Wednesday, 2 August 2023

Committees

Select committee

Establishment

Georgie CROZIER (Southern Metropolitan) (10:04): I move:

That:

(1) a select committee of nine members be appointed to inquire into, consider and report on the 2026 Commonwealth Games and the progress of the regional infrastructure build, including but not limited to:

(a) the potential failures in governance, probity and procurement processes in the Victorian government’s bid, contract and termination of the 2026 Commonwealth Games;

(b) the impacts of the contract termination of the Commonwealth Games on Victoria’s reputation, business community, tourism and major events;

(c) the Victorian government advice received from government departments, councils, agencies, consultants and contractors;

(d) the potential of undue influence by the executive on the independence of the public service;

(e) the time line, progress and budget of the Victorian government’s regional infrastructure and housing build;

(f) the impact on community, social, amateur and professional sport in Victoria;

(g) any other relevant matter;

(2) the committee provide an interim report by 30 April 2024 and a final report by April 2025;

(3) the committee will consist of three members from the government nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Legislative Council, three members from the Liberal–National coalition nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Legislative Council and three members from among the remaining members in the Council;

(4) the members will be appointed by lodgement of the names with the President within seven calendar days of the Council agreeing to this resolution;

(5) the first meeting of the committee will be held within one week of members names being lodged with the President; and

(6) the committee may proceed to the despatch of business notwithstanding that all members have not been appointed and notwithstanding any vacancy.

I rise to speak to my motion this morning, and I do so because I believe that Victorians need to have the confidence that what the Parliament is doing and what the government is providing to Victorians they can have trust in. The motion that I am moving this morning is to have a select committee look into the 2026 Commonwealth Games and indeed the commitments made by government around the progress of the regional infrastructure build and elements around what has happened with the Commonwealth Games.

The Commonwealth Games, as we know and as the government has said on many occasions, was going to showcase Victoria to the world. This committee now needs to look into the decisions made by government for scrapping the games. The terms of reference will include the potential failures in governance, probity and procurement processes in the Victorian government’s bid, contract and termination of the Commonwealth Games; the impacts of the contract termination of the Commonwealth Games on Victoria’s reputation, business community, tourism, and major events – a very important element, and I will come back to that reputational component that has been so damaging; the Victorian government advice received from government departments, councils, agencies, consultants and contractors – again, another very important element, because so many of the regions and the councils and those that were involved in the lead-up to the games that were going to be held now also need to be questioned in relation to what actually happened; the potential of undue influence by the executive on the independence of the public service; and the time line, progress and budget of the Victorian government’s regional infrastructure and housing build – again, another very important aspect of the inquiry’s work, because the government has promised so much. They are now, in looking at it through a different lens, committing more money to ensure that some of these infrastructure projects get up. But we know what they do: they promise things that they do not deliver, and they drag it out – and we have seen it so many times. With 2026 there was a time line – there was a dead time line for these things to be delivered – but now no longer. This committee really needs to understand exactly what the government’s plans are to be able to deliver the commitments that the government made since its scrapping of the games.

The committee would obviously need to do a substantial amount of work, as it should, so the terms of reference propose having an interim report by April 2024 and then to have a final report a year later, 12 months later, by April 2025. That is a reasonable time frame to undertake this very important work.

This is a government that in public was saying that the Commonwealth Games were on track, with a $2.6 billion commitment, before the election just a few months ago and after the election, and it was saying that all the way up to two weeks ago – but they were not on track. We all know that now because of the Premier’s decision to scrap the games. What was being talked about publicly up until two weeks ago was very, very different from what was happening behind closed doors. That alone should worry all Victorians, and that is the reason why we need this parliamentary inquiry. That is why it is so important – because up until two weeks ago, everything was rosy. We were on track to deliver a Commonwealth Games with $2.6 billion, and now that has all been scrapped. That is why this inquiry is so important. It will allow Victorians to understand what went wrong.

We are a proud state. We are proud of our major events that we host. Melbourne is recognised as a sporting and cultural precinct not only in this country but around the world. We had that reputation, and that reputation now has been trashed. I think Victorians are extremely embarrassed and humiliated by that reputational trashing and the risk that brings to what is next. We do not want those major events and that reputation to slide any further. We need to regain the trust not just amongst Victorians but amongst the people who run these events and bring events to Melbourne and Victoria and to understand and tell those people that decisions like what happened two weeks ago are not the norm and will not happen in the future.

That is why we need this inquiry. We need to regain that trust. We need to regain that reputation. We need to regain confidence in this state and the proud reputation that we had. When that announcement was made, just over two weeks ago, it blindsided everyone. It blindsided certainly the communities in the regions where the games were going to be hosted. It blindsided all Victorians and Australians. It blindsided the Commonwealth Games Australia board and their members, the Commonwealth Games Federation. And it blindsided the athletes – athletes who were pinning their dreams on competing on the world stage in our home state. It blindsided all of those people.

Evan Mulholland: The backbench too.

Georgie CROZIER: And the backbench, Mr Mulholland. It blindsided the entire Labor government. They did not know the decision was coming.

When I talk about ricocheting around the world, I want to just highlight where it went in terms of the media. In the United Kingdom the BBC coverage was just extensive. There were just so many articles and discussions around what was happening. Scotland and other parts of the world – it went right around the world in terms of some of the countries that have been looking at Australia and these major events. In the United States the New York Times reported extensively on the cancellation of the games. It was covered in Canada, New Zealand, India, Pakistan and Singapore; the selection countries; the African countries – South Africa, Nigeria, Tanzania, Kenya, Uganda, Ghana; Caribbean countries – Jamaica; Guyana; European countries – Malta, Cyprus, France.

This is the extent of what this decision has meant in terms of world news coverage. That is the reputational risk that I am talking about. That is the extent of what so many people have spoken about. I have spoken to people who have said, ‘We were in Europe at the time, and you know what, they were talking about it. They knew about this decision made in Victoria.’ They said to me, ‘Do you know what they knew? They knew we had the longest lockdowns, and they knew that we had cancelled the Commonwealth Games.’ That is an extraordinary reputation, and one that we do not want to have – we do not want that. That is why it is really very, very important that we bring back Australia’s and Victoria’s reputation and say to everyone around the world that this will not happen again. That is why we need to understand what actually went wrong, and that is why this inquiry is so important.

As I have said many times, we in this Parliament have an obligation to those who have elected us. We represent all Victorians in this chamber. We are in a unique position because we are a house of review. It is not just legislation that we review, it is also decisions of the executive government. This was a decision of the executive government. This is the work that we have been put into these positions to undertake. A very important part of our work is to undertake inquiries. This Parliament can be very proud of the many, many inquiries that they have undertaken to get to the bottom of issues that have been difficult and to understand what went wrong. We know the work of this Parliament.

Melina Bath: Betrayal of Trust.

