Wednesday, 18 October 2023

Committees

Select Committee on the 2026 Commonwealth Games Bid

Premier

Debate resumed.

Michael GALEA (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (14:06): I rise to speak on the motion put forward by Mr Limbrick today, which reads:

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.

I do, in line with my colleagues Mr McIntosh and Mr Berger, rise to speak against this motion, though in doing so I wish to state from the outset my respect for Mr Limbrick as chair of this committee, of which I, like Mr McIntosh and like Ms Ermacora, also in the room on this side, am a member. Whilst I have some disagreements with how some things are progressing, as I will briefly discuss, I do wish to note that Mr Limbrick has been very, very ably chairing this committee, and we appreciate him for that.

I know that my colleagues have already talked about the doctrine of exclusive cognisance and various other matters. Members in this place well know that it is standing Westminster convention that both houses of Parliament are treated as independent of each other, and there is a very good reason for that. In fact being here in the Legislative Council, where the government does not, almost by design, enjoy a majority, I actually think that is a very good thing for our democracy.

Matthew Bach: Thanks, Bracksie.

Michael GALEA: Yes. Thanks, Bracksie, for that, as Dr Bach rightly interjected. It was a very good reform. It is important that we have all voices heard and that we do not have forgone conclusions in this house, so I very much appreciate that. It is in that spirit of independence of this chamber that I rise to speak against this motion today. As other speakers have noted as well, this is an inquiry that was established from a motion by the Liberal Party. They sought this committee. This is structured in the way in which they drafted it. If they had wanted a joint committee, they could have proposed that. They did not. They drafted a Legislative Council committee, and it is appropriate that, as others have already gone into detail on and as my colleague Mr Berger made reference to as well, again with those principles of exclusive cognisance, that is kept separate. I note that we have already had two hearings of the committee, both of which were last week, and we have two I believe scheduled for next week, including next Thursday, when I am looking forward to having Minister Harriet Shing appear before us and present to us, as will indeed the President of this place, both of them acting in their previous capacities as ministers for Commonwealth Games legacy.

We have had some contributions from across the chamber today as well, and I think a couple of them warrant responding to. Firstly, Mr McCracken has tried to frame this as being quite simple. He says that this is just an invitation; he says that you can refuse an invitation.

Mr McCracken knows all too well – I am sure he does; he is a member of the committee with me and with respect he is also our deputy chair – that the Premier has already been invited and has already respectfully declined.

Matthew Bach interjected.

Michael GALEA: It has been issued on the website:

… resolution on 9 October 2023 to request the attendance of Premier Hon. Jacinta Allan MP at a public hearing.

We have seen the public comments from the Premier, so we know what is happening here. And for Mr McCracken to say ‘Well, this is just an invitation. She can just decline it’ – we already know that has happened. So for this to be put forward today sounds to me an awful lot like political grandstanding and like you are trying to get her to decline in the way in which you want her to so that you can say it is a big deal. That is all that you are seeking to achieve.

I did enjoy listening to Mr McCracken’s contribution. He talked extensively about ministerial responsibility. I do wonder: why has the select committee sought the attendance of a parliamentary secretary? They do not have ministerial responsibility. On the same page, on the same website of this committee:

The Committee agreed to this resolution on 13 October 2023 to request the attendance of Member for South Barwon, Darren Cheeseman MP at a public hearing.

He is not a minister.

Matthew Bach: Praise God!

Michael GALEA: Well, I actually think he will make a fantastic minister one day, Dr Bach, and I am looking forward to seeing the day when he is. Perhaps this committee is now taking it to a new level of absurdity. Perhaps we are now looking at future ministers. Perhaps we will look at what future ministers have to say about it. Is that what the plan is? Perhaps it is. You might know, Dr Bach. I might know, but I am on the committee so I cannot talk about what was discussed, as I know Ms Bath and Mr McCracken along with my colleagues here beside me Ms Ermacora and Mr McIntosh are. Perhaps that is the reason why we chose to do that as a committee. All I can say is in this house I do not think it is quite appropriate for us to be inviting a parliamentary secretary. I certainly cannot seem to find any precedent for it. I welcome members opposite showing me some precedent for where a parliamentary secretary has been called in front of a committee to answer questions relating to ministerial responsibilities that they do not have. By all means I look forward to that discussion, and I am sure we might have more productive conversations like that in our committee meetings.

