Wednesday, 6 March 2024
Motions
Public sector executive appointments
Public sector executive appointments
David DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan) (14:47): I am pleased to move:
That this house:
(1) notes the appointment of Mr Jeroen Weimar as deputy secretary of housing implementation in the Department of Premier and Cabinet and that:
(a) it follows an admission by Premier Jacinta Allan MP that she had conversations with the head of the department Mr Jeremi Moule about Mr Weimar’s appointment and there were no other candidates for the position;
(b) Mr Weimar has no experience in housing and, until a few months ago, was the head of the Commonwealth Games organising committee;
(c) the Commonwealth Games debacle has cost Victorian taxpayers at least $600 million and trashed the state’s reputation;
(d) in her report on the alleged politicisation of the public sector last December, the Ombudsman Ms Deborah Glass found ‘frequent side-stepping of merit-based recruitment …’;
(e) the Ombudsman also found candidates were ‘often hand-picked without an open and advertised process’;
(2) pursuant to section 16 of the Ombudsman Act 1973, refers the following matter to the Ombudsman for investigation and report:
(a) the appointment of Mr Weimar as deputy secretary of housing implementation in the Department of Premier and Cabinet, as it raises the same concerns that the Ombudsman’s report warned against in terms of public perception of the politicisation of the public service; and
(b) any other breach of applicable policies, laws or codes in relation to this appointment.
This is an important motion. It is also a serious motion that requires under the Ombudsman Act 1973 the Ombudsman to act and to investigate this appointment. The chamber will be familiar with the powers under the Ombudsman Act. It has been used a number of times in recent years to insist on early and prioritised investigation. It is also important, I think, to put in perspective the work that the Ombudsman has done in recent years looking at the politicisation of the public service and the reports that she has delivered. It is important, I think, to note that not only are these reports important but some of them emanated in their origin from this chamber.
I want to say something too about Mr Weimar because he is a man who has had many, many different appointments and all of them have been appointments where he has seemed to sidestep process. He had a role with Myki. He had a role with PTV; he was a senior bureaucrat at Public Transport Victoria. He was appointed by Jacinta Allan to hop across from PTV into V/Line, where he took on a role as board chair. It is important to note that V/Line was and indeed is a troubled body, a body that has struggled on every turn, and the appointment at V/Line was a direct appointment by Jacinta Allan, who was then Minister for Transport Infrastructure but also for transport. She appointed Mr Weimar directly into the position as board chair at V/Line. I hasten to add that V/Line has been a troubled organisation. It has been politicised on the one hand, but worse than that, it has been riddled with corruption.
David DAVIS: It has. You deny that, do you? Well, you only need to see the investigations undertaken by IBAC and the investigations of James Pinder, who was the CEO of V/Line at overlapping times with Mr Weimar. Mr Pinder has been forced to leave V/Line, naturally enough after the uncovered corruption – I use that word very directly and very advisedly – at V/Line. The truth of the matter is that Mr Weimar was there at the time when Mr Pinder was there. I do not suspect necessarily for a moment that he was involved in the corruption, but he was clearly unable to detect it and unable to stop it. He was either unable to see what was going on or incapable in some way of seeing what was going on, and he certainly did not intervene to stop the corruption. It was not Mr Weimar who intervened; it was IBAC and reports to IBAC that eventually brought Mr Pinder unstuck. But I have to say the proximity of Mr Weimar to Mr Pinder and the frank corruption that was involved does not fill anyone, I do not think, with any confidence or views positively in his capacity.
How can he have been a person who was in such proximity, in day-to-day decision-making, in close decision-making and in close decisions, not only from his time at PTV but from his time as actual chair of the V/Line board, and have the CEO actively involved in the grubby process? ‘Sprinkles’ was one of the descriptions; there were other descriptions. There was visual evidence provided to IBAC. There was verbal evidence provided to IBAC of the distribution of huge amounts of cash in brown paper bags to contractors, cleaning contractors and others, including recently through parts of the COVID period, so tens of thousands of dollars of money corruptly tipped out by V/Line. But of course Mr Weimar, as board chair through that time when Pinder was there up to his neck in it, seems to have seen nothing. The three wise monkeys, seeing and hearing no evil. I am happy to give Mr Weimar the benefit of the doubt. But if I was doing a recruitment process, if I was recruiting Mr Weimar to an important public job, a job where you might be paying Mr Weimar half a million dollars a year or more, I would be wanting to know a lot about his capacities and I would be very curious as to how he spent all of that time at V/Line with the frank and outright corruption that was riddled through that body. Sprinkles, corrupt money in paper bags, cleaning contracts, the whole works – the body was riddled with corruption. While we do not know that Mr Weimar was personally involved, he clearly was personally unable to stop it and personally unable to see it, and I would be very concerned.