Georgie CROZIER: I was thinking of that inquiry, which I was obviously so involved in. The Betrayal of Trust inquiry, as Ms Bath has just mentioned, was a very important inquiry that this Parliament undertook. So many other important inquiries are being undertaken now, looking into the issues that matter to Victoria – and this issue matters to Victoria. So we have that responsibility, and I am reminded of what is on our floor in the vestibule, those wonderful words from the King James Bible, Proverbs 11:14, and it says:

Where no counsel is the people fall but in the multitude of counsellors there is safety.

We should all remember that. It is a pity the government do not remember that, because they are governing on behalf of all Victorians, and when they make decisions such as what they have done, then we really do need to understand that. That is the role that we in the opposition and certainly other parties need to undertake. The executive government made a commitment of more than $2 billion in legacy outcomes; we have the former Minister for Commonwealth Games Legacy and still the Minister for Regional Development in the chamber today. This committee will provide the Parliament and the Victorian community with the confidence that the $2 billion of commitments they have subsequently made will be fulfilled. We need to understand and keep track of this government, because as we have seen today in terms of the promise made to the western suburbs – and Mr Luu knows this only too well – something promised prior to the election has now been scrapped. You cannot go to the people and make these promises that are so significant and then just come out and scrap them all; there is taxpayers money involved in all of this.

We know that these are really important decisions for the community, but the decision to scrap the Commonwealth Games is one, as I said, that has multiple implications. So the second part of my motion talks about that legacy issue and the ability for that to be fulfilled – another important element of the checks that this Parliament can provide on the executive government. We need to understand the time lines. We need to understand the decisions made. We need to understand the financial commitments that have been promised, and we need for this inquiry to be undertaken so that we can do our work and keep the executive government in check.

The government of course will argue that the inquiry will interfere with negotiations. Well, frankly that is a lame excuse, because it has now been longer than the 12 days of the games that were going to occur since Daniel Andrews claimed $6 billion to $7 billion for a 12-day sporting event – we are not doing that.

Evan Mulholland: Where did that figure come from?

Georgie CROZIER: A very good question, Mr Mulholland. Where did that figure come from? Surely Victorians should understand how the games cost of $2.6 billion, as outlined in the budget papers, as outlined to the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee just a few weeks ago, is now at that cost, because we have got one person saying it is $6 billion, somebody else saying it is $7 billion. But the real issue is that nothing has been released on the costings and how the government got to that figure. So to go to your point, Mr Mulholland: where did that figure come from? That is what we need to scrutinise as well. The government has not released the costs to the Victorian community. They have not even released it to the board of the 2026 Commonwealth Games. Craig Phillips sits on that board, and he, as the chief executive of Commonwealth Games Australia, said:

The stated costs overrun, in our opinion, are a gross exaggeration and not reflective of the operational costs presented to the Victoria 2026 Organising Committee board as recently as June.

That is just a few weeks ago. Surely Victorians need to understand exactly those impacts, but the costs are the justification for the government to cancel the games. They could have released those costings at the press conference when Daniel Andrews, Jacinta Allan and Harriet Shing stood there two weeks ago and told the world the games were off, but they did not. They have not provided any clarity whatsoever – except excuses.

These impacts have no impact on the negotiations, and that is why Victorians are becoming increasingly concerned that this is a figure that has just been made up. Now we have a government that is gagging Commonwealth Games officials and we have a government that wants to shut down any scrutiny at all over this decision, and that is why it is imperative that this parliamentary inquiry is established with members of the government, with members of the opposition and with members of the crossbench, so that we can get to the bottom of what went wrong and so that it never occurs again. This was a very costly and humiliating decision made by the Andrews government. There are question marks that remain on so many aspects. This inquiry is in the interests of all Victorians – indeed all Australians. It needs to be undertaken so that we can get to the bottom of what went wrong.

So I end where I started, and that is that up until two weeks ago the government was saying it was on track to deliver a $2.6 billion commitment for the Commonwealth Games. Now there remain so many questions. So many people have spoken out; so many people are expressing their concerns. We need to regain the trust of Victorians to understand that when government decisions are made, even if they are wrong or they have failed, the government admit they got it wrong – but not this government. They refuse to acknowledge any wrongdoing or any failures. Indeed Jacinta Allan was spruiking just weeks before last year’s election, as the former Minister for Commonwealth Games Delivery:

Victoria 2026 will deliver a world-class Commonwealth Games for all Victorians and showcase all our state has to offer.

That now will not occur, but what needs to occur is an inquiry to understand exactly what happened, to regain our reputation and to ensure that a decision like this by this government or any other government when made on such a very important matter that is impacting so many Victorians does not occur again. We need to get to the bottom of what happened, and I would urge all members of the house to support this inquiry so that the Parliament can do its work – so that we as members that represent Victorians can do our work.

Harriet SHING (Eastern Victoria – Minister for Water, Minister for Regional Development, Minister for Equality) (10:23): I rise today to speak on Ms Crozier’s motion, and in doing so I wish to flag that the government will be moving amendments to this motion. I move:

1. In paragraph (1) the words ‘a select committee of nine members be appointed to’ be replaced by ‘this house requests that the Auditor-General’.

2. In paragraphs (2) through (6) inclusive all words and expressions are omitted and in their place the following are inserted:

‘(2) this house requires the Clerk to write to the Auditor-General to convey the terms of this resolution.’.

I would ask that the amendments be circulated, please. I listened very carefully to what Ms Crozier had to say when speaking on the motion which she has placed on the notice paper today. One of the things that I heard very clearly from Ms Crozier’s contribution was, to paraphrase Ms Crozier, what needs to occur is an inquiry to understand exactly what happened. I do not propose to go into the detail of the context and the content of the motion, which as a consequence of the government’s proposed amendment would remain unchanged. What I do, however, want to do is to indicate that the government, on the point that Ms Crozier has made about the importance of an inquiry to understand exactly what happened, agrees with Ms Crozier. To that end the amendment that we have proposed seeks to enable, by way of a request to the Auditor-General, an independent officer of the Victorian Parliament, the Victorian Auditor-General’s Office (VAGO) to look into terms identical to those proposed by Ms Crozier.

As an independent officer of the Parliament, the Auditor-General is not subject to control or direction by the government. Independence is something which Ms Crozier and the opposition, the crossbench and others, including government, speak often and at length about – that the importance of independence can never be overstated and indeed that it must form part of discussions on the way in which government conducts its business in transactions large and small. VAGO provides assurance to the Parliament and indeed to the Victorian community about how effectively public sector agencies are providing services and using public money. This is entirely consistent with at least one of the terms of Ms Crozier’s motion.

