Wednesday, 18 October 2023
Committees
Select Committee on the 2026 Commonwealth Games Bid
Committees
Select Committee on the 2026 Commonwealth Games Bid
Premier
David LIMBRICK (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (11:23): I move:
That this house requests that the Legislative Assembly grant leave to the Premier, the Honourable Jacinta Allan MP, to appear before the Legislative Council Select Committee on the 2026 Commonwealth Games Bid to provide evidence in her capacity as the former Minister for Commonwealth Games Delivery.
To provide a bit of context around this motion, on 9 October the Commonwealth Games inquiry resolved to request that the Premier appear in her capacity as the former minister. I would say this is using standard procedures through Parliament. Basically what this does is it sends a message to the Assembly requesting that she be granted leave. Ultimately, it will be up to the Assembly whether or not they grant leave to the Premier.
We have already heard in the inquiry that at least half a billion dollars has been wasted on this bid. I take my role very seriously on this committee, and I think that it is important that the committee get to the bottom of those decisions that were made that led to that wastage and that the Premier, in her former role as minister, was key in this. What I would like to see at a minimum and what I think the Victorian public would expect as a minimum is that the Premier show up and tell us in her words what went wrong and what the government has learned from this, because that is the ultimate aim of these inquiries, really – to try and learn from mistakes that happened in the past and make sure that they do not happen again. So I would very much like the Premier to appear. I know that there have been public statements in which she has said she will not appear, but at least she would get an invitation and she could respond to that invitation as the Assembly sees fit.
It is unusual to use this mechanism; however, it is not unprecedented. I will let you know of a few instances where this has happened in the past. In 2007 the Assembly granted leave for the Minister for Consumer Affairs to appear before the legislation committee – that was Anthony Robinson MP. Other Assembly MPs have given evidence at hearings before: Andrew McIntosh MP, Heidi Victoria MP and Neale Burgess MP for the Select Committee on Public Land Development in 2007; and Susanna Sheed MP in the Legal and Social Issues Committee in 2020. In the 55th Parliament, between 2003 and 2006, the Assembly granted leave for any minister of the Assembly to attend meetings of the Council’s legislation committee, which was new, and at that time the Honourable Lynne Kosky MP appeared, talking about the Education and Training Reform Bill of 2006. So it is possible to use this mechanism, and I would hope that the new Premier would show accountability for what has happened during this bid and that she will come and talk to the committee about what has happened, because I think the Victorian public deserve it.
Tom McINTOSH (Eastern Victoria) (11:26): I rise to speak to Mr Limbrick’s motion 206 that the Premier appear before the Legislative Council Select Committee on the 2026 Commonwealth Games Bid, a committee that I and a number of others – nine of us actually – in this house are on. I stand today and do not support this motion, nor does the government. Just to put some context around this, the government was willing to help at the last minute when the Commonwealth Games needed a host city. We were willing to stand up, and we put a focus around our regions and supporting our regions through the commitment to those games. But the government was not willing to put a price tag of $6 billion to $7 billion on a 12-day event. So what we are doing, as I will come to, is continuing that commitment to regional Victoria, but for that 12-day event we were not willing to put that $6 billion to $7 billion price tag on, which we must note the Leader of the Opposition has supported. Their previous leader – which iteration was that? – Mr Guy supported the games being entered into, and their current opposition leader supported the position that we have taken to exit the games.
To this motion, I do want to start by acknowledging Mr Limbrick. He has been a very good chair of this committee, and it is functioning well from a governance perspective, but I do want to speak to this motion. Those opposite really concern themselves with past practice as hundreds of years –
Members interjecting.
The ACTING PRESIDENT (Sonja Terpstra): Order! Sorry, Mr McIntosh. There is a level of noise coming from this side of the chamber. I am actually struggling to hear Mr McIntosh, so could we just hold it down a little bit on this side so I can hear what Mr McIntosh is saying.
Tom McINTOSH: Thank you, Acting President. Coming to the history that Mr Davis likes to speak to on a very regular basis, it has been recognised for hundreds of years in the Westminster system that members hold certain privileges and immunities based on their roles as members of Parliament. The independence of the houses of Parliament means that a committee cannot claim authority over a member of the other house and that members hold immunities based on this independence. This view is supported by views on British parliamentary practice, the basis of our system, which emphasises strongly the independence of both houses of Parliament.