Joe McCracken: On a point of order, Deputy President, as Mr Galea would well rightly know, the calling of a parliamentary secretary or a previous one is not what this motion is about, and I ask that he be drawn back to the motion.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Mr Galea, the motion is about the Premier attending, not about parliamentary secretaries attending, so I would draw your attention to the motion and draw you back to the motion at hand.

Michael GALEA: I will quickly veer off that, but just to emphasise the point that the reason why that is relevant is because it just goes to show –

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Sorry, Mr Galea, we are not going back to the parliamentary secretary. I asked you to bring yourself back to the motion, please, which is about the Premier.

Michael GALEA: Obviously they do not like me talking about it, so I will move on. I do note that Dr Mansfield made some interesting contributions as well. It seemed a bit not entirely on the subject as well, but it was going on to the role of the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee. And I believe she seemed to have suggested that PAEC had not been doing its job or something, and I know as a member of PAEC we certainly have been doing our job very thoroughly.

I also want to note she made a comment saying that government MPs were asking questions, and I would like to outline why the concept of proportionality when it comes to committees, whether it is a committee in the Council or a joint committee such as PAEC – like the Liberal Party could have pushed for if they wanted to actually compel the Premier to attend – is important. So there are five Labor members on the PAEC, and there are three coalition members and one Greens member as well, and if you actually look at the members of Parliament across both houses that is almost exactly proportionate to the numbers we have. In fact I think we have slightly less than proportionate Labor Party members on that committee, which is absolutely no problem. But I do think it is important to note that when you are saying those things you are actually calling for members to have a voice disproportionate to the representation in this place. And for what it is worth, as I say – and I say directly to you as well, Dr Bach – PAEC does do its job well when it comes to public scrutiny.

We have in fact heard members opposite, you included, Dr Bach, quote estimates hearings quite extensively this year. I know you were quite interested and engaged with, I believe it was, the education portfolio, which you took great joy in quoting from. If members opposite are going to join in in suggesting that it does not do its job or that it does not achieve anything in terms of accountability, why are they asking us so many questions based off answers in PAEC in this very chamber?

There was also an allegation of insufficient time to be able to probe deeply into matters that might arise. I will, for the benefit of the house, just note that this year at the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee’s estimates hearings we undertook 58 hours of hearings, which was actually an increase of 40 minutes on the previous year. So I do not think you can say that there is not time given. With respect to Dr Mansfield as well, I believe she also mentioned that only ministers can be asked questions during PAEC.

Sarah Mansfield: That’s not what I said.

Michael GALEA: I am glad to hear that is not what you said – I must have misheard that then – because members can ask questions of officials, just as they may of ministers as well. I think it is appropriate just to clarify some points in relation to that. Obviously the answering minister or official may, if there is an appropriate level of detail, defer to another official or minister, as may be the case, to answer a question. But certainly from my experience – 58 hours this year across all the various parts of government policy, including the Commonwealth Games, both legacy and delivery – that certainly was what we saw borne out in those hearings. My time is up, so I will conclude my remarks there.

Jacinta ERMACORA (Western Victoria) (14:17): Another week and another tired attempt from the opposition – I appreciate the motion. The government has moved on from the Commonwealth Games. Victorians have moved on, turning our attention to the far bigger challenges our state and nation face, and yet here we are again with the opposition continuing to grasp at quickly diminishing straws.

The idea of hosting the Commonwealth Games was a well-meant initiative. It was embarked on with the most positive of intentions, particularly as no other host in the Commonwealth put their hand up at the time. When it became clear that the 12-day event with the multitude of logistical challenges it posed would cost more than $6 billion, more than twice the estimated economic benefit the games would bring to our state, the government made the decision not to proceed. It was the right decision. As then Premier Andrews said:

The main reason we agreed to host the Games was to deliver lasting benefits in housing, tourism and sporting infrastructure for regional Victoria.

