Wednesday, 9 March 2022

Motions

Australian Labor Party

Debate resumed.

Ms CROZIER (Southern Metropolitan) (12:41): Before question time I was responding to the extraordinary response by Ms Taylor, and I was about to make the point that despite what the house had just heard from Ms Vaghela, being new information in terms of that very detailed information that she outlined to the house, Ms Taylor rejected it outright. In fact it was very evident that there was a written response by government that she was reading, because she rejected it in her first statement to the house. However, Ms Vaghela was putting new information into the domain, so the question is really: how could Ms Taylor do that when this new information came about? That is my first point.

The other point I wanted to make is: if Ms Taylor was saying the government denies the allegations in full, then why has Mr Pallas, the Treasurer, who questioned Ms Vaghela’s state of mind in what I think was a very disgraceful public statement at the time, since apologised? There are a number of inconsistencies here regarding Ms Taylor’s response on behalf of the government that the government rejects these claims outright. I think that is incredibly telling.

The other point I would like to make is that Ms Vaghela spoke about the Minister for Women—and she said that it was the Minister for Women who was bullying her, that women within the Labor Party are actually doing the bullying, very significant claims about a party and a government that claim ‘We hear you, we believe you’ on a range of matters—and about why the government are rejecting her claims when she has outlined them, when clearly, as she said, she was not aware that the man she was making claims about had been sacked from the Premier’s office. She only found that out from a media report just a few weeks ago. So I think there are many inconsistencies in the government’s response to this very serious matter.

We have heard the Premier, as I have previously said, refer to Ms Vaghela as ‘that person’. We have seen the form of the Premier. He has made claims about members on this side of the house, allegations around my former colleague Ms Bauer—very unsavoury comments, allegations around that—

Mr Davis: Shocking.

Ms CROZIER: Shocking and never been denied.

Ms Shing interjected.

Ms CROZIER: Well, the allegations about Ms Bauer were absolutely crude, foul and—

Members interjecting.

Ms CROZIER: I would like the Premier to come out and say that he never said those words, because according to reports—

Members interjecting.

Ms CROZIER: I am not going to have a debate, President. I am talking about Ms Vaghela. I stand by my comments regarding the disgraceful comments by the Premier, calling Ms Vaghela ‘that person’, and what he said about other people on this side of the house, whether it was Ms Bauer or Mr Katos. There were the claims from Ms Garrett. There are other women who have stood up to the Premier, women who have held positions in the public service in various agencies and who have all lost their jobs. They stood up to the Premier. There is a very real culture going through the Labor Party, one of a protection racket—we know that—and the women on the other side, in the government, have not stood by Ms Vaghela. They have come out, and, as she has said, they have ridiculed her and have been quite disgraceful in terms of those claims.

Finally, going back, Ms Taylor rejecting outright the claims made in the house, which was new material put on the record by Ms Vaghela, demonstrates a statement made by the government that she was to read in. Clearly there are other allegations. Why did the Treasurer apologise to Ms Vaghela after his claims? And why did Ms Williams do what she did? If she has not done it, then she can come out and make those assertions in the public domain as well. But Ms Vaghela has put new information on the record. They are serious claims that demonstrate the nature of the toxic culture and the cover-ups that this government will continue to do to save their public position. I think it is incredibly brave that Ms Vaghela has come out. She is wanting to expose what is going on. She is the only one that has been prepared to stand up against what has been said and the actions that have been taken against her. There was a lot of information—

Ms Pulford interjected.

Ms CROZIER: It is terrible, Ms Pulford. I will take up Ms Pulford’s interjection. I will say again: Ms Vaghela brought new information into this house. Ms Taylor stood up and rejected everything outright without even understanding that there were new claims. Who is inconsistent, Ms Pulford? It is the government in terms of not believing Ms Vaghela, not standing up for what she is claiming. You are standing up behind the Premier, who has called Ms Vaghela ‘that person’. You did not call that out. None of you called that out. You all stood behind the Premier. You were there, standing behind him, and you did not believe somebody who had made these claims.

For a party that pride themselves on their record in supporting women and believing them, you have just shown yourself to be the absolute flakes that you are. To the flakes, I say again, when it comes to this issue, how flaky it has been and the disgraceful way—

Ms Bath interjected.

Ms CROZIER: It is when it suits, Ms Bath.

A member: Flaky.

Ms CROZIER: It has been, because Ms Taylor’s response was a prepared response. That was clear because she did not respond to any of the new information. She did not respond to any of the new information that was provided by Ms Vaghela in the house. That says it all—a flaky response by the government. On this side of the house we certainly believe Ms Vaghela’s comments.