David Limbrick: On a point of order, Acting President, I would point to the fact that this motion is not claiming authority over the Assembly. It is merely asking – an invitation. We are in no way claiming authority.
The ACTING PRESIDENT (Sonja Terpstra): There is no point of order.
Tom McINTOSH: It emphasises strongly the independence of both houses of that Parliament from each other and the equality of their powers:
The leading principle, which appears to pervade all the proceedings between the two Houses of Parliament, is, That there shall subsist a perfect equality with respect to each other; and that they shall be, in every respect, totally independent one of the other. – From hence it is, that neither House can claim, much less exercise, any authority over a Member of the other …
That being what it is, the Premier has answered the questions asked of her. The Premier has been up-front and engaged in this issue. This motion is nothing but a political stunt, which is something that does not surprise us when it comes to the Liberal–Nationals. They have no policies; they have no plans. I am not sure if they know what their values are. I am not sure if they know why they are even here. They lurch from one stunt to another. If you look at the way they call for committees, if you look at –
Matthew Bach: On a point of order, Acting President, if memory serves, our standing orders stipulate that contributions in this place must be factual. The speaker has asserted that this is a motion of the Liberals and Nationals. It is not.
The ACTING PRESIDENT (Sonja Terpstra): There is no point of order.
Michael Galea: Further to the point of order, Acting President, Mr McIntosh I believe is directly addressing the motion and has acknowledged that this is a motion being put forward by Mr Limbrick.
Matthew Bach interjected.
The ACTING PRESIDENT (Sonja Terpstra): No, there is nothing further to any point of order, because there is no point of order.
Tom McINTOSH: I would like to be very clear: at that point I was not talking about the committee, I was talking about the lack of any sort of plan, vision or policy out of the Liberal–National parties. So just to make that clear, they have no plan, vision or policies.
David Davis: On a point of order, President, on relevance, the member is not speaking directly to this motion here. The motion is actually a very tight and narrow motion. It is not about the Liberals and the National Party, it is about a request to the Assembly to allow the Premier to attend. That is all it is.
Michael Galea: On the point of order, President, Mr McIntosh has been directly relevant to the question, and he is addressing the terms of the motion. He is speaking about the Commonwealth Games.
The PRESIDENT: I will just call all speakers to the motion.
Tom McINTOSH: The point I was making: as a consequence of the Liberals and the Nationals not knowing their values, not having a plan and not having any policies, our committees are used as places for stunts. They wake up and think, ‘What can we do today? What might get some figment of someone’s imagination?’ And they come up with absolutely hollow –
Matthew Bach: On a point of order, President, the speaker is openly flouting your ruling. He is not addressing the motion. He is using this as an opportunity to attack the opposition in a manner that has no relevance to the motion. Respectfully I would ask you, President, to underscore once again the ruling that you have already made and that the speaker is flouting.
Sonja Terpstra: Further to the point of order, President, I note that there are a range of points of order being made by those opposite that are really designed to do nothing more than soak up the time that Mr McIntosh has to speak on this issue. They are debating the motion. Mr McIntosh can make his contribution on this motion – and I would ask that Mr McIntosh’s clock be reset – without interruption from those opposite.
The PRESIDENT: The standing orders do not afford me to be able to reset a clock in these types of debates. Mr McIntosh I understand is the first speaker for the government on this. He has some latitude, and I did hear him talk about committees when he got a couple of sentences out.
Tom McINTOSH: Back to the point of what committees are being used for: I think I have made my point pretty clearly. As to this committee, this committee is getting a very good understanding of the importance for this government of regional Victoria, and its investment in it.
We with long memories understand that those opposite have no commitment to regional Victoria. That is why the $2 billion package that has come out of the Commonwealth Games is going to invest in housing, it is going to invest in supporting tourism and it is going to invest in supporting community sport and our volunteers. It is going to support communities. Those on that side – I do not think they have had a new idea since Thatcher. They do not believe in society – it is just the individual. Do you know what? In regional and rural towns and communities, you need to support communities, because that is what makes them thrive. That is exactly what we are doing, and that is exactly what we are doing with the regional package. We are supporting our regional communities so they can come together and they can thrive. We know how important housing is. That is why we have got a billion dollars of housing – to support Victorians right across regional Victoria.