The Audit Act 1994 governs the Auditor-General’s wideranging suite of powers and functions, including their power to access information, including cabinet-in-confidence information, during the course of an audit or an assurance review, and the standards that must be met. The Auditor-General’s office is well resourced – it is supported by around 185 staff – and all VAGO reports are tabled in the Parliament. VAGO audits examine a range of things: how effective, efficient and economical government agencies, programs and services are; how government agencies manage resources; the opportunities for government agencies to improve their management practices and systems; whether government agencies are fairly presenting annual financial statements and performance statements; if government agencies are complying with legislation and other requirements; and if there is wastage or a lack of probity in the way that public resources are being managed. These are all matters within the Auditor-General’s scope and functions that fall squarely within the contemplation of Ms Crozier’s motion. The work being proposed, by reference to this amendment, to be subject to a request to the Auditor-General, is important work. To quote Ms Crozier, ‘what needs to occur is an inquiry to understand exactly what happened’. The Auditor-General is in a position to undertake that work.

It is really important that we do not cut across negotiations that are occurring at the moment between the state, the Commonwealth Games Federation and Commonwealth Games Australia. The Auditor-General’s powers, the Auditor-General’s reach and the Auditor-General’s statutory remit are a way to ensure that an inquiry can be undertaken to understand, again to quote Ms Crozier, ‘exactly what happened’. This is an important process as much as anything to give people confidence around the $2 billion fund, which has been part of conversations for many months now on legacy – that work that is continuing – around the probity and the value of work being undertaken across government and around the way in which the priorities, goals and objectives of rural and regional communities can be met and fulfilled.

Over the past couple of weeks there have been dozens of conversations about the decision not to proceed with a 12-day event that would cost, on current reckoning, more than $6 billion. These conversations also build upon many months of discussion around legacy and around, to paraphrase the shadow spokesperson for Commonwealth Games, legacy being the most important part of the Commonwealth Games preparation. The work goes on, and I am indebted to communities for continuing to discuss what they want to see: legacy in every form, from permanent sports infrastructure and that $550 million fund, through to tiny towns – an additional $10 million; an all-abilities sports fund; sporting infrastructure for communities; a $150 million regional and tourism fund; a $150 million Regional Worker Accommodation Fund; and of course more than 1300 permanent social and affordable homes across regional Victoria as part of a regional housing fund, which brings the total investment to more than $2.5 billion.

This is work that is important. Scrutiny is important, and the Auditor-General is the office appropriate to conduct this mechanism of scrutiny. The Auditor-General’s report, as tabled in Parliament upon completion of such an inquiry, will provide the level of rigour and of transparency that those opposite are seeking. It is unfortunate that this amendment has not come about until the last minute – but having said that, nor did the opposition’s motion. I am grateful to the members of the crossbench who have impressed upon government the importance of an inquiry and the importance of scrutiny. Members of the crossbench have talked about the need to make sure that government is making decisions that are in and for the public interest, and that is why this amendment is being proposed: to deliver those measures of integrity, of scrutiny, of accountability and of oversight to the work that we do.

Those opposite have previously suggested that VAGO look at this matter. This is a matter of public record: the coalition has previously suggested that the Victorian Auditor-General look at this matter. On that basis it stands to reason that the opposition should support this amendment. This goes to a position that they are already on the public record as supporting. To oppose this amendment would be worse than churlish; it would show that in fact this motion itself does not go beyond a stunt. On that basis, I commend the amendment to the house.

Wendy LOVELL (Northern Victoria) (10:33): I rise to support the motion. The cancellation of the regional Commonwealth Games is one of the biggest scandals of the Andrews Labor government, and that is really actually saying something, because this is a government that has had many, many scandals. There has been the red shirts scandal. There has been the rorting of entitlements to buy Labor memberships. There have been budget blowouts, budget delays and the cancellation of the east–west link project, which cost our state more than $1.1 billion when Daniel Andrews said it would cost nothing, and the list just goes on and on. There have been so many, many reports on the mismanagement of projects and borderline corruption in this government – in fact those reports now number in the teens.

This latest scandal will not only damage the government’s standing in the eyes of all Victorians and all Australians but also damage our reputation internationally. Ms Crozier talked of the reporting of this internationally. Even the New York Times reported it, because people could not believe that a government could possibly mismanage a project quite so badly. This has damaged our reputation in the eyes of major events and sporting event organisations worldwide.

We now have a track record of breaking contracts in this state because of this government, the Andrews Labor government – as I said, the cancellation of the east–west link project that cost the state $1.1 billion and now a cancellation of the Commonwealth Games contract that will also likely cost our state compensation to the Commonwealth Games authority in the vicinity of billions of dollars. Who would ever enter into a contract with the Andrews Labor government again? Who would take that risk? Who would spend the money on the negotiations and the developing of contracts only to have those contracts cancelled 12 months later?

The Commonwealth Games needs to be delivered by 2026. The games authority now have to find somebody else to pick that up and deliver it within three years. Four years was ambitious enough; three years is going to be almost impossible. And the Andrews Labor government may be the reason for the end of the Commonwealth Games. What a reputation that would be for you. What a legacy that would leave not only to Victorians and to athletes in Victoria but to athletes all around our country and all around the Commonwealth. Fifty-six countries and 2.5 billion people are affected by this decision about which the Andrews Labor government say, ‘Oh, it was an easy decision. We just decided to cancel it.’

The other contract that the Andrews government have broken, in breaking the contract with the Commonwealth Games, is a contract of faith with the Victorian people. The government used this contract to make promises to regional communities to buy votes at the 2022 election, and now many of those promises will not be fulfilled. I am talking not about the infrastructure but about the promise of the exposure and the tourism opportunities that will now be lost, the promise of additional private sector investment that will now be lost, and this is all because of the incompetence of this Labor government.

The government say they will still spend their $2 billion in regional Victoria on infrastructure and housing, but what we are already hearing is that many of those projects are not the highest priority of communities. These are projects or upgrades that were necessary to deliver the Commonwealth Games, but now the money might be better spent on alternate sporting infrastructure in those communities – infrastructure that would better serve those communities. An example of that is in Armstrong Creek, where the permanent piece of infrastructure that was to be delivered was a 25-metre-square diving pool. Diving pools are deep. They are not suitable as community pools, especially for children. But the government, I believe, have told the City of Geelong, ‘Well, bad luck, that’s what you’re getting. You can’t change it to have a decent swimming pool for your community. You’re getting a diving pool.’

In Shepparton we already have a world-class BMX track. We have hosted the world championships. The upgrades that were to be delivered there were upgrades to the club facilities and for media et cetera to deliver the Commonwealth Games. The City of Greater Shepparton have told this government that money could be better spent on our basketball stadium. Our basketball stadium is a 1970s facility. The roof leaks, and it cannot be used half the time. When the roof is leaking, you cannot play basketball on those courts. It is used every night of the week for sporting competitions for our children, whereas the BMX track is not something that people are going to every day and using. We have hundreds – thousands – of kids competing in basketball tournaments, and those are local basketball competitions. But we want to also be able to attract major events and major tournaments to our city. We cannot do that with the facility that we currently have, because we cannot guarantee the courts. What if it rains and the roof leaks? In the floods we wanted to use that facility as the relief centre for people who were displaced from their homes, because it already had toilets and showers and everything for them to use. They could not use it because the roof was leaking. We need money spent on our basketball stadium. That would far better serve the people of Shepparton.

