Tuesday, 3 March 2020

Questions without notice and ministers statements

Casey planning

Mr T SMITH (Kew) (12:04): My question is to the Minister for Planning. Two weeks ago in question time you said, and I quote:

… the assertion … that I had met with Mr Woodman is completely false.

Yet in her evidence at IBAC yesterday John Woodman’s associate Megan Schutz said about a meeting with the minister—you:

I asked Mr Wynne in the abstract whether he had a planning scheme amendment sitting on his desk—

and if—

his general position would be to approve it.

Minister, just for once tell the truth. On how many occasions have you met with John Woodman or his associates?

Members interjecting.

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Bentleigh is warned. I warn the member for Kew I am not going to allow questions with imputations contained within the question. I would ask members not to ask questions that do contain imputations. I also warn the minister and all members in terms of discussing this particular matter to be mindful of the conventions of sub judice. The matter is before a commission. A commission is considered to be a forum where the convention of sub judice applies.

Members interjecting.

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Essendon!

Mr M O’Brien: On a point of order, Speaker, IBAC is an executive commission; it is not a judicial commission. It does not have the status of a court and therefore the sub judice rule does not apply to matters before it. I would ask you to take advice on that. This is a very important issue because IBAC is looking at matters relating to corruption allegations, including senior members of the government. We will not be silenced in relation to these issues—

Members interjecting.

The SPEAKER: Order!

Mr M O’Brien: We will not be silenced.

The SPEAKER: Order! I have already sought advice on this particular matter. There are previous rulings in relation to this matter. I am not ruling that the minister cannot answer the question. I am simply asking members to be mindful of the convention of sub judice. I call the Minister for Planning.

Mr WYNNE (Richmond—Minister for Housing, Minister for Multicultural Affairs, Minister for Planning) (12:07): Thanks very much, Speaker, and I thank the member for Kew for his question. I respect of course the rulings that you have made. I do not intend to provide a running commentary on the matter, but to clarify for the member for Kew in relation to the question itself—have I met individually with Ms Schutz or Mr Woodman—the answer is no.

I can say though, just to clarify, that both Ms Schutz and Mr Woodman have attended a number of Progressive Business events that I have attended—indeed, roundtables where there might be a dozen or 14 people who have come to hear from me in relation to high-level matters pertaining to my portfolio, broad policy matters. My job is to ensure that we have the highest level of integrity—

Members interjecting.

The SPEAKER: Order! I warn the member for Warrandyte.

Mr WYNNE: and that demands the highest level of probity. On all of those occasions—Ms Schutz, who I did not know, and I had to be introduced and have described to me who Mr Woodman was, that is how much impact he has had on me and my decision-making—on all of those occasions, member for Kew, I am accompanied by a probity auditor.

Mr T SMITH (Kew) (12:09): My question again is to the Minister for Planning. Was a probity auditor present at every Progressive Business meeting you had with Megan Schutz, and were notes taken regarding her request for you to approve planning amendment C219, a tainted amendment that you are—astonishingly—still considering approving?

Mr WYNNE (Richmond—Minister for Housing, Minister for Multicultural Affairs, Minister for Planning) (12:09): I thank the member for Kew again for his supplementary question. This goes to the substance of when I am likely to approve the amendment, and I indicated in my answer previously to a similar question that there are in the order of 109 submissions that have been made to me in relation to the industrial land use—

Mr T Smith: On a point of order, Speaker, I understand that there was context given in my supplementary question with regard to C219, but the actual question regarded whether or not there was a probity auditor present at these meetings and were notes taken. I ask you to refer the minister back to that specific question.

The SPEAKER: Order! The minister is being relevant to the question that was asked, but the extra context given in the point of order may help the minister answer the question.

Mr WYNNE: Thank you, Speaker, and I repeat my earlier answer that a probity auditor was always—always—engaged with me on any of these Progressive Business events, as is entirely appropriate. Probity is absolutely critical to this, and indeed—

Mr T Smith: On a point of order, Speaker, I reiterate my question. I understand the minister is attempting to answer my question, but it went to: were notes taken? He is not being relevant to that part.

Members interjecting.

Mr T Smith: Are you a bit touchy over there? Was that close to the bone, Dan?

The SPEAKER: Order! I do not uphold the point of order. The Minister for Planning is being relevant to the question asked.

Mr Andrews interjected.

The SPEAKER: Order! I ask the Premier to come back to order.

Mr WYNNE: Thank you very much, Speaker, and I again reiterate to the member for Kew that on all occasions when I have been involved in Progressive Business events an independent probity auditor has been part of all those conversations, and indeed to all of the people who participated in those events with me it was made very clear that the probity auditor was in attendance.

Mr T Smith: On a point of order, Speaker, let the record reflect that the minister has not answered the question with regard to whether notes were taken—

Members interjecting.

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Kew will leave the chamber for the period of 1 hour.

Member for Kew withdrew from chamber.

Mr Wynne interjected.

The SPEAKER: Order! The Minister for Planning can leave the chamber for the period of 1 hour.

Minister for Planning withdrew from chamber.