But those outcomes can still be achieved without hosting the Commonwealth Games. In fact the government’s prudent decision will mean even more rural and outer regional communities will benefit, and those benefits will be felt even longer. Take local sporting infrastructure: every single one of our permanent new and upgraded sporting infrastructure projects will still be delivered as planned by 2026. This means big and small investments right across Victoria will deliver modern facilities that communities can use for both elite and grassroots sports for many years to come – projects like the world-class mountain bike trails that will be built in and around Creswick and a new community sporting facility for Miners Rest, and I could go on. Rather than building temporary facilities for the games, it will instead mean that we get on with delivering these projects in their final form, benefiting locals sooner. A further $60 million will back community and grassroots sports, delivering new playing fields, swimming pools, lighting upgrades, cycling paths and more. Importantly, these projects will extend well beyond those five major –

Matthew Bach: On a point of order, Deputy President, regarding relevance, Ms Ermacora’s interesting thesis that the cancellation of the Commonwealth Games will actually be some sort of boon for regional Victoria is, as I say, of interest and note to me, but it has nothing whatsoever to do with the motion.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Ms Ermacora, it is a narrow motion inviting the Premier to attend. If you can tie your remarks to the reason why the Premier should or should not attend, that is fine, but I would bring you back to that narrow motion of the Premier attending –

Sonja Terpstra: Further to the point of order, Deputy President, I will make the point that I have been listening –

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Is this a separate point of order?

Sonja Terpstra: I have been listening to the debate, and this has been a broad-ranging debate. I have heard speakers from the opposition benches talking about things occurring in regional Victoria, and I think that, because the opposition has opened that door, Ms Ermacora is able to respond to it.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I had actually already ruled on that point of order.

Jacinta ERMACORA: I will continue on the Commonwealth Games bid and the issues related to that which are referred to in the motion. Where was I before I was interrupted? Importantly, these projects will extend well beyond those five major regional centres, reaching and benefiting countless communities across our state, including my own. Paul Dillon, president of Hockey South West, which I have referred to previously in this chamber, put it recently:

I just think one door has closed and two doors have opened.

Because we know that athletes with a disability continue to face unacceptable barriers to participation, an additional $40 million will help make competing fairer and more accessible, with dedicated support through grants, scholarships and mentoring. The same lasting benefits will be experienced with rural and regional tourism events. The new $150 million Regional Tourism and Events Fund will strengthen our state’s already strong tourism offering, attracting new visitors to regional Victoria – and critically, they are all important dollars. We value the impact of these kinds of investments in the south-west, and we are already extremely excited about an upcoming exhibition at the Warrnambool Art Gallery celebrating two exceptional female artists: Lisa Gorman, a local from Warrnambool, and Mirka Mora. For communities across our state, this fund will mean even more of these kinds of events, infrastructure and opportunities for economic growth. That benefit will not just be measured in days or weeks but enjoyed for years and even decades to come.

That lasting legacy will also be felt when it comes to regional housing. As I have noted before, there is no more urgent issue in our state than this one, and it is not a challenge that merely relates to Melbourne. In fact the further out you go, the harder it can be.

Matthew Bach: On a point of order, Deputy President, I do feel in some senses that I am being unkind to interrupt Ms Ermacora again. However, she is flouting your ruling, Deputy President. Her, again, interesting commentary regarding the many great things that will flow from the cancellation of the Commonwealth Games has nothing whatsoever to do with Mr Limbrick’s motion. So my point of order is regarding relevance.

Sonja Terpstra: On the point of order, Deputy President, I draw the house’s attention to the motion that was moved by Mr Limbrick in the sense that it does refer to the fact that there is an inquiry before the Legislative Council Select Committee on the 2026 Commonwealth Games Bid and then it goes on to talk about the Premier in her capacity as Minister for Commonwealth Games Delivery. Despite what Dr Bach is saying – and again I make the point that I have listened to the debate in this house – there have been a broad range of topics discussed in relation to the issues in the motion, and Ms Ermacora is entitled to reply to those remarks. I ask that she be allowed to continue without interruption.