Let us just go back to Mr Weimar’s time at PTV. Mr Weimar at PTV could never get the trains running on time. He had the role there, but he actually could not get either the metro trains or the country trains running on time, and the performance of the country trains under his period, under his tutelage, as board chair and at PTV deteriorated massively. The best performance in terms of V/Line’s punctuality and reliability was actually in late 2014 under the previous state government. I have actually looked at this in great detail, and it can be very clearly seen that under Mr Weimar’s focus at PTV and his time at V/Line the performance of that body deteriorated massively. The performance actually of Metro Trains deteriorated rapidly too. There are real questions. Who picked him? Who picked –
David DAVIS: The captain picked, but who was it? Who picked Mr Weimar for the job at PTV? It was Jacinta Allan. Who picked Mr Weimar for the job at V/Line? She appointed him directly. There was no process, there was no advertising; she made him board chair at V/Line. This is a captain’s pick by Jacinta Allan, now the Premier. You have got to ask too how she was so unaware of the corruption at V/Line. How is it that she was minister for all of that period but unable to see that? Her hand-picked person is in there as board chair, Jeroen Weimar. How is it that Jacinta Allan could not see or did not do the due diligence to understand what was going on at PTV or at V/Line?
Then when you look at the Commonwealth Games, Mr Weimar has gone into the Commonwealth Games role, and that has been a disaster, but that has been a Jacinta Allan-Jeroen Weimar joint ticket special. We have actually got a huge failure with the business case, a huge failure – as we have heard at the Commonwealth Games committee in public hearings – to actually understand what was going on and to take the steps to protect the state’s financial interests and the state’s reputational interests. Mr Weimar has cost this state enormously. Every place he moves, everything he touches is an absolute disaster, and you have got to ask: exactly why does Jacinta Allan continue to support him in this role?
He was also the head of transport services at the department of transport and the CEO of VicRoads – both bodies that have been troubled, both bodies that have struggled very significantly. His role at the organising committee – the hallmark of that has been the inability of the organising committee or the department or Premier or the ministers to actually wrestle with the problems of the Commonwealth Games and to actually do the due diligence and the work that was required to make sure public money was protected. But Mr Weimer, in between all of his transport and other activities, also had a stint as COVID commander, community engagement and testing, so he was right through that period. The trouble with the hotel quarantine – he was there from July 2020. He was deep, deep in that period where there were spectacular problems for the state. The state had the longest lockdown of any area. It had the most deaths of any part of Australia. It had massive lockdown periods that did huge damage to the state economy, and yet –
Harriet Shing: You recruited him. You headhunted him.
David DAVIS: No, I never did. I can assure you I never did, but you worked with him. I never headhunted him. I have never had any time for him. I have always thought he is close to a shyster but he is certainly a wide boy, to use the old phrase. A wide boy is what I would call him – somebody who you would not trust. He has got a silver tongue; there is no question about that. I know that the minister has left the chamber, but he certainly does have a silver tongue; there is no doubt about that. He came from some of those public transport matters groups in the UK, the same ones that some of the corrupt people at Metro and some of the corrupt people at V/Line came from. It is all coming from a funnel. He may not have known about the corruption. I do not have direct evidence that he knew about the corruption, but the question is: why didn’t he know? Why didn’t he make it his business to understand what was going on? Why did he leave it in such a way that a massive amount of public money was wasted?
Let me just say here: the Commonwealth Games finished and we heard the stories. I can report that when I was in Europe in July, the talk of the government officials around Europe was of the loss of the Commonwealth Games in Victoria, and it has done tremendous reputational damage to our state. We have lost that. It is gone now, but there is no reason to reward those who were so intimately and closely involved in the decision-making, so intimately involved in the mistakes that were made and so intimately involved in the miscalculations. But then he got a payout – he was given a $160,000 payout – and then within months he is back. He is back, heading up housing. I notice the Minister for Housing has left the chamber, but what we learned yesterday in question time is the minister has nothing at all to do with the head of the housing implementation group in the Department of Premier and Cabinet. She had no role in the appointments, she seems to have no role there, and she does not want to answer any questions about the housing statement and the housing plans that the state government have which are being implemented through the implementation group which Mr Weimar now heads up.
When the questions are asked, ‘What was the appointment process for that?’ – well, I am looking across the chamber there. What was the appointment process for Mr Weimar to land this lucrative, plum job in the Department of Premier and Cabinet? He has moved from being supremo of COVID, supremo at V/Line, supremo over here, supremo over there, all of them a disaster, and now he is over at the housing implementation group and heading that up in the Department of Premier and Cabinet. He is a deputy secretary, a very senior position, just one notch below the secretary of the department, sitting in one of the large areas of that department which has got the implementation of the housing strategy as its task – a housing strategy that it seems the Minister for Housing has no involvement with, none at all. She says it is nothing to do with her over there at the Premier’s, nothing to do with Jeroen, nothing to do with the housing strategy – no involvement in any of that. She is over here; they are all over there. It does not sound to me like a very well coordinated government.