Dr CUMMING (Western Metropolitan) (12:49): It is an interesting day today to speak on Ms Vaghela’s motion seeing as yesterday was International Women’s Day and this morning we spoke about victims of crime. And here we have the government—look at the way that you are acting—being childish, not believing Ms Vaghela, dismissing her. How very disrespectful are you? For me, I believe Kaushaliya 100 per cent. If you listened to every word that she had to say, it was very clear that it is all true. Why was that person dismissed if it was not true?

Ms Pulford interjected.

Dr CUMMING: Would you like to interact with me, Ms Pulford?

Ms Pulford: No.

Dr CUMMING: Are you sure? Because you have obviously—

The PRESIDENT: Dr Cumming, please, through the Chair.

Dr CUMMING: Either I am going to be able to speak in silence or we are going to have the government constantly—just that undertone of rudeness on such a serious allegation of bullying and harassment. But this is what it is all about, isn’t it? For me, my own personal experience from these bullies in the government across here is not dissimilar to what Ms Vaghela has just said: rudeness, disrespect, not treating people as members of Parliament. She was elected like all of you—no different. Just because she changed factions does not mean that you should have acted the way you did towards her. I know what that is like. I have spent all my years in the western suburbs watching the Labor Party, and I know what you are like, so I believe Kaushaliya 100 per cent.

For others in here that were listening to Kaushaliya earlier and the contribution she was making and not giving her the respect that she deserved, smirking, messaging, laughing—shake your head, but you were. To call her ‘that person’ or ‘a rat’—she has shared with me some of the harassment that she has experienced. I know for a fact that this is exactly how it would have been playing out in the community and how this government would have made sure that she was not invited. They would have been telling people in her community, ‘Don’t invite her to this event, otherwise you will not get funding’. That is how you operate. I know. Since I have been elected, in the last three years there have been events that I would have attended in the western suburbs that I know you have told them not to invite me to. They tell us. If you somehow think that you have got some secret society and that others within the community do not speak about your disgusting behaviour and harassment and about the promise that money will not be coming forward to these multicultural communities if they do not act a certain way, I can assure you that they tell us how you act behind closed doors. They know.

For me, I have had the same bullying and harassment since I have been here at Parliament walking through these corridors. Some of you will actually call it out, but there are many others here who come into this place and act like they will stand up for other people, but they do not.

I will give you a character reference for Kaushaliya for the three years that I have worked with her in the western suburbs: delightful, a beautiful-natured woman, kind, considerate. Every time she has come into this chamber and spoken about the western suburbs it has been from the heart. She is a woman of integrity and honesty. We are now both independents, and good on her for standing up to you and for not actually taking it. Do you show her the respect that she deserves because she has actually stood up for herself, for her community? No. You have gotten up immediately saying, ‘We refute everything she says’. Really? I know that everything that she has said is true—100 per cent, swear on the Bible. Pick the religion you wish to swear on. If it is the Bulldogs, I swear everything that she has said in this chamber is 100 per cent truth. I believe her. I have seen it. I have experienced it myself.

When I have actually gone to others, like the President or the Speaker, when I have had my issues here in this place, I have had absolutely 100 per cent support from the President here and the Speaker in the other place. But there are others who wish to undermine the support that I have received due to the harassment that I have gone through here. So for me, I understand how Kaushaliya is feeling at this moment. I have had the same bullying tactics—feeling like I was under surveillance and followed around; having people try to intimidate me and knock me off my feet so I would not come back, so I would not say what I needed to say here in this chamber; harassing my children; and having death threats so I would not come into this chamber and do my job. Kaushaliya spoke about her husband being attacked. You have not physically put your hands on me yet, but you have threatened. I can name the person; I can name the male member of Parliament in this—you are going to jump up, are you, Harriet? Would you like me to name them? I will.

Ms Shing: On a point of order, President, I am just wondering, if there are substantive allegations to be put, whether they are more appropriately put by way of a separate motion.

The PRESIDENT: While I understand the point of order, Dr Cumming, my advice to you is not to go that far. Just stick to the motion and do not name any people unless it is related to the motion.

Dr CUMMING: Thank you, President. I will listen to your words of advice, but obviously this is a similar tactic to actually try to knock me off my feet, to shut me down. So for me to actually say something—but that is fine. I am not afraid of you.

Members interjecting.

The PRESIDENT: Let us go back to the motion, please. Stop debating each other and talking to each other—through the Chair.

Dr CUMMING: For me, I know that I do have parliamentary privilege, and I will say whatever I want within this chamber for myself and for my community. You cannot frighten me. You cannot jump up, Premier’s pillow, and actually say to me—

Ms Shing: On a point of order, President, I ask that the member withdraw that comment, which was unparliamentary.

Dr CUMMING: What is unparliamentary about calling you a parliamentary pillow or the Premier’s pillow?