It does not matter where you live in regional Victoria, you should be able to get good-quality, affordable, safe housing, and that is exactly what we are going to provide. It should not matter where you live in Victoria. You get to access to good-quality sports venues, you get to create community, you get to support each other and you get to look after your health – your mental health and the health of the community. That is exactly what we are investing in. We are investing in tiny towns – small, remote towns. We are investing in them. We are investing in multitudes of ways to support our communities. There is $150 million that we have got to support workers who are supporting our tourism. Because the regions are thriving, unlike in the 1990s, when this lot were in charge and the regions were collapsing. Things were being left to rot into the ground. The regions are thriving. We are putting infrastructure in, we are putting services in and we are backing regional and rural Victorians.
David DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan) (11:37): This is a very modest motion. It simply seeks a way to allow the Legislative Assembly to set up a procedure for Premier Allan to attend, given she was the minister primarily responsible for the Commonwealth Games. Exclusive cognisance is an important concept, and I strongly support it, but it does not mean that one house cannot request that another house allow a member to attend. I can indicate to the chamber that I have personally seen four members of the lower house attend parliamentary committees. One committee I chaired, with Sue Pennicuik as a member, the public land committee, had three members of the Assembly give evidence: Andrew McIntosh, Heidi Victoria and Neale Burgess – three lower house MPs who gave evidence to that committee on matters of relevance to their local electorates. Equally, I have seen ministers attend parliamentary committees of this chamber. Tony Robinson is the one that comes to mind. I saw him attend the legislation committee to give evidence to that committee, and there is nothing wrong with that.
Michael Galea interjected.
David DAVIS: Nonetheless, it was still a committee of this chamber, a committee established under the standing orders of this chamber. It is no different in essence in terms of exclusive cognisance to a select committee or a standing committee or any other committee. There is no intrinsic reason.
I note that those cases are very clear cases. There are others historically in which Assembly members have been granted leave to appear before Council committees: as far back as 1884, at the select committee on the Legal Profession Practice Bill; from 1882 to 1883, the select committee on railway construction; and from 1858 to 1859, the select committee on the management of the Board of Land and Works. There is actually a long sweep back far into history of one chamber asking the other chamber to allow its members to attend. The chambers can take their own view – there is nothing that we can do about that. Exclusive cognisance means what it says, but there is nothing at all in history, practice or procedure that suggests that there is anything wrong, unusual or out of order with a lower house member attending an upper house select committee.
Indeed in the Senate this is routine practice. In Odgers’ Australian Senate Practice – for those who want to go and see it, page 562 – there is regular understanding that members of different chambers will appear at different committees. So there is actually a really sensible practice with one of the chambers that we would closely associate ourselves with, and the process is logical and sensible. It is respectful, and I would just hope that similar respect is shown by the Assembly in allowing Minister Allan to attend. This is quite an unprecedented thing that has occurred with the cancellation of the Commonwealth Games, and it has done considerable damage. I am not going to go over all of that now; it is well understood, and the select committee’s role is to look at a number of those points. But as part of its work it has resolved that it will seek the attendance of a number of lower house members.
Today, on Mr Limbrick’s work and motion, we are seeking to ask for the attendance of the now Premier – at the time, the Minister for Commonwealth Games Delivery – the relevant minister who had clear, direct primary responsibility for the management of the whole process of the Commonwealth Games. It would be extraordinary if the committee did not ask to have Jacinta Allan attend. It would be extraordinary if we did not seek to ask the person who had primary and direct ministerial responsibility to attend. We have obviously had some departmental people, and we will have more. We will have community people and obviously sports people; logically they would be the sorts of people that we would see. I do not think I am revealing anything that is beyond the purview. We would obviously seek to understand what has happened in a number of regional areas as well.