The money for housing is a must. This government must deliver homes, and they must deliver them within the 2026 time line. We cannot afford to wait for these homes. The Premier told us in the media conference that the time lines were now deferred because the 2026 hard deadline for the games no longer exists, so while the government says it will still deliver infrastructure and housing, we have no idea when it will deliver them. So all these projects are now on the never-never, and the time lines could blow out by decades, because this government cannot even tell us that. This must not be allowed to happen for any project, but particularly for housing. Housing is at a crisis point in many areas, and the villages that were promised must be delivered. But we need housing in other areas as well, and I would say particularly they need to look at providing housing in areas that were badly affected by the floods.

When we look at the City of Greater Bendigo, on the social housing waiting list alone, in March 2023, there were 3491 families. Of those 3491 families, 2146 have priority status – that is, people who are homeless or at risk of homelessness, people who are escaping domestic violence or people who are living with a disability or have special housing needs. 2146 families have that priority status, but this government has not delivered enough housing for them. So it is vital that housing is delivered in Bendigo. In Greater Shepparton, where we have had so many people displaced by the floods, there were 2665 families in March this year that were on the social housing waiting list, and 1477 of those families have priority status.

I do not have the figures with me for the Campaspe shire, but we all know the plight of Rochester and just how difficult it is for families there. You only have to drive around Rochester. It is interesting to drive around Rochester in the early evening, when everyone has got their lights on, when it is dark, because most of the houses are still dark because there is nobody living in them; they cannot live in them. Ninety per cent of the homes in that town were inundated in the floods. You only have to see the number of caravans you see in front yards – and you do not even see the caravans in the backyards ‍– to see how many people are not living in homes. Very few people have actually been able to return to their homes. We need housing delivered desperately in some of the – (Time expired)

Melina BATH (Eastern Victoria) (10:44): I am very pleased to put my name and the Nationals’ name to Ms Crozier’s motion 139, which moves for there to be a select committee of elected parliamentarians in this place to do our work. That differs very much from the amendment by the former Minister for Commonwealth Games Legacy and current Minister for Water and Minister for Regional Development, who would like to see a bypass of scrutiny from this house, from elected members, to send it to the Victorian Auditor-General’s Office (VAGO). I only on Monday had a very informative meeting with the Auditor-General’s Office to do with the disability inclusion and the important work that the Victorian Auditor-General does. I support their work in its various forms wholeheartedly, but this house needs to do the work that the house of review is supposed to do. What Ms Shing is offering can already be done. We do not have to ask the Clerk to write to the Victorian Auditor-General. It can be done simultaneously with an investigative inquiry by this chamber.

We have heard very eloquently from my colleague Ms Crozier about the importance of scrutiny. I often find that when the Premier gets backed into a corner and gets uncomfortable and he is pulling at his shirt collar with his finger, he often talks about members of Parliament being irrelevant – that is his word. I know he is getting a bit itchy and titchy when he starts to talk about ‘You people out there’ ‍– it is often the Liberals and Nationals – and ‘You people, you’re irrelevant’. Well, that says to me, first of all, that he is under pressure. Secondly, it says to me that he would like to see such autonomy as he desires to fulfill his focus. Many millions of people went to the election and decided that they wanted to put their money on Mr David Limbrick, they wanted to put their money on One Nation, they wanted to put their money on Mr McCracken or they wanted to put their money on me, and they put that number in the election box. The Premier wants to say, as we have heard today, ‘No, you don’t need to do it. We’ll send it off to VAGO.’ Well, I support VAGO in its entirety and the work that it does, but this house needs to do that work. And there are multiple questions on that work.

It is very important work that we do in committees. And let us be honest, there is work, particularly by the crossbench and the opposition, that we do that is what I will call pet projects on issues that are very important. I have raised issues that are very important that have gone through committees. We saw the government hold only recently a select committee inquiry into a particular area. So this work is vital for scrutiny, for integrity and for the unpacking of decisions that are made behind closed doors, which the general public cannot see. Some of those questions relate to this. Some of those questions relate specifically to the Commonwealth Games. It was on the table in 2022, in an election year; it was taken off the table only two weeks ago post that. It was on the table with a $2 billion cost estimate; now that has blown out somehow to $6 billion – billion with a B. And even Ms Shing just spoke about it then.

How much will Victorian taxpayers have to pay to break this Commonwealth Games host contract? How was the Andrews government’s $2.6 billion cost estimate so far off apparently the actual cost – nearly triple the initial estimate? What external parties conducted these cost estimates? How much has been spent on the Commonwealth Games to date? What will happen to the public servants employed to organise these Commonwealth Games? Will there be redundancies? Why was the 2026 Commonwealth Games organising committee advised just recently that there were sufficient funds available? And why did the government not discuss the funding situation with the committee jointly to find a positive solution? There are multiple questions. People will say, ‘But this is what you do.’ The reason we are doing it is for fiscal responsibility in this government and fiscal responsibility as a Parliament. The issue of rising costs of living and the issues of homelessness and housing stress are crucially felt in my Eastern Victoria electorate, particularly after conversations – I regularly have conversations – with people at the very front line that supply and meet with those vulnerable people all the time.

I have spoken recently about Sarah Copland, who is a pastor in a church. She is a dynamic woman with a dynamic team. They issue Foodbank support on a regular basis. The impact on their community is increasing at an alarming rate. We see it from one census to the next – we see homelessness and it is given by electorate. We see in the Morwell electorate in Latrobe Valley an 85 per cent increase in homelessness. Pakenham has had a 113 per cent increase in homelessness, and we have got a rally, I think today, on the steps to talk about that.

We want to see, and the Victorian public want to see, time lines of capacity, of bricks and mortar going into the ground for social and affordable homes. We have heard it and we hear it: we are getting $1 billion and 1300 homes apparently. Spread across, that equates to somewhere over $700,000 per home apparently. But we want to be able to ask people and to interrogate government members, bodies and departments and to listen to the community. One of the key things about our work in our committees – select or joint or standing – is letting people have their voice. There are many people, again, in that Eastern Victoria Region – many sporting clubs – that want to be able to have their voice.

I believe that there is a lot of ‘You need to be quiet’ going on behind closed doors, that people and councils are being told, ‘You need to be quiet or you won’t get your fair share.’ We need to see and to enable people who are prepared to come to the fore and have those discussions – but they need to be positive discussions. We cannot wind back the clock. This has been a debacle and a disastrous decision ‍– and a political one at that – but the Victorian community needs to see the positives that can still be salvaged from this. I endorse the comments in relation to Ms Crozier on the international reputation damage. I will leave her comments to stand with the time I have left, and I say ditto from the Nationals.