The PRESIDENT: Order! Dr Cumming, I ask you to withdraw.

Dr CUMMING: President—

The PRESIDENT: No comment; just withdraw.

Dr CUMMING: I withdraw. But I do not understand, President, why I cannot call somebody a pillow in this place.

The PRESIDENT: We have already dealt with this, and your time has expired.

Sitting suspended 12.59 pm until 2.03 pm.

Mr DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan—Leader of the Opposition) (14:03): It is not my intention to make a long or extended contribution today. I am conscious that we heard from Ms Vaghela earlier in the day. We have heard a very convincing and detailed description of the events that have occurred. We have really heard I think a set of detail that will take some time to unpack. As I said to a number of people on different sides of the chamber, in fact I do not think we have all understood the detail that was in that contribution by Ms Vaghela. She laid out a series of points that I think many of us are concerned about.

But I do want to put on record that I found the detail and the thoughtful way she presented the material very convincing, and I believe Ms Vaghela. I believe her. I think what she said has the ring of truth about it. It has the serious ring of truth, and I think some of it is verifiable. There have been points made about engagement with parliamentary officials, and these are surely verifiable. There have been points made about engagement with a number of other legal entities, and these are surely also verifiable. So it is not just the word of Ms Vaghela here, it is a serious set of points and allegations that have been made. They have been backed up with immense detail, referenced to text messages and referenced to other documents in precise and forensic detail. It is hard to believe that this is not substantially as Ms Vaghela has laid this out. I do not pretend today, after having heard the contribution made by Ms Vaghela, to have a full understanding of this, because there is clearly great detail there that will take time to unpack. We will need to look at the text in Hansard to fully understand what she has laid out. I think it is important that all of us do that, and I certainly will be looking at that contribution. I want to thank Ms Crozier for her contribution, and indeed Dr Cumming.

I do make the point that there is, I think, a pattern here in the behaviour of the Premier and some other people in this government. Whilst a high and mighty game is talked, the actual practice of the government is often very different. Ms Garrett was treated, in my view, appallingly. Ms Mikakos was treated appallingly. The reference made by Ms Crozier to Donna Bauer, a former colleague in the other place, was to a very distressing and concerning set of commentaries by the Premier, and they were heard very clearly by many people. They were foul. That is the only thing that I can say, and I do not want to grace them by repeating them at all.

I do want to put on record my disappointment at Ms Taylor’s response. I think she got up very quickly and made a preprepared statement. The statement in no way engaged with the material that had been put on the record in the chamber. I do not hold malice on that, because I think the detail that was put into the chamber was very great. I do not pretend to have been able to follow that through in every minute detail either at this stage. As I said, this will require close examination of Hansard and precise focus. But I do want to say that I am convinced by what Ms Vaghela had to say today. I think what she said had the ring of absolute truth. It had the ring of close and precise detail that is able to be checked, and I am sure it will be checked. In that circumstance I should say for the record that I do believe Ms Vaghela, and I wish the government would take her commentary seriously too.

Mr ATKINSON (Eastern Metropolitan) (14:08): We as members of Parliament often get very concerned about public attitudes to politicians and the fact that we bear the brunt of some pretty nasty phone calls, incidents at our offices, emails and so forth. In some ways we ought to not be surprised about some of that public response when you consider the way we too often treat one another in this place. If we do not show respect to one another as members of Parliament, how can we expect members of the public to show respect to us as members of Parliament and indeed, as a continuation of that, to the very institution of Parliament?

Now, the matters raised today have had, to some extent, a public airing in the media. They have been given further weight by the further information that has come to the house today to what has appeared in the media. But certainly the substance of Ms Vaghela’s concerns about behaviour towards her are matters that are before the public, and they are matters of concern.

I do note that Ms Taylor has put a government statement to the comments that have been made today, a statement that clearly was prepared before Ms Vaghela made her comments in this place. It certainly seems to me that that statement is interesting in the context that it says that the government refutes all allegations, yet the government seems to have taken some actions in the course of the period. Whether or not those actions were in any way sufficient or satisfactory, the government has taken some actions, which suggests that at least some of those allegations are substantiated by the government’s own actions. To simply try and refute all allegations is, I think, dismissive of matters that ought to be of concern to all members of Parliament but particularly to those members of the Labor Party who are always so strong in their positioning on the importance of respect for others, on the importance of protecting minorities, on the importance of protecting women.

You do not just talk the talk; you have got to walk the walk. And the reality is that if one person comes out and indicates that their experience has been such as Ms Vaghela demonstrated to the house today, then we ought to not be dismissive carte blanche. There ought to be some real soul-searching as to culture, as to processes, as to policies, as to behaviour, as to the level of respect that we each give to other members of Parliament.