Matthew Bach: Further to the point of order, Deputy President, I take the comments from Ms Terpstra. Ms Ermacora is not replying to anything. She has not made reference to any remarks of members of the opposition. In my time here it has been normal practice to allow some leeway to members to respond to comments that have been made by others. However, Ms Ermacora is not responding to comments made by members of this house. She has not referred to any comments made by members on this side.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I am prepared to rule on this now, because I think that this is just going to go backwards and forwards across the chamber. I had ruled on the point of order earlier to say that this is a narrow motion. If the member can actually refer to some comments that were made and respond to those, that is fine, but the motion here before us is about the Premier appearing at the committee, not a general debate on the benefits that the regional games would have brought to regional Victoria or what benefits you think there may be in cancelling the games. So I bring you back to the motion, and if you want to respond to remarks, you need to refer to what those remarks were and then respond to them, please.

Jacinta ERMACORA: Can I ask how long I have got?

A member interjected.

Jacinta ERMACORA: Have I literally only got that amount of time? All right. Well, this decision was grounded in the best interests of our state. I will conclude by saying that, after all, courage and conviction are so clearly lacking under the current opposition leadership it makes sense that their caucus is struggling to recognise it when they see it. After all, they are being led by the man who attempted to conjure up fears about African gangs and then, when his strategy was spectacularly rejected –

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: This is not about an individual, and I ask you to withdraw those remarks, please.

Jacinta ERMACORA: Withdrawn.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you. Your time has expired.

Sonja TERPSTRA (North-Eastern Metropolitan) (14:27): I rise to make a contribution on this motion moved by Mr Limbrick, motion 206 in his name. I am going to start my contribution by actually reading on the record what this motion actually says. I know I am going to get continuously interrupted by those opposite, so I am going to make the point before I begin my contribution so it is absolutely clear – I know you have got to leave because it is too hot, obviously, but I want to make the point that what I am going to say –

Melina Bath interjected.

Sonja TERPSTRA: I will start my contribution however I like, Ms Bath. Can I not have interruptions, thanks.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Order! Ms Terpstra without assistance, please.

Melina Bath interjected.

Sonja TERPSTRA: I ask Ms Bath to withdraw that remark. I take offence to that remark, and I ask Ms Bath to withdraw.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Ms Terpstra, I am actually trying to speak, and you are speaking over me. It makes it very difficult for me to hear what the remarks are. But if there was an offensive remark made, I do ask the member to withdraw.

Melina Bath: ‘That is silly’ is not an offensive remark.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Given that we did not hear what the remarks were, Ms Terpstra, I would ask you to return to your contribution, and I ask that the other side allow Ms Terpstra to continue without assistance.

Sonja TERPSTRA: I reiterate my point that I take offence to the comment that was made by Ms Bath, and I note she has refused to withdraw it.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Ms Bath did not refuse to withdraw it. The advice that I got from the clerk was that it was not offensive.

Sonja TERPSTRA: Deputy President, I refer to the standing orders, and they say, if I take offence to a remark, that is what is required, and I take offence to that remark.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I will refer it to the President for review.

Sonja TERPSTRA: Deputy President, thank you very much. Again, I am going to start my contribution, as I indicated I would, by talking about what is actually in this motion, and it says:

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 –

so that is quite a broad application of what the committee is actually going to inquire into, which is the Commonwealth Games bid –

to provide evidence in her capacity as the former Minister for Commonwealth Games Delivery.

I note that throughout this debate there has been broad-ranging debate on this side about a number of things that were allegedly contained in that bid.

There were a broad range of things that were taken into consideration in making that bid, and I understand that the committee wants to inquire into that and look for some answers, but the point is that you should look at what the state was actually trying to achieve. There was another nation that could not provide a venue for the Commonwealth Games, and Victoria actually said, ‘Well, we think we could run these games.’ As part of that bid, what was involved in it was that there would be the hosting of various events in regional areas. Various sporting events would be hosted in regional areas, and as part of that, commitments were made around infrastructure, which went to the legacy of it. That meant that we needed to develop and build infrastructure so that we could conduct these games, and then an excellent part of that would have been that in those regional communities, where these sports were going to be hosted, they would then have been able to enjoy the benefits associated with the running of those games, and those benefits were many and varied.