The other thing in speaking to people locally is that it is what they have not got: there was a promise of $3 billion in economic activity, in small business, in tenders and in international tourism. How can this house, this committee, support our local people to re-establish and reinvigorate that loss? How can we hear from them? Because what we will hear is that the government has got it covered. But what we need to hear is those solutions and recommendations from grassroots organisations, businesses, industry, community groups and sporting groups.

The other group that I do feel sad for is our professional and amateur sporting groups and the athletes that would have competed. I know I have some fantastic athletes in the Eastern Victoria Region, and I have not spoken with them, but they are from high jump – as we know, very talented people – women’s skeet shooting, basketball, a tremendous chap in universal trench shooting and swimming in a variety of forms. It is a crying shame that they do not get, in 2026, to host, celebrate and endorse. This inquiry needs to go through, and I thank the crossbench for having discussions with this side – with Georgie and our people.

David LIMBRICK (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (10:54): I rise to speak on this motion to set up a select committee investigation into the Commonwealth Games not going ahead and also the amendments put forward by the government referring this to the Victorian Auditor-General’s Office instead of a select committee. I was planning on supporting this select committee, and I also support VAGO, the Auditor-General, looking at this. So the amendment put forward by the government puts me in an uncomfortable position, because I support both of these things going ahead. I think that the Auditor-General and a parliamentary committee serve two different functions with different skill sets. I do have faith in the Auditor-General to be able to carry out this sort of investigation. They are very well equipped to look at processes, contracts, accounting, this sort of thing. They have all the powers and skills necessary to do that.

What I am concerned about with not having a parliamentary oversight committee or a parliamentary inquiry is there are many members of the public in regional Victoria – businesses that may have invested, thinking that they were going to get lots of tourists, and individuals that might have made personal decisions about where they are going to live and what they are going to do – and I think that these people should have the opportunity to put in submissions to an inquiry and be heard in public about what has gone on and how it has affected their lives. They may be able to put in submissions to VAGO, but I do not think that that would have the same sort of effect as having a parliamentary inquiry. I also think that an inquiry would give an opportunity for a committee to question people involved with the process and get some sort of public scrutiny on that.

That leads us to the place where I am – the position that I support both of these things. Let us wait and see how it turns out at the end, but yes, I do support the Auditor-General looking at it and I also support at some stage, if it does not get up today, potentially further down the track some sort of parliamentary political oversight of what is happening. I do think that it is the job of members of Parliament to take part in committees like this to provide oversight and scrutiny of government actions. Clearly this is a really big decision that the government has made and it should look in detail at what actually went on, and I hope that the opportunity for that to happen does happen. So that is my position on this.

Bev McARTHUR (Western Victoria) (10:57): I rise to support this motion, but let us face it: this was a pre-election promise, nothing more, nothing less. As many would know, I did not support the proposal of the games in multiple regional areas because, as anybody who is in regional Victoria would know, there just simply was not going to be the infrastructure available to cater for all the facilities, whether it be rail, roads, housing or security. I mean, in Ballarat alone all the available beds were going to be taken up just with the bus drivers and the police that were necessary to involve themselves in the games, so there was going to be no accommodation available for visitors, for families who wanted to watch their athletes or for spectators. In Ballarat, outside the Mars Stadium, where we were going to have many of these events, the government point-blank said they were not even going to build a platform so people could get off a train and get to the stadium, and that would be infrastructure going forward that we could all admire and use – no, that was not going to happen. The road needed to be duplicated going from Mars Stadium – no, that was never likely to happen either.

As for the housing in Ballarat, well, that is another story altogether. The proposal was going to be on a contaminated site, no less, that for over a hundred years had been used for saleyards. You can imagine the toxic waste that was prevalent there. I mean, I fought the toxic waste going into the Bacchus Marsh quarry from the West Gate Tunnel, but here was going to be another example of toxic waste needing to be removed. There was also a King’s caveat over the area; they had to negotiate their way out of that. There was an easement because opposite – it is an industrial site – was a cement manufacturer that had an easement on it. So there were multiple problems.

The councils all got very excited and energised about supporting all the ribbon-cutting exercises they were going to be involved in at these multiple sites. They were happily thinking the government was going to come forward with a bucket of money to fix all the problems that they were not able to fix themselves. The housing site at the saleyards in Ballarat was a case in point. Well, all of a sudden they then realised they were not going to get the funding. Geelong, for example, has got a huge debt, so I do not think any of the ratepayers in these areas thought it was a grand idea to have that landed on their rates notice – a whole lot of infrastructure. In Geelong we had the bizarre situation where we were going to have blow-up pools, no less. Blow-up pools – who ever heard of that? They were going to be just pulled down and moved somewhere else. The Premier, I remember, in his press conference, when he announced the collapse of the whole shenanigans, said, ‘Well, everything was going to be dismountable – I mean, houses, pools, the whole box and dice.’ What an extraordinary scenario. There was going to be no legacy left for anybody in these areas, and those councillors who were happily there with their ribbons and scissors were going to be left languishing as well, trying to justify to their ratepayers why on earth they had agreed to it all in the first place.

So we had a bizarre situation where there was no way to have the infrastructure that was going to be needed, because you had to duplicate every facility. Whether it was housing or all the medical infrastructure required or the security infrastructure required, you had to duplicate it across all these multiple venues. I am not sure all those international athletes who thought they were coming to Australia for an international games event were happily thinking they were going to be transported almost into tents in various places, you know – throwaway homes that did not have a kitchen.

Joe McCracken: Ray’s Tent City.

Bev McARTHUR: Ray’s Tent City – is he still going, Ray’s Tent City? Anyway, there will be an alternative. We could have had swags and tents.

Joe McCracken: Kathmandu.

Bev McARTHUR: A Kathmandu operation, yes. Even a North Face jacket for everybody, perhaps, the Premier might have dished out.

So this was a stupid idea from the beginning. It was never going to fly, and the questions I asked on multiple occasions in the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee (PAEC) of course elicited ridiculous answers. There is no way that these games were going to fly. And then, when everybody was excited about it before the election, after the election of course: ‘Well, who cares? We won. It doesn’t matter now. We can do what we like.’ That seems to be par for the course these days: ‘We’ll just cancel that.’

I am also curious about the whole notion of the republicans –

Nicholas McGowan: We’re for the republic, aren’t we?

Bev McARTHUR: who should be, I would have thought, dead against the Commonwealth in a way. Never mind you, Mr McGowan. You would love a republic. We are not interested in your view.

Nicholas McGowan: I just want to see mascots. Where are the mascots?

Bev McARTHUR: The mascots – now, that is another issue altogether, isn’t it, the mascots? I think it was going to be a donkey. Perhaps the former Minister for Commonwealth Games Legacy could tell us – was the mascot a donkey mascot? It would be nice, a donkey mascot. We could all wear that, I think. But I do not know. Maybe Scotland is going to take it over, I have heard. They might like a donkey mascot, Minister. You could just hand it all over. It would be a shame to waste it, wouldn’t it, really? We do need to know how much those mascots cost, though. Give us a little inkling as to how much the mascot operation cost.