I have been in this place for quite some time, as all of you know. I have seen three cases of great concern to me over my 30 years here. Each of them involved members of Parliament in the Labor Party from multicultural backgrounds. One of them was a Vietnamese member of Parliament, the first in this Parliament, Sang Nguyen. The second was a Turkish member of this Parliament, the first Turkish member of this Parliament, Tayfun Eren. And the third now is Ms Vaghela. The Labor Party very often preselects members from multicultural communities to garner support across those broad communities, and by and large that is obviously a very good thing to do. But it is only a very good thing to do if you listen to those people, if you involve those people, if you take their perspective, because if you do not then the exclusion of those people from the real processes of government is in my view not that far distant from racism. And in this particular case we have someone who indicates that they were a very significant community activist in the Indian community, a person who was doing a lot of really good work in the Indian community, who was doing so well that in fact the Labor Party saw her as an asset in terms of encouraging the Indian diaspora, the people who live right across Melbourne and who are such a vibrant community, and saw an opportunity to harness their votes through the selection of Ms Vaghela. They must be very concerned now about the treatment that she has suggested she has received, about the dismissiveness of her concerns.

To me that dismissiveness of her concerns is more serious in some ways, in most ways, than in fact the allegations that she made, because when somebody complains, when somebody brings something to attention—something on which we have rules, something on which we have expectations, something which we have campaigned on and promoted—and we fail to live up to the standard that we have suggested that we have by simply dismissing that person, by putting that person in a box, by not allowing them even to do the very job that they were elected to do, which goes to the heart of some of the comments that she has made today, then that is a really serious issue.

I note that she does now plan, having gone through this process today, to contact WorkSafe and detail the information that she has provided to the Parliament to them for an investigation. That is an appropriate course of action. What further deliberations we might make perhaps do need some consideration. Certainly we all need to be really looking at ourselves and the respect we have for one another, and we need to make sure that we do not repeat this pattern, because not only is there my experience of those three members of Parliament in the Labor Party from multicultural communities but further there is the treatment that I have noted of Ms Mikakos, of Ms Garrett and of Ms Kairouz. It seems that if you are not in with the in-crowd then you are very much on the outer. The reality is that in this place we are all equal and we have all been elected to do a job of work, and we ought to not be expecting to be bullied, to be harassed, certainly by advisers, those people in smoking rooms. We ought to not be in a position where our opportunity to contribute as members of Parliament is curtailed by the sort of behaviour that Ms Vaghela suggested today.

Ms MAXWELL (Northern Victoria) (14:19): I rise to speak on Ms Vaghela’s motion, and I do so with great concern not only for her wellbeing, safety and integrity as a woman and as a member of Parliament but also about her descriptions of what appears to be such an unacceptable culture and serious allegations relating to bullying. I feel for Ms Vaghela, and to hear in her speech what she alleges she has been subjected to makes me both upset and angry. We talk about respect. We talk about women being heard. We talk about equality in this place. I am embarrassed as a member of Parliament if this is what is going on behind the scenes.

Yesterday, as we all know, was International Women’s Day. Members of the government posted on social media commitments such as ‘We stand up for the safety of all women in our communities and in our workplaces’. The Premier himself said:

International Women’s Day should be about more than … words.

Well, you are darned right, Mr Premier. It should be, and we should all live by our fight for equality and to treat people with respect.

I am disturbed that I have not seen or heard one member of the government coming out publicly to support Ms Vaghela, and I will be interested to hear why that is. I certainly hope that she has received support privately from the women within this government. People may ask the same of me, ‘Why haven’t we heard you come out publicly?’. I have not wanted to contribute to Ms Vaghela’s stress, embarrassment and anything else that she may be feeling and the trauma that she has experienced through this, but I have spoken with Ms Vaghela privately on several occasions and I have offered my support, and that will not change.

I would also hope that these allegations are being dealt with in an appropriate manner. Everyone deserves, as I said, respect and courtesy in this place, whether they are a member of Parliament, an electorate officer, a parliamentary or ministerial adviser, a member of the chamber support staff or someone from the hospitality team. In this place I have witnessed accounts of inappropriate behaviour and what could be considered bullying. We need to do better than this, we can do better than this and I think there is an opportunity here to work together to explore what formal mechanisms and processes are required for complaints and investigations to be received by an independent body. I intend to prepare a motion in this regard to ensure this is a safe workplace for everyone and that people—no matter who you are, no matter your gender—feel comfortable that they can approach somebody through a formal complaints process that is completely independent of this Parliament.

Mr FINN (Western Metropolitan) (14:23): I move:

That this motion be adjourned until the next day of meeting.

Motion agreed to and debate adjourned until next day of meeting.