The primary responsibility lay with Jacinta Allan as the minister, and the committee is simply saying to the chamber, ‘Look, we need your support to request the attendance of Jacinta Allan’, and it is doing so respectfully. Under exclusive cognisance it is clearly a matter for the Assembly, but there is absolutely no reason in precedent why the Assembly could not give leave to the minister to attend at her arrangement and explain the processes that occurred and how the state got itself into the terrible predicament with the Commonwealth Games that it did.
Sarah MANSFIELD (Western Victoria) (11:42): The Greens will be supporting this motion. We are not really interested in any political pointscoring, but this is about the principles of transparency and accountability. As the minister responsible at the time, I believe it is more than reasonable that Jacinta Allan appear to answer questions about decision-making processes. In the very short time that this committee inquiry has been running it has really only reinforced our view that the existing parliamentary oversight mechanisms are inadequate, and it is quite possible we would not be in the position we are in today if we had stronger oversight.
The Public Accounts and Estimates Committee should have been able to apply the scrutiny to the Commonwealth Games that this select committee is now attempting to do, but the system we have with PAEC does not enable that to happen. The sum total of Commonwealth Games scrutiny by this Parliament has been the 1-hour appearance of each of the two ministers responsible for legacy and delivery respectfully, and much of that time in PAEC was taken up by Dorothy Dixers from government members. Many of the relevant departments did not appear with those ministers before PAEC, and those that did only got to contribute when the ministers called on them. So it is really inadequate oversight with the existing mechanisms.
A major project like the Commonwealth Games – regardless of the final figures, even at the outset it was going to spend billions of taxpayer dollars – should automatically be the subject of some kind of higher level of parliamentary oversight. At the moment we do not have any processes that do that for major projects. So really, transparency and accountability are core requirements for ensuring integrity in government, and I believe that is something we should all be supporting.
John BERGER (Southern Metropolitan) (11:44): Today I rise to speak to the Libertarian Party motion, and it is the second time I have spoken on a motion prepared by Mr Limbrick. I also believe it is in conjunction with those opposite, the Liberal Party, which is not a big surprise. We will not be supporting this motion. The committee has resolved that:
• under Standing Order 17.03 the Committee requests the attendance of the Premier, Hon. Jacinta Allan MP, to attend a public hearing at a date and time to be determined
• the Premier provide evidence in her capacity as the former Minister for Commonwealth Games Delivery
• the Chair be empowered to inform the Leader of the Government in the Legislative Council of this resolution and discuss the mechanism for the Council to consider a message to the Legislative Assembly requesting leave be granted for the Premier to appear
This is an exercise in pointscoring, and I am disappointed that the precious little time that we have to spend in Parliament sitting weeks is spent on motions like this and that they continue to be discussed.
When the Commonwealth Games needed a host city to step up at the last minute, we were willing to help, but $6 billion to $7 billion for a 12-day sporting event is too much. We will not apologise for being fiscally responsible and putting to good use every single tax dollar in this state. In the face of these extraordinary numbers, an unjustifiable cost–benefit analysis, we made the decision to not proceed before any major contracts had been signed, meaning costs incurred were relatively contained. Going ahead with this event, the damages would have been far worse than if we had not. A better use of taxpayers money is the $2 billion package to ensure regional Victoria still receives the housing, tourism and sporting infrastructure benefits that would have been facilitated by the games and more.
This speech is going to get into the Westminster system. It has been recognised that members hold immunities, privileges and other powers to represent their communities and their democratic constituencies as a result of their role as members of Parliament. This doctrine is known as exclusive cognisance. The independence of the houses of Parliament means that a committee cannot claim authority over a member of another house, and that member holds immunities based on this independence. There are a lot of other traditions in this place as well. The Usher of the Black Rod opens and closes the door of the Legislative Council. You need to rise when the President comes in. You address members politely – or at least you should – and address them by their title: the member for; the President or Acting President; the minister or Attorney, in the case of the Attorney-General; or Mr or Mrs or Ms, and more. It is part of the dignity of the office, and the traditions of this place and the other place go back a long time. As I said, they are formed from the Westminster system, which is supported by the views and practices of the British parliamentary system. This is public law 101. We have the concept of the separation of powers for a reason, and it is the cornerstone of our democracy.