Nicholas McGowan: Kelly Koala.

Bev McARTHUR: Kelly Koala – now there is a chance, yes.

Nicholas McGowan: Whizzy Lizard.

Bev McARTHUR: Whizzy Lizard – well, look, there are so many options, aren’t there?

Really, we also need to know exactly how much it has cost and how much it is going to cost to get out of this debacle. And the detailed motion that the coalition have put forward – we need to have answers to all those questions. It would be great if the Auditor-General actually addressed all those particular issues, but at the moment I am not sure what he is actually looking at. I am sure he is looking at something. That would be great, because the Auditor-General, as Mr Limbrick says, is a very honest, reliable broker, and we need these honest, reliable brokers to oversee what we do in this place – exactly. But he does need a detailed script to work from; that would be a good idea.

In any case, the government, through an inquiry and with the help of the Auditor-General, need to tell the public exactly what we are up for and what we have lost out on, and we do need to know exactly who is going to get what as a result. We have heard a lot about the legacy that we are still going to get, but we have not got a lot of confidence in all these promises of bits and pieces floating around, because they seem to have been cancelled left, right and centre.

We would hope that the government in good faith are going to supply the housing they have promised and supply all the sporting facilities they have promised, but we do need to know how much they will cost as an extra bonus to the people who love the Commonwealth after all. I think it is a very good idea that we investigate this matter very thoroughly. I know Mr Galea over there would like a thorough investigation too. He was at PAEC hearings when we asked all those questions. The answers were not really forthcoming, though, were they, Mr Galea? Anyway, we can try again on another occasion if the worst comes to the worst and we do not get all these answers through these various mechanisms that are being proposed today. But anyway, I happily support the motion, and I hope everybody else will too.

David ETTERSHANK (Western Metropolitan) (11:06): I rise to make a brief contribution on Ms Crozier’s motion and the proposed amendments from the government. Can I say just in hindsight I have really enjoyed previous Commonwealth Games. I worked at the Commonwealth Games in 1982 in Brisbane as a driver for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. I had a hoot. It was fantastic. It was really good. The Queen attended. The entertainment was led off by an entertainer maybe not so famous now by the name of Rolf Harris, and I have to say the afterparty that was held for the people who worked in the media and for all of the games administrators and managers was fantastic if you were poor, like I was. One aspect of it was the hostesses who were dressed up like they were in a 1920s speak-easy, with trays of cigarettes, because the function was sponsored by Rothmans tobacco. I guess I raise Rolf and Rothmans because times change and priorities change as our society changes.

If we fast-forward to the 2006 games, they certainly had their moments, with all of those fantastic metal fish floating down the Yarra River. It was sort of like, in hindsight, a bit of an anaemic version of the 2000 Sydney Olympics. But again, it did not have anything like the sort of excitement, engagement and sense of the Commonwealth that there was in 1982. In 2018 on the Gold Coast, I think half of Melbourne did not necessarily notice it, and God knows we love our sport here in Melbourne. But I guess the point I am trying to get to here is that in looking at this $6 billion cancellation – if it was a $6 billion cancellation – was it more of a mercy killing than a strategic change? And more importantly, how do we ensure that the people of Victoria get to understand what happened. The one thing we all share is that sense of ‘What the! How did we get to this situation, and how do we get an explanation of it?’

Before I proceed I do want to take a moment to acknowledge the disappointment of the athletes, who will be denied a significant opportunity to compete and to compete for a home crowd. I think Richard Burton said that life is not a rehearsal, and for athletes with a very finite life in their chosen sport, with a few prominent exceptions – thank goodness for the lawn bowls – for most of them this is a rare opportunity that they have lost. So our sympathies go out to them for losing that opportunity. And likewise to regional Victorians – those in small businesses across the state were obviously looking forward to the opportunity for some growth and some business. Likewise, I can understand their disappointment.

So we now have this claim from the government that the cost of these games has blown out to $6 billion or thereabouts. If that is correct, then I think that most Victorians would support the cancellation. It is not worth $6 billion. We just cannot afford it. It would be insane to proceed. And I think most Victorians would like to understand. If we think about this in that old context of bread and circuses, I guess the saying might go, ‘If you’re short of bread, you need to think about how much you spend on circuses.’ So again, was this a good decision and was this an understandable decision? That is what the people of Victoria want to know: how did this happen?

Today we are presented with two options: a potentially politically motivated inquiry by people in this place, which could easily become self-serving but may not, or an independent inquiry by our highly respected Auditor-General with the greater powers of inquiry that come with that statutory office. Now, it has been put to me – and I do not know whether it is correct or not – that the Auditor-General does not have those powers. Ms Crozier just said that to me a minute to go, and look, if that is the case I am concerned. But again, I have received advice to the contrary and I do not know which is correct.

I guess I am interested in the proposition that was put forward by Mr Limbrick, which is that the two are not necessarily mutually exclusive. The terms of reference are the same and the subject matter is the same, but the inquiry participants, in terms of who is at the top table, would obviously be different. So this is a question of whether we risk a political sideshow on one hand – to put it bluntly – or we allow a dive into the numbers by an independent organisation that has demonstrated skills in audit and investigation and that exists for just such a purpose. If we want real answers rather than political pointscoring, I feel that the Auditor-General path should be preferred in the first instance. As Mr Limbrick suggested, once we have received the Auditor-General’s report we as a chamber would be in a position to decide whether or not we wish to pursue this investigation further. Accordingly, the votes of Legalise Cannabis Victoria in this chamber will reflect in the first instance the amendment from the government to refer this to the Auditor-General.

Samantha RATNAM (Northern Metropolitan) (11:13): We think Victorians deserve to know what went wrong with the decision around the Commonwealth Games and most importantly to make sure that the promised housing and other infrastructure projects for regional Victoria especially do not suffer the same fate. That is why the Greens will be supporting the motion for a select committee to inquire into the cancellation of the Commonwealth Games. The Greens would have preferred that an existing parliamentary committee such as the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee (PAEC) would be in a position to conduct a proper inquiry – as it is meant to do. However, the current system in the Victorian Parliament to scrutinise the government has been gutted by this Labor government, and it needs to be rebuilt. The committees to scrutinise the decisions of government are filled with government MPs and the majority of them have government chairs, so they are not working. All governments of all colours should be held to account for the decisions they make and for their use of taxpayers money.