I will just talk for a moment about the regional package of works that were included as part of that bid. This again goes to the motion on the Commonwealth Games bid. These things were made public, and commitments were made about these sorts of things. Our $2 billion regional package included a new $1 billion Regional Housing Fund that would see more than 1300 extra homes built across regional Victoria. This was about supporting the athletes who were going to come here, who would need accommodation and who were going to compete in the Commonwealth Games. So I am making it very clear, and I am being very consistent in my contribution here. This applies to the Commonwealth Games bid and the delivery of it, okay? So that was one aspect.

There is $550 million to deliver every one of the permanent, new and upgraded sporting infrastructure projects planned as part of the games – that is directly relevant to the bid – and $150 million for the Regional Worker Accommodation Fund to provide grants for projects that will increase the supply of workers accommodation in regional Victoria. We know that it is critically important in regional Victoria that people who come here to work actually have somewhere to live or to stay – so that they could work on these games. That was the intent, but the legacy of it would have been that there would then have been infrastructure that would have benefited regional Victorians. That seems to be a bad thing. It seems to be a bad and evil thing for those opposite.

There is so much more – $150 million for a regional tourism and events fund to ensure our regions have the best of everything, with new events, new attractions and more accommodation. We want to continue to attract people to the regions. This was all part of the bid, thank you very much. There is $40 million for the all-abilities sports fund to remove the barriers to entry for people with disability.

Joe McCracken: On a point of order, Deputy President, I say this with the greatest of respect, but a substantive part of this motion is about the invitation to the former minister, now Premier, to come before the Commonwealth Games bid inquiry. I realise that it does say that in the motion, but the thrust of the motion is not about the bid; it is about a former minister coming before the committee and talking about it. That is what the substantive part of the motion is about.

Sonja TERPSTRA: On the point of order, Deputy President, I need to be able to continue my contribution in silence and without interruption, because I am going to get to how all of these things may be matters that the committee might inquire into, but I am continually interrupted by those opposite.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Order! That is not a point of order. I will draw the attention of the member back to the substantive part of this motion, which is about the Premier giving evidence on the Commonwealth Games bid. I do believe that some of the things that you have been raising are not actually part of the bid but part of the compensation package for not having the games, but I draw you back to the fact that this is about the Premier appearing before the committee, and I ask you to come back to the motion, please.

Michael Galea: On a point of order, Deputy President, I will note, just for the record, that the name of the committee is the Select Committee on the 2026 Commonwealth Games Bid; however, the terms of reference explicitly include the regional building program.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I am sorry, Mr Galea, this is not about the terms of reference, this is about the actual motion, which is a very narrow motion about the minister appearing before a committee that is called the Legislative Council Select Committee on the 2026 Commonwealth Games Bid. It is not about the bid itself, it is about the Premier appearing before that committee, so I do draw the member back to the motion, please.

Sonja TERPSTRA: I find it very interesting, the interpretation of those opposite on this particular motion. I will actually talk about the motion. I find it really, really interesting that what is really being advocated by those opposite is to split this motion – not to read it as a whole, but to split it up – to say, ‘This is about the Premier giving evidence to this inquiry, yes,’ but then we cannot talk about the actual bid, which is the subject of the inquiry, which you are asking the Premier to actually give evidence on. I find that a nonsensical point made by those opposite. I make the point in this house as part of this debate that the terms of reference are relevant to how the inquiry is going to conduct its business in looking into the motion that set this up. You cannot split it apart. It is a nonsense – and that it is fine. Obviously the approach by those opposite and the strategy and the tactic is to interrupt every government speaker who is trying to make a contribution on this motion. It is patently obvious and very boring, might I add, because you have got no alternatives to this.