It does not sound like a well-coordinated government, but we do know that Jacinta Allan, who is now the Premier, spoke to Jeremi Moule, and I think we know what she said. She said, ‘Jeremi, I want you to appoint Jeroen Weimar as head of the housing implementation group. I just want you to appoint him. We’re not going to advertise that. We’re not going to look for the best person. We’re not going to look for the best fit for the job. We’re not going to put down a job description and work out who’s there. We’re not going to advertise. We’re not going to put it on Seek. We’re not going to put it on LinkedIn. We’re going to do none of that. You, Jeremi Moule, just appoint Mr Weimar. Just slot him in there. Off you go. Knock your socks off.’
This is a good example of how you get bad outcomes. It is exactly what Jacinta Allan did when she appointed him over at V/Line. She just plonked him in as board chair over at V/Line. It is exactly what she did when she put him in at the Commonwealth Games – over on the organising committee with the Commonwealth Games. It is Jacinta Allan. It is her preferred appointment model. You are in the Jacinta club and you then get to be appointed to lucrative, hundreds-of-thousands-of-dollars-style bureaucratic jobs with no appointment process, no advertisement, no due diligence. Let us be clear: we know he is a proven failure. He could not run the Commonwealth Games, he could not run V/Line, he could not run Myki, he could not run Public Transport Victoria, he could not do the COVID commander job, and this man is appointed without a proper process.
What we hope with the motion today is that a light will be shone on this appointment process and the failing appointment process that we have got around the state; on Jacinta Allan’s approach to this appointment; on Jacinta Allan’s approach to these appointments, to her favourites. Her favourites are being appointed everywhere, and this favourite is the favourite beyond all favourites. So what we want to see is the Ombudsman look closely at this and to actually come back with a proper report about what has happened. That section of the Ombudsman Act, which this motion refers to, enables the Ombudsman then to accelerate that decision. This is not a large inquiry; it is a very modest inquiry. It is an inquiry into one appointment, and it says: Jeroen Weimar, appointed without any process, without any advertising, without any proper job description –
Nick McGowan: Or credentials.
David DAVIS: Well, the credentials are very shaky, but beyond that, it is a conversation between the Premier Jacinta Allan and the secretary Jeremi Moule, and Jeremi Moule just plonks him in, just drops him in, and we have seen what has happened wherever else he has been appointed.
I am concerned about the outcome for major spending in housing, the ineffectiveness of spending across a wide front where Mr Weimar has been involved. He does have the gift of the gab. He does have a silver tongue.
David DAVIS: No, he is not experienced. He is good at talking about things; he is not good at delivering anything. He has never delivered anything in his life. He has never been able to do it. He could not deliver the Commonwealth Games. The only thing he delivered was the corruption at V/Line. He either allowed it to happen, or he knew. I do not know if he knew about it. I do not think he did – I hope he did not. So he just allowed it to happen because he was doing the three wise monkeys: I do not see anything, I do not look at the frank corruption that is coming here. He comes, of course, from the same group of firms in the UK as a number of these people have that have been subject to a close investigation by IBAC.
Members interjecting.
David DAVIS: Go back and look at Esperance; go back and look at Lansdowne. You go back and have a look at those corruption inquiries run by IBAC. It is clear that those corruption inquiries point closely at that group who have come from a number of the –
Michael Galea: On a point of order, Acting President, Mr Davis does have an obligation not to tell outright lies in his contributions.
The ACTING PRESIDENT (Jacinta Ermacora): Mr Davis’s time is up. I think we will just call it at that.
Rachel PAYNE (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (15:08): I rise to speak in support of motion 313 brought on by Mr David Davis. This motion concerns the appointment of Mr Jeroen Weimar as the deputy secretary of housing implementation in the Department of Premier and Cabinet. Indeed we must agree with the opposition that this appointment rings some alarm bells. As highlighted in this motion, there were no other candidates for the position and the appointee lacked housing experience, not to mention this all occurred in the wake of the Ombudsman’s report on the alleged politicisation of the public sector. Alarmingly, this report found that merit-based recruitment in the public sector is often sidestepped and that there were multiple incidents of candidates being selected without an open and advertised process.
This report went on to highlight several particularly egregious examples of improper appointments and perceived politicisation. In one such instance a former ministerial staffer was appointed to an unadvertised role as a senior executive at a department following an interview for a non-executive role in which they performed poorly. This position was newly created, it did not have listed position duties and no business case was created for it. Further, there were no records foreshadowing its creation and a communication breakdown led to people incorrectly assuming a merit-based selection process had been cleared. Even in the absence of ill intent and inappropriate political considerations, examples like this can understandably create perceptions of politicisation that can harm the reputation of an affected applicant and weaken public trust in government.