The Premier has answered every question she has been asked about the Commonwealth Games, and I saw that yesterday in question time in the other place. Several public servants and officials have attended and provided information to this committee. The reality is simple: the Premier’s attendance at this committee is not required, and those on this side of the house do not support this motion. Members of Parliament are responsible for their own houses – for the powers and the roles, their station and their functions. They should not be called before the other house in relation to those powers or functions.
From the beginning this has been a stunt. The opposition themselves aided and supported our decision to withdraw from the event and would have done so themselves. But it is all noise, because we have a mandate to deliver, including a strong mandate to deliver from regional and rural communities. It is why time and time again, year after year, election after election, as the new Premier herself knows from her election in a regional seat, rural and regional communities continue to turn to Labor to represent them. Let us look at the other places like the Bellarine and the beautiful peninsula that it represents, which Labor retained for a fantastic new member; and Bendigo West for the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly, with a massive 64.6 per cent two-party preferred vote and a mammoth 46.5 per cent primary vote for Labor. Eureka, held by Ms Settle in the other place, was 57.2 per cent on a primary vote. Macedon, held by the Minister for Health in the other place, Minister Thomas, had almost 60 per cent of the two-party preferred vote. The member for South Barwon had a similarly high vote, and of course something that I am sure those opposite remember very well is the seat of Ripon, whose fantastic new member is the hardworking local member Martha Haylett in the other place – well done. Of course Premier Jacinta Allan almost had a majority in her own right, a 48.3 per cent primary vote and 60.8 per cent two-party preferred. Regional communities get that Victorian Labor delivers for them. This includes a $2 billion regional package, which means a $1 billion Regional Housing Fund that will see more than 1300 extra homes built across regional Victoria and $550 million to deliver one of the permanent new and upgraded sporting infrastructure programs planned as part of the Commonwealth Games.
There is also $150 million for the Regional Worker Accommodation Fund, which will provide grants for projects that will increase and supply workers accommodation in regional Victoria; a massive boost of $150 million to regional tourism and events to ensure our regions have the best of everything on offer, with new events, new attractions and more accommodation; $40 million for the all-abilities sport fund to remove the barriers to entry for people with a disability and help them get involved in sports through grants, scholarships and mentoring; $60 million for the Regional Community Sport Development Fund for initiatives that will encourage regional Victorian families and children to be more physically active; $20 million for regional tourism marketing to ensure our outstanding regional offerings are marketed across the state, the country and the world; $20 million towards a new Aboriginal economic development fund in recognition of the central contribution of traditional owners in planning for the games; $10 million to extend the Tiny Towns program to support small but important projects that will deliver better public places and spaces and support civic pride; and of course $25 million in general council support packages.
Housing is so important to my community of Southern Metro, and it is one of the big priorities of the Allan Labor government. With the new Regional Housing Fund, this is going to be delivered and delivered big time, including with more than 1300 additional homes across regional Victoria. One hundred per cent of those 1300 dwellings will be social and affordable housing, and the extra make-up between social and affordable will be determined through detailed planning and consultation, which is what our government does – detailed planning and work, doing the hard but diligent policy work day in, day out. These dwellings will be placed right across regional Victoria, where they are needed most. Without the games we do not need to place these houses under the restrictions provided by the Commonwealth Games Federation – for instance, new competition venues. So this side of the chamber is committed to working with councils, regional partnerships and locals to determine this right mix.
Regional Victoria will continue to be a destination that people want to visit, with all tourism regions hitting highs. Visitor spending in Phillip Island increased by 75 per cent, the High Country was up by 73 per cent and the Grampians has risen by 66 per cent since 2019. This is thanks to our government’s work in this space. There is $150 million in the Regional Events Fund to ensure regions have the best of everything on offer, with new events and attractions and more accommodation: $47 million for regional events will help Visit Victoria bring the biggest and best events to our regions, bringing visitors and dollars to communities right across the state; $78 million for regional tourism infrastructure to deliver projects to attract visitors to key destinations to support tourism businesses like wineries, breweries and distilleries and to add accommodation to their offerings; $10 million to assist Victorian primary producers, to ensure that the rest of the world gets to experience our clean and green produce and to grow our food and fibre exports and encourage more Australians to buy Victorian; $10 million for regional tourism industry development to ensure Victoria’s regional cities and towns have the skills, workforce and capacity to support our regional tourism businesses to grow and thrive; and $5 million for regional multicultural festivals to support towns across regional Victoria to hold multicultural festivals such as Tet and Chinese New Year. After all of this, it is clear who supports our regional and rural communities.