I will continue on in the 43 seconds that I have got to talk about this motion. I note that when the opposition speakers were speaking there was not the same level of interruption by government members on these benches to people on the opposition benches. Again, it is just ridiculous and true to type, true to form by those opposite – they do not want to listen to anything that is being said by government members. Again, they want to keep splitting this motion into finite detail that would then render this unworkable. In the 13 seconds that I have left on the clock I will continue on to say that I look forward to the inquiry that is being conducted by the Legislative Council select committee on this because I – (Time expired)

Ryan BATCHELOR (Southern Metropolitan) (14:37): I am very pleased to rise and speak as part of the debate on Mr Limbrick’s motion, which attempts to make a request that by its very essence strikes at some of the core principles of how parliaments in the Westminster tradition have operated for centuries. Perhaps indicative of the opposition’s approach to the conduct of speeches by government members in the course of this debate is the extent to which this entire process is one of farce. The way in which those opposite listened to the contributions that my colleagues on this side of the chamber have attempted to make today, not on a motion that the government has brought before the chamber but on a motion that has been brought by non-government members – they are not interested in listening to the contributions that we want to make in the course of this debate. The continual objections that they are making demonstrate 100 per cent that they have actually got no interest in anything that we are going to say, because we all know that this is an abject exercise in political pointscoring. They are not interested in listening to what is going on, what has gone on and what anyone has got to say. Therefore a motion that seeks to bring a request to a member of the other chamber to appear before a committee should be treated in the same vein. We cannot take seriously this motion because they are not taking seriously the questions that are before us and the contributions that are –

David Limbrick: On a point of order, Deputy President, the motion was brought forward by me, not the opposition, and I am listening very carefully.

Michael Galea: On the point of order, Deputy President, I believe Mr Batchelor was referring to the contributions of opposition members in this debate.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I would remind Mr Batchelor that the motion is Mr Limbrick’s motion and Mr Limbrick has been listening here intently. You would need to make it clear as to who your statements are intended for.

Ryan BATCHELOR: I am fully aware of who moved this motion, and I think I was referring to non-government members having moved this motion. I think, last time I checked, Mr Limbrick falls within the category of non-government members. However, if there warrants yet a further demonstration of the disinterest in the content, the practice is demonstrating that.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Sorry, Mr Batchelor. Just given that you have now said that you are saying that non-government members are disinterested, I think that Mr Limbrick’s point of order is quite pertinent in that he has been sitting there quietly listening very intently to the debate, so I understand why he feels aggrieved. I just bring you back to the motion.

Ryan BATCHELOR: I am very happy to get back to the motion, because as I said at the outset, it is a motion that seeks to disregard centuries of parliamentary practice. It seeks to undermine the very notion of the relationship between the houses of Parliament that has existed in the Westminster tradition for centuries, and if those opposite – and I use that term generally, not specifically – in either moving or speaking to this motion do not wish to have regard for those centuries of tradition, then we on this side will. That is why we are opposing this motion today, because we do not believe that it is the right course of action to up-end these centuries of Westminster practice by saying that members of the other place should be held accountable to this place, because that is not how our Parliament works. I think it is beholden on all of us, whether we have been here 5 minutes or longer, to continually respect the operations of the Parliament.

It is very clear in that tradition that members of this chamber cannot impinge on the immunities and privileges that are held by a member of the other chamber. Each of us is responsible in this place to this chamber, and each of those in the other place are responsible there. It may be inconvenient for the purposes of various committees, as they exercise their functions from time to time, that a particular minister who they wish to question is not from that particular chamber, but there are constraints bigger than us that dictate the composition of the executive government here in Victoria. Such matters are indeed features of our constitutional framework, and so it is the very basis of our system of government here in Victoria, where the number of ministers permitted to sit in this chamber is limited. If people do not understand our constitutional framework, it is very easy to go and look it up. What that says to us is that it is very clear within the confines of the way our constitution operates, and its very text, that there are going to be times when ministers are not members of this place, and that is the way our democracy has operated for a very long time. Just because those non-government members opposite want to go on a political pointscoring exercise does not mean we have the right to up-end the constitutional framework and does not mean we have the right to turn our back on centuries of practice and tradition and precedent in our Parliament, which say that members of the other place are not accountable to this place.

