Thursday, 14 August 2025
Committees
Parliamentary Ethics Committee
Committees
Parliamentary Ethics Committee
Membership
That Daniela De Martino, John Mullahy and Kim Wells be members of the Parliamentary Ethics Committee.
Ellen SANDELL (Melbourne) (10:10): I would like to make a few remarks on this motion. I want to make a few comments about this ethics committee that the Labor government is proposing to allocate members to today. Let us be really clear about what is happening here: the ethics committee is a committee that is set up to review and set the standards of behaviour and code of conduct for MPs, so it is a pretty important committee. It was set up in response to Operation Watts, which revealed industrial-scale branch stacking and rorting of public funds by Labor MPs.
For years independent experts and the Greens called for a parliamentary standards commissioner and an ethics committee, and after years of delaying those calls, Labor was finally forced to introduce it. Yet today Labor has decided deliberately to only put Labor and Liberal MPs onto this committee, despite there being a huge crossbench in the Victorian Parliament. This is a highly unusual move. This will be the only joint committee in this Parliament with no representatives at all from the crossbench – no independents, no Greens, no minor parties represented. I usually try and keep my contributions in this chamber pretty respectful and reasonable, but I cannot for the life of me describe this as anything other than a protection racket. This is Labor and the Liberals deciding that they and they alone will decide on the standards of behaviour, the code of conduct and the rules for MPs’ behaviour in this place. I have to say it is pretty galling because the ethics committee was set up precisely because of the rorts and the scandals uncovered through IBAC investigations into Labor MPs.
We have had many, many conversations with the government about this committee, many conversations with the Leader of the House, with the Treasurer, with the Premier, with their offices, offering to work together with the Labor government to ensure that this committee is truly representative of this Parliament, to make sure that all MPs are able to sit down, no matter which party they come from, to discuss what we think the standards of behaviour in this place should be and what the rules and the code of conduct are. It is pretty disappointing – and that is putting it lightly – that instead of taking up the invitation to ensure that this committee is fully representative of this Parliament, Labor have decided to stitch up a deal with the Liberals and have said to us that they do not believe that the crossbench has any role here and in fact they would prefer Labor and Liberals to stitch up these deals together so they get to decide the rules for themselves.
I do not think that is respectful. I do not think it is acceptable, and I do not think that the Victorian public would think that is acceptable either. I think the Victorian public would have every right to ask why Labor and the Liberals do not want crossbenchers, Greens, independents and minor parties on the ethics committee. Is it because they might actually set standards that hold MPs accountable for their behaviour? Is it that Labor and Liberal MPs do not want to change anything about this place and they do not want to set those higher standards for MP behaviour? I think it is hubris. It is hubris for the Labor and Liberal MPs to act like they are the only two parties in this Parliament, because the simple reality of our electoral system now is that they are not.
I get that Labor and the Liberals are having difficulty adjusting to that new reality, where their primary votes are plummeting election after election and more and more crossbenchers and alternative parties are getting elected to parliaments. Instead of just accepting that this is the reality and that the Victorian public expects a certain standard from their MPs, Labor’s reaction to this is to try and lock things down, to try and misuse the rules of the Parliament to lock out any voices other than their own and set up what I believe can only be described as a protection racket to lock anyone other than the two major parties out of making decisions about the standards of behaviour for MPs. I understand that they think they will get away with it because it is an internal process in Parliament and no-one is really watching Parliament. I do not think Labor will get away with it. I think that it will backfire, because integrity really does matter to the Victorian public. Election after election the Victorian public have shown that integrity is a matter that they vote on, and they want to see better standards of behaviour, whether it is here or in the federal Parliament, where this has been a huge issue.
The Victorian Greens for a long time have called for a body to investigate parliamentarian misconduct and improve behavioural standards and ethics. We were repeatedly shut down by Labor and the Liberals over many, many years. In 2019 the Greens moved amendments to establish an independent parliamentary standards commissioner. They were opposed by Labor and they were opposed by the Liberals, meaning we had to wait six years, where we just had a conga line of endless ministerial scandals, before we actually got an independent commissioner. We have one now, and that is great.