Whether or not you agree with the outcome around the Commonwealth Games and its cancellation, in some ways it does not pertain to the substance of the motion before us today. The Greens believe the Parliament has an incredibly important job to do to apply proper scrutiny and hold the government of the day to account, and one of our few levers to be able to do so is through the parliamentary committee investigatory process. But the Greens have long held deep concerns, which we have put on the record countless times, including with bills before this Parliament to fix the system. We have long-held concerns that our parliamentary scrutiny system through our committee structure is failing the Victorian Parliament and thereby failing Victorians. If we had a committee structure that was working to do what it is meant to do, I do not believe this chamber would be in the place that we are in here today. It is unfortunate that we have to think about bandaid solutions to a broken system and consider a select committee proposal when ordinarily a committee like PAEC should be operating how Senate estimates operates to apply proper scrutiny to major decisions like this – and this was a major decision. This is a decision of such significance that it does require the scrutiny of Parliament. It is incumbent on all of us members of Parliament to do our jobs, and one of our jobs is to hold the government to account, whoever the government is – and I hope that we will be saying this no matter who is in the chairs of government for the years to come.

If you have the system in order, you will have confidence in those processes to create greater transparency and oversight of significant government decision-making. You just have to look at a number of projects that are happening in Victoria right now with great intentions. Take, for example, the Big Housing Build: there were great intentions with that program to increase the amount of social housing in Victoria, yet we have got nearly half the $5.3 billion apparently spent already in the last couple of years and we have had a net increase of 74 homes added to the social housing stock. The question is: what is going wrong there? Where do we have the opportunity to ask government meaningfully, and get authentic, actual responses from government, about what is going on? When will the government come clean about what might be going wrong, for example? Where can we learn together about how we work together to fix those problems together? We might be from different political parties, but we have a job as a Parliament to do across these chambers, and we should be using every opportunity to strengthen the system to get those outcomes right. We are concerned about projects like the big build if they are not delivering the housing that we need in the midst of a housing crisis. That is why we believe proposals like this have merit – because we hope that they will apply adequate pressure and oversight on government decision-making and put a spotlight on what has happened so we can learn about how we can improve things in future.

We urge the government to seriously consider reform of our parliamentary committee structure. Victoria’s lower house in particular has the unfortunate reputation of being the least democratic house of Parliament anywhere in this country because the systems for having non-government debate and general business have been completely gutted. How can Victorians expect to have trust and confidence in this Victorian Parliament when we do not have proper systems of oversight?

At the heart of this motion for the Greens are our lack of confidence and our deep concern about the eroded scrutiny and accountability mechanisms this Parliament currently has. We want to see the systems improved. If those systems improve, hopefully we will see less bandaid solutions and hopefully we will see less extra committees added on to the existing committee workload, because our ordinary committees should be doing the work that this motion is intending to get done.

Rikkie-Lee TYRRELL (Northern Victoria) (11:18): I would like to stand in support of the opposition’s motion to refer the Commonwealth Games debacle to a select committee. Furthermore, I would also like to see this matter investigated by the Auditor-General, as implied by the government’s own amendment. After having made the commitment to host the games despite reasonable public concern, the decision to then cancel the games without prior external consultation is something of an unwanted ‘we told you so’ moment for the Victorian people.

The government has implied that this was the last possible opportunity to do so without incurring additional expense from contractual commitments, as if to be seen to be making a fiscally responsible decision after all other possible alternatives were exhausted. This simply is not true. Prior commitments have incurred significant expense for the Victorian taxpayer. How else are we to explain the $1 billion withdrawal fee? This whole debacle rehighlights the lack of accountability by the government in managing the state’s finances. During the challenging projected economic future we as a state faced when the tender was first submitted, it is very difficult to believe that the government could have seen this tender submission as anything other than an unnecessary expense.

Conveniently, after some decidedly bad PR for the Premier, it is also a stretch to believe that this commitment was not made in an ad hoc effort to raise public favour. After having witnessed the blatant disregard towards the responsibility of spending someone else’s money by seemingly doing so to raise their own profile, then the all too cavalier backflip in a short amount of economic time, the Victorian people deserve to see where and why these expensive mistakes were made.

Credit where credit is due – the concept of a regional games I personally thought was brilliant. To showcase regional Victoria internationally would have been fantastic in the current economic climate, though with the known additional expense in civil construction, labour and materials since COVID it was always a stretch. I need not point out the elephant in the room; however, I will: if the games were condensed to a more traditional metropolitan-style event, we have pre-existing fit-for-purpose infrastructure and facilities to support the games. I am sure if the regional communities that were to benefit from the games were given some preference to purchase tickets first, based on area code, or free public transport and discounted accommodation – again, in pre-existing accommodation – they would understand why the decision was made. The people of Victoria deserve to be treated with due respect. They deserve to see the actual information that the government used to make this decision. They alone should be allowed to decide whether this decision, which is costing them $1 billion, was the right course of action. I do not wish to engage in the political jousting this issue is likely to encourage. I would like to see the best possible outcome for Victoria – the people, I would like to remind you all, that we represent.

Sarah MANSFIELD (Western Victoria) (11:21): While cancelling the games may have been the right thing to do, it is clear that there are questions that need to be answered about where all this went wrong, and as my colleague Dr Ratnam has so articulately outlined, it is the role of this Parliament to apply that scrutiny. The communities in regional Victoria who were relying on the Commonwealth Games for desperately needed infrastructure improvements, jobs and a chance to finally have investment in housing deserve answers and transparency. They deserve reassurances and clarity about how the $2 billion promised by the government will be allocated. People also want to know why their concerns were not listened to and why there was such a lack of consultation with the regions, councils, sporting bodies and other relevant stakeholders.

I actually have some direct experience of this, because I was one of the councillors on one of the host city councils and we had a range of concerns about the tight time frames and how the games would be delivered. We were no strangers to hosting major events and major sporting events, yet there was a clear lack of interest and commitment to working collaboratively with the council to address those challenges early on. Unfortunately in June last year, in an unprecedented move, five Labor MPs signed an open letter to the Geelong council, backed by the Premier, stating publicly that the government would oust Geelong council from being part of the games, citing concerns about the council’s ability to deliver state-funded projects. The unjustified and unedifying criticism sparked a political pile-on that was difficult for the council and the community to shoulder, and reflecting on the way that things have turned out it does raise questions about the willingness of government to engage with and genuinely collaborate with stakeholders like councils, and important questions about this need to be answered.

The Commonwealth Games were something that regions and councils cared deeply about, and whether you were for them or against them, there were potential benefits for desperately needed infrastructure that we all did agree on. Regional cities have been chronically neglected in health care, housing and transport infrastructure, and these games offered a lifeline of investment that gave people some hope. Right now people across the regions are struggling to find a secure rental, with some being forced to sleep in tents and caravans, and public transport is sorely lacking in so many areas. While the government has since committed to still spend $2 billion on infrastructure in the regions, there are a lot of questions about how that will be rolled out. We have real concerns about how and when this will be delivered, and we hope that this inquiry will help us get to the bottom of a few key areas. Will it be new spend? Will it force the regions into competitive grants processes for infrastructure? Will areas struggling the worst, those areas most in need who are experiencing the highest rates of homelessness in the state, be prioritised? These are questions an inquiry and parliamentary scrutiny can answer in order to ensure that there is a legacy from the Commonwealth Games for our regions which is more than just wasted hours and taxpayers money.