Because we do obtain this part of our constitutional heritage from parliamentary practice in the United Kingdom, it is relevant to read from the Precedents of Proceedings in the House of Commons in this regard, which says:

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 …

And in a similar vein, to quote again from the Precedents of Proceedings in the House of Commons:

As it is essential to the House of Commons, to keep itself entirely independent of any authority which the Lords might claim to exercise over the House itself or any of the Members, they ought to be particularly careful, on this and on all similar occasions, to observe and abide by the practice of their predecessors.

I think it is pretty clear, from precedent and from practice, that seeking to extend the reach of this place to the other place is not something that accords with the operation of our parliamentary democracy. I think it is very clear, from the text of the Victorian constitution and the framework for executive government and the constitutional arrangements with respect to from where and how many ministers are able to be drawn from each house of Parliament, that there are going to be circumstances where it is not possible for a committee of this place to compel a minister from the other place to appear before it. Seeking to subvert that by moving motions such as this does nothing to respect the way parliamentary democracy in this state and in the Westminster tradition works.

In the context of this debate and the contributions that we are making, I frankly have not had time to talk about the range of other matters that other members in this debate have so eloquently attempted to convey, despite some attempts to frustrate some of those contributions. What we do know is that the motion itself here is seeking to undermine a very core principle of our parliamentary democracy, and we should not support it.

Adem SOMYUREK (Northern Metropolitan) (14:47): I rise to speak to the motion before the house. I have been in this place for 21 years, and invariably it is the opposition that campaign for accountability and transparency, and then when they get into government they are anything but accountable and transparent. I have seen this debate ad nauseam, many times over 21 years, be it exclusive cognisance or be it a request for papers to be supplied to the upper house. In 2014–18 we as the Andrews opposition campaigned hard on accountability and transparency, and what you got through the Andrews government was anything but accountability and transparency – through Daniel Andrews on his own, by the way, and the way he did government himself.

This house cannot compel the Premier to attend. I have seen this throughout my parliamentary life. This house cannot compel the Premier to attend an upper house committee – that is just fact. But just because the upper house cannot compel the Premier to attend, I would actually encourage her to attend, because I think it is in her best interests to attend. I would argue that turning up to the inquiry and accounting for the very costly botched Commonwealth Games bid is in Jacinta’s best interests. I would argue that one of the reasons Daniel Andrews was so loathed by his detractors was because of the lack of accountability, lack of transparency, lack of collective decision-making and lack of respect for due process. Because of the sandwich – I preface that with a word starting with ‘S’ at the start of it – that Dan left Jacinta Allan, Jacinta Allan’s premiership has not got off to the best start. There are sections within the community that see, unfairly, Jacinta Allan as just another Dan Andrews, or the female form of Daniel Andrews, and I think that is a little bit harsh. So my message to Jacinta Allan is to actually take this opportunity to press the reset button on her premiership. By turning up to the committee you will send a very powerful message to the Victorian community that you are not just a female version of Daniel Andrews, that you are willing to be held to account and that you will be transparent in the way you run the Victorian government.

The Commonwealth Games bid was a fiasco. I do not think anybody is going to defend that. It made Victoria the laughing stock of the world. Why? Because of the way Daniel Andrews ran his government. There are various conspiracy theories around everything – every stuff-up – under Daniel Andrews, from the hotel quarantine to every other stuff-up. I recall the various conspiracies around the hotel quarantine. I am not going to verbalise them now; it is not fair. But there certainly is a conspiracy theory associated with the botched Commonwealth Games bid, and that is that Daniel Andrews designed the system – the whole bid was a ruse to misappropriate taxpayer funds to pork-barrel to regional seats with the promise of attracting tourist revenue into those seats as well.

Ryan Batchelor: On a point of order, Deputy President, I am not sure the member is being relevant to the motion.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I think that Mr Batchelor has a point. Mr Somyurek may have just drifted off to talk about the former Premier when this is about the current Premier appearing before a committee. I draw Mr Somyurek back to the motion, please.