In 2022 the Greens introduced a comprehensive parliamentary integrity bill that included not just the need for an integrity commission and commissioner but also proposed laws for parliamentarians’ interactions with lobbyists and required cooling-off periods for MPs who are moving from their political careers into private consultancy roles. These laws were also opposed by Labor and the Liberals. Who knows how many years and how many lobbying scandals will have to occur before the old parties are once again forced to reluctantly act on the revolving door between ministers and big corporations and lobbyists that we know the public absolutely hate and which leads to such bad decisions happening and vested interests getting such preferential treatment in our state and in our country. These are the kinds of rules that we should be looking at. These are the kinds of things that could be in a code of conduct for MPs but will not get looked at now, because Labor has decided that instead of having this committee being fully representative, it will just be Labor and Liberal MPs to ensure that these kinds of things cannot be looked at. I think the public wants committees like this to look at these kinds of things, like the revolving door between lobbyists, big corporations, ministers and parliamentarians, but I think we can almost guarantee now that that will not be looked at.
The fact is that every improvement in parliamentary integrity, transparency and accountability in Victoria over the last decade has come directly or indirectly as the result of pressure from the Greens on Labor, and they have had to be pulled kicking and screaming to the table.
Members interjecting.
Ellen SANDELL: I can come up with a list. I can send a list to the member for Tarneit. One of them just passed the Parliament on Tuesday night, where we had to drag Labor kicking and screaming to the table to get rid of ‘dump day’ and to have more transparency on Treasurer’s advances. If you look at all of the transparency measures – a non-government chair on the Integrity and Oversight Committee – there are numerous examples where it has only been through Greens pressure and negotiations that we have actually got more integrity laws in this place, after having been dragged kicking and screaming to improve standards and integrity in this workplace.
They did not want to do it in the first place, but now that they are having to have an ethics committee, Labor and the Liberals are trying everything in their power to ensure that the political duopoly still gets to control the rules for MPs to make sure that their exclusive, cosy little Labor and Liberal club is not actually disrupted in any way. We know how this works: Labor and the Liberals get into office and then they expect to continue this cosy little club with just the two of them setting the rules for everyone else. They want that to continue because that serves the Labor and Liberal political establishment. But it does not serve the Victorian public, because heaven forbid anyone actually forces Labor and Liberal MPs to abide by the standards of behaviour that the public actually expects.
Assembly divided on motion:
Ayes (78): Jacinta Allan, Brad Battin, Jade Benham, Roma Britnell, Colin Brooks, Josh Bull, Tim Bull, Martin Cameron, Anthony Carbines, Ben Carroll, Anthony Cianflone, Annabelle Cleeland, Sarah Connolly, Chris Couzens, Chris Crewther, Jordan Crugnale, Lily D’Ambrosio, Daniela De Martino, Steve Dimopoulos, Paul Edbrooke, Wayne Farnham, Eden Foster, Matt Fregon, Ella George, Luba Grigorovitch, Sam Groth, Matthew Guy, Bronwyn Halfpenny, Katie Hall, Paul Hamer, Martha Haylett, Mathew Hilakari, David Hodgett, Melissa Horne, Lauren Kathage, Emma Kealy, Sonya Kilkenny, Nathan Lambert, John Lister, Gary Maas, Alison Marchant, Kathleen Matthews-Ward, Tim McCurdy, Steve McGhie, Cindy McLeish, Paul Mercurio, John Mullahy, James Newbury, Danny O’Brien, Michael O’Brien, Kim O’Keeffe, John Pesutto, Pauline Richards, Tim Richardson, Richard Riordan, Brad Rowswell, Michaela Settle, David Southwick, Ros Spence, Nick Staikos, Natalie Suleyman, Meng Heang Tak, Jackson Taylor, Nina Taylor, Kat Theophanous, Mary-Anne Thomas, Bill Tilley, Bridget Vallence, Emma Vulin, Peter Walsh, Vicki Ward, Kim Wells, Nicole Werner, Rachel Westaway, Dylan Wight, Gabrielle Williams, Belinda Wilson, Jess Wilson
Noes (4): Gabrielle de Vietri, Will Fowles, Tim Read, Ellen Sandell
Motion agreed to.