Joe McCRACKEN (Western Victoria) (11:53): I just want to bring debate on this motion back with a bit more common sense than what we have heard from the government. This is basically asking for the house to support an invitation to the Premier to appear before an inquiry. It is like any invitation: someone can refuse an invitation if they wish. We are not compelling anyone to appear, we are asking them to appear. So let us just make that very clear: we are asking them to appear.
I have just got a few points that were raised before. I think it was Mr Berger that said that the Premier’s presence is not required in front of this committee. I would have thought that at a committee that is investigating the Commonwealth Games and its cancellation you would want to talk to the person that was responsible for the delivery of the games, and at that point in time it was the now Premier Jacinta Allan. If you believed in ministerial responsibility, you would support this motion, because you would want the minister responsible at the time to be able to at least explain themselves, and that is what this is: it is an opportunity to explain the situation. If the now Premier wants to take up that opportunity, we would welcome that, because Victorians have many questions that need to be answered, and those questions can be gone through by the committee.
The attempts by the government to delegitimise this committee by saying that it is about political pointscoring are pretty poor, to be honest. I am very disappointed to hear them. It is not about political pointscoring; it is not an exercise in that. It is an exercise in accountability and integrity. If you value accountability and integrity, you will support this motion, because that is exactly what it is about. It is about getting honest, straightforward answers. That is all we want: honest, straightforward answers.
Mr Berger, I know you went through a number of the different electorates. It was like Antony Green; he went through the primary votes of the different electorates, particularly across my electorate of Western Victoria –
A member interjected.
Joe McCRACKEN: But that is exactly the point. The government made a promise at the last election that they would deliver a Commonwealth Games, and you pointed out that people voted for that. That is what you pointed out. But now, given that there has been a cancellation of the Commonwealth Games, it is not the Comm Games, it is the big con games. That is what people are feeling. That is what I have heard. You quite rightly pointed it out, but I wonder what would have happened at this point in time if they had had the knowledge that they were going to be cancelled – whether those votes you spoke about were going to be so high.
Nicholas McGowan: Where’s Banjo?
Joe McCRACKEN: Good question, Mr McGowan. So let us just bring some common sense back to this. The motion says:
That this house requests –
it is not a compulsion, it is a request –
that the Legislative Assembly grant leave to the Premier … to appear before the …
committee. My community of Ballarat have a lot of questions to ask. Many other communities around the state do: Bendigo, Geelong, Shepparton, Morwell at the very minimum, as the regional hubs. But Victorians deserve straight answers on this, and they deserve those answers from someone who at that point in time had control. They were pulling the levers. Information was known at points in time. We at least deserve to have the opportunity to ask questions, and even further to that, we at least deserve the opportunity as a community, as a state, to ask the person who was in control at the time. Just invite them along. It is an opportunity for them to explain themselves. We are not telling them what to say, we are just affording them the ability to explain themselves, and it is so disappointing that we have already seen publicly that it appears as though that opportunity will not be taken up at all. It is just a chance for straight answers, and I do not know why the government tries to run this sort of protection racket. All we want is just to get clear responses.
Nicholas McGowan: Who’s going to clean up the saleyards now?
Joe McCRACKEN: Good question, Mr McGowan. I do not know who is going to clean up the saleyards in Ballarat. It is a problem that has been ongoing for quite a significant period of time. There was hope that this would be resolved, but it seriously looks like there is less and less hope as time goes on.
I support this motion, and I really do take objection to the quite obvious attempts of the government to delegitimise this committee and the good work that it is doing in getting straight answers. And I note as well that the lead speaker for the government Mr McIntosh did indeed say that Mr Limbrick was doing a very good job with this committee, and I agree. He is doing a very good job. So, please, these attempts to delegitimise the committee must stop.
Business interrupted pursuant to sessional orders.