Joe McCRACKEN (Western Victoria) (11:25): I know I have got limited time, but I am rising to support this motion today, mainly because it is a way of getting answers that we have asked for in this chamber quite substantially. I know I have asked for quite a few, and to be quite honest I am sick of the response, ‘We are still working through the detail.’ I want actual answers.

I know Mr Ettershank made the comment before that this committee could be a political sideshow. I think we have already seen the political sideshow. This is about getting answers to it. The fact of the matter is that this was an election commitment brought to the people of Victoria in 2022. My hometown of Ballarat was one of the four hub sites that was key to that, and not even years but months later that commitment was relinquished. There was obviously something wrong. The due diligence really was not done in the first place, and whether that commitment was made knowing that or not is in itself worthy of investigation.

From $2.6 billion to over $6 billion to $7 billion – it is a bit of a rubbery figure there – how could it be so wrong? How could it be so wrong when key projects in my hometown of Ballarat like an events platform opposite Mars Stadium were not even considered for funding? It was not funded at all, and that is a platform that actually would have delivered a very significant legacy to my community – not considered.

The oversight that this committee will provide if it is successful is important. I understand that the government have put forward their alternative, which is through the Victorian Auditor-General’s Office, but the people have elected us and the people voted on a commitment. It is incumbent upon us when a commitment has clearly been backtracked upon to investigate that commitment, when it was such a public commitment made in the middle of an election, or before that, and it was something that people used to vote on. I hope this committee also looks into things like the housing allocation – the 1300 homes that are going to be allocated. We do not know exactly where they are going to be – just across regional Victoria, and I hope that is a fair and equitable distribution.

I guess the reputation of Victoria as a state of events, a state that can manage events, a state that can be relied upon, has been tarnished. My hometown of Ballarat has suffered from that because people have made significant preparations to be ready for the Commonwealth Games that are now nowhere, and I am interested to hear from those people, to hear what the actual real impact has been for them and their businesses and their families and more broadly for our communities, including our athletes.

The most important part of this motion is about integrity, the integrity of this Parliament, the integrity of our society and the integrity of the government to make a promise and then break it months later. That is what integrity is about, and that is what we are going to be looking into.

The government’s amendment is a step in the right direction, but this place is where accountability happens. We are directly elected by the people of Victoria, and when we have the opportunity to have a hearing about an issue that has been so significant, it is incumbent upon us to take that opportunity to shine a light on the places that have been very difficult to get answers for. I note that there is already a $2 billion spend in regional Victoria, and originally the Commonwealth Games were slated to be $2.6 billion. Where has the $600 million gone already? Consultants, probably.

I know my time is running short, but I do commend this to the house. I know not one political party will dominate this committee, and that is how it should be so we can get a fair and equitable view on this and so that we can work with others on the crossbench and indeed in the government to shine a light on what went so wrong, give Victorians the answers that they deserve and need and give true accountability and integrity to this place. I agree with the crossbench over there, with the Greens: the integrity system does need more work. I agree with you. This might be one step in restoring that.

Georgie CROZIER (Southern Metropolitan) (11:30): I would like to thank those members who have spoken on my motion. As I said, I think it is an important motion that the Parliament undertakes this work so that we can understand what went wrong. I also note that the government wants to move an amendment to have this issue referred to the Victorian Auditor-General. Can I say that we had indicated that we would write to the Auditor-General, which we did, and this morning we received a letter from the Auditor-General, or the Leader of the Opposition received a letter, confirming:

I write to advise that I have initiated a performance engagement Withdrawal from the Commonwealth Games 2026. We will consider the matters raised in your correspondence as we progress this engagement and I look forward to sharing the results of the engagement when I table the report in Parliament in due course.

The government’s amendment is redundant; that work is actually being undertaken. And can I say that the Legislative Council has no direct legislative reference capacity to refer a matter for investigation or audit to the Auditor-General, nor does the Victorian Auditor-General’s Office have any legislative compliance requirements to investigate upon parliamentary referral under the Audit Act 1994. The Legislative Council can draft a letter for consideration around financial aspects, but of course this is now being undertaken, as has been confirmed by the Auditor-General in his letter to the opposition.

What the parliamentary inquiry will do is have the opportunity, as those who have spoken on this motion have requested, to hear from the community, to have them come before the committee and let the committee hear from those people that have been directly impacted by this decision. That is something that we believe is very important to instil trust back into the process, to enable Victorians to have their say and to understand some of the decisions that have been made by government.

Again I would say that the work of the Auditor-General is incredibly important. It is why we wrote to the Auditor-General for them to undertake the very specific work that they will do around the financial aspects of these decisions that have been made. But we know that an inquiry also needs to be undertaken. That is what we believe. We think that is in the best interests of all Victorians. That is why we want both to occur: it is important to have the Auditor-General do their work, and it is important for the Parliament to be able to do their work. I urge members of the house to support the motion.

Council divided on amendments:

Ayes (19): Ryan Batchelor, John Berger, Lizzie Blandthorn, Jeff Bourman, Enver Erdogan, Jacinta Ermacora, David Ettershank, Michael Galea, Shaun Leane, Tom McIntosh, Rachel Payne, Georgie Purcell, Harriet Shing, Ingrid Stitt, Jaclyn Symes, Lee Tarlamis, Sonja Terpstra, Gayle Tierney, Sheena Watt

Noes (21): Matthew Bach, Melina Bath, Gaelle Broad, Katherine Copsey, Georgie Crozier, David Davis, Moira Deeming, Renee Heath, Ann-Marie Hermans, David Limbrick, Wendy Lovell, Trung Luu, Sarah Mansfield, Bev McArthur, Joe McCracken, Nicholas McGowan, Evan Mulholland, Aiv Puglielli, Samantha Ratnam, Adem Somyurek, Rikkie-Lee Tyrrell

Amendments negatived.

Council divided on motion:

Ayes (25): Matthew Bach, Melina Bath, Jeff Bourman, Gaelle Broad, Katherine Copsey, Georgie Crozier, David Davis, Moira Deeming, David Ettershank, Renee Heath, Ann-Marie Hermans, David Limbrick, Wendy Lovell, Trung Luu, Sarah Mansfield, Bev McArthur, Joe McCracken, Nicholas McGowan, Evan Mulholland, Rachel Payne, Aiv Puglielli, Georgie Purcell, Samantha Ratnam, Adem Somyurek, Rikkie-Lee Tyrrell

Noes (15): Ryan Batchelor, John Berger, Lizzie Blandthorn, Enver Erdogan, Jacinta Ermacora, Michael Galea, Shaun Leane, Tom McIntosh, Harriet Shing, Ingrid Stitt, Jaclyn Symes, Lee Tarlamis, Sonja Terpstra, Gayle Tierney, Sheena Watt

Motion agreed to.