegations hang over this Premier’s head by one of her own caucus, moved by a member whose character is just a disgrace.
The SPEAKER: Order! The time has come for me to interrupt business for the grievance debate.
Business interrupted under sessional orders.