Adem SOMYUREK: Yes, Deputy President. I think it is in Ms Allan’s best interest to appear before this committee and to be forthright in her evidence. No doubt she will be if she appears. If she has to tell the truth and if the truth means throwing the former Premier under a bus, she needs to do it. The former Premier threw 10 women colleagues under a bus. He did not blink an eyelid. If the Premier was in her position, he would be –

Ryan Batchelor: On a point of order, Deputy President –

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: It is all right. I am just going to pick Mr Somyurek up on it. This is not about the former Premier and what he did or what he did not do; it is about the current Premier appearing before the committee. I do think that you are drifting off into other territory that is not relevant to this motion. I draw the member back to the motion, please.

Adem SOMYUREK: What I am saying is highly relevant. Since the government has argued that the Premier cannot be compelled to appear as a witness, what I am doing is putting up an argument as to why it is in her best interests to appear voluntarily before the committee. Whether we like it or not, the Premier only left three weeks ago and the Commonwealth Games was a project under his watch. So I contend that what I am saying is entirely germane to the topic before the house.

My point to Jacinta Allan is that she needs to appear. She will do a good job in the committee. She is very fluent in speech. She is a good performer. She has got a massive corporate memory, and I think she will do a good job – much better than what people think. So I think that her appearing before the committee can only be good for her. It is a chance to hit the reset button on her premiership, and I think it will be good for the Victorian people to see that their new Premier is willing to be held to account and respects the institution of Parliament and the accountability mechanisms of Parliament.

David LIMBRICK (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (14:54): I would like to thank all members for their contributions to this important debate today. I would just like to take up a couple of points. Mr Galea and Mr Batchelor spoke at length about the concept of exclusive cognisance. If my motion had been attempting to compel the Premier, I would agree. That would be breaching exclusive cognisance, because I would be attempting to exercise power over another house. However, this motion is not doing that. It is an invitation to voluntarily appear before the committee. I am disappointed that the implication is that the Premier would only appear if she was compelled and would not voluntarily provide accountability to the Victorian public. I hope that if this motion passes and the Premier receives this invitation, she will take it up, because I agree with Mr Somyurek – maybe it is a chance to push the reset button.

There was a comment by Mr McIntosh about this being a stunt. I can assure him – and as the Labor members of the committee will know – I take this deadly seriously. This committee has a role to get to the bottom of what went on during this bid and also the subsequent regional infrastructure rollout, and that is absolutely my intention. I do not want to be in a position where I find that as chair of the committee I cannot fulfil this role and would be forced to resign. I do not want to end up in that position.

Also, Mr McIntosh and Mr Berger spoke about how the government made the decision to cancel the games because it was going to cost $6 billion or $7 billion. I supported the government’s decision. I think they made the right decision in cancelling the games. What I am concerned about is the decision to go ahead with the games in the first place, which resulted in $500 million plus – we still do not know the actual number but at least half a billion dollars – being wasted, and I think that the Victorian taxpayers absolutely deserve to get some answers on that. Half a billion dollars – this is a serious amount of money.

Ms Ermacora and Ms Terpstra spoke about the benefits of the regional rollout. Maybe if the Premier voluntarily appeared, she could tell us herself about some of those benefits. I do not know why the Premier would be afraid of appearing before a committee. I am sure that the Labor MPs on the committee would be able to tell her that I do my best to be fair on this. Nevertheless, hopefully this will pass, and if it does pass, I hope that the Premier will reconsider her public statement when she said she would not appear before the committee and will voluntarily appear in order to provide accountability for the Victorian public.

Council divided on motion:

Ayes (20): Matthew Bach, Melina Bath, 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

Noes (17): Ryan Batchelor, John Berger, Lizzie Blandthorn, Enver Erdogan, Jacinta Ermacora, David Ettershank, Michael Galea, Shaun Leane, Tom McIntosh, Rachel Payne, Georgie Purcell, Harriet Shing, Ingrid Stitt, Lee Tarlamis, Sonja Terpstra, Gayle Tierney, Sheena Watt

Motion agreed to.

The PRESIDENT: A message will be sent to the Assembly noting the passing of this motion.