The public service should set the standard for employers throughout Victoria. Currently it is failing to do so. This report also found rushed and shoddy recruitment practices and an overuse of direct appointments, often involving former ministerial staffers. We understand the need to fill vacancies quickly and the incentive at times to select from previously identified talent, but this government must recognise that even the mere perception of partisan hiring and promotion is insidious and damaging. Even if these perceptions are misguided, they fester fear, insecurity and distrust within both the public and the public service. I am particularly concerned that this is all happening at a time of increasing distrust in government. It is imperative that the public have faith in government institutions to operate with integrity, honesty, transparency and accountability.
In their investigation the Ombudsman reported difficulties due to cabinet document restrictions and poor record keeping. In many cases this prevented the Ombudsman from being able to reach a conclusion on whether certain appointments were partisan. This absence of proper record keeping only fuels suspicion of partisan hiring. It is our hope that this government will implement the recommendations from the Ombudsman’s report. We want to see merit-based promotion, greater political independence and clarity on where public service appointments may be made without an open selection process.
Before I conclude, I do want to raise some concerns I have on the substance of this motion, specifically the fact that clause 1 sneaks in a Commonwealth Games sledge. Given that this motion deals with the opposition’s concerns about the politicisation of the public service, it is ironic that the motion itself has been politicised. I also want to highlight that in their report the Ombudsman noted that the people who are the subject of questionable appointments are rarely directly involved in the decision-making process. Despite this, they must deal with the fallout of the damage to their reputation, so I hesitate to support a motion that makes such an example of an individual, but at the same time it is so important that due process is followed for the appointment of people to these often incredibly high-paying roles. If this appointment was done in good faith and with proper processes, then this government has nothing to fear from a referral to the Ombudsman.
John BERGER (Southern Metropolitan) (15:13): I rise to speak on the opposition’s motion on Jeroen Weimar and his appointment to the deputy secretary of housing implementation in the Department of Premier and Cabinet. Jeroen Weimar is a seasoned and experienced public servant who in his long career has proved beyond a doubt that he is a competent and proficient government worker. I have every confidence that Mr Weimar will be helpful addition to the Allan Labor government’s network of experienced, passionate and industrious public servants who work hard at delivering this government’s trailblazing housing statement.
Jeroen Weimar’s career began decades ago on the other side of the world, working in the British public service. Weimar fulfilled roles in several different capacities in Britain, most notably within the organisation Transport for London. His portfolio of work extends beyond this, also having spent time in the British Transport Police Authority, UK FirstGroup, buses and others. He later relocated to the other side of the globe, right here in Melbourne, where he first worked with VicRoads. In 2016 he then went on to become the CEO of Public Transport Victoria. In his years in the Victorian public service Jeroen Weimar has been an integral influencer on everyday Victorian life. He effectively led Victoria’s public transport for several years before leaving, and then of course it would be impossible to talk about Jeroen Weimar without discussing his work during the COVID-19 pandemic. We all remember how hard those times were – the sacrifices we had to make to stay safe and to keep each other safe. This would not have been possible without the efforts of government officials coordinating the pandemic protocols.
Weimar returned to the Department of Transport to assist with the department’s response to the pandemic. In his role overseeing contact tracing he helped pave the pathway to the other side of the pandemic, ensuring that the Victorian government could keep track of outbreaks, helping the government to protect the public’s health and wellbeing. Weimar has worked on many key government-focused areas and shown repeatedly that he can work in and with many different departments. Whether it is health or transport, and now housing, Weimar is able to bring a unique set of skills and expertise to the role. His understanding of the public service has done nothing but help Victorians, and I am sure that he will continue to contribute to the state at the high level he has in previous roles.
Let us get to what this motion is really about. Those across from us are wanting to discredit the Allan Labor government’s landmark housing statement for cheap political points. The housing statement is a key part of the government’s plan for Victoria. We need to address the future of the housing market in Victoria to ensure that Victorians can achieve the Australian dream, the simple dream to own a house. The Allan Labor government understands this cannot be achieved through small and rash measures but by fixing the problem at its source: supply. It is simple – we need more houses. Victoria has experienced one of the most dramatic increases in population of any state in Australia, especially right here in Melbourne. The housing statement outlines several different ways that the Allan Labor government seeks to achieve the alleviation of housing prices and housing stress within Victoria. This ranges from much-needed improvements to public, social and affordable housing facilities to reforms that will support and encourage the supply of housing in Victoria. The housing statement will provide 800,000 new homes across Victoria in just 10 years. Much of this will be public, social and affordable housing so that we can address the cost of housing that regular people are feeling not just in Victoria, not just in Australia but across the world.
Another key aspect of the housing statement is how we have balanced the need for a quick response to housing without sacrificing the effectiveness of the policy, because this affects something that can become such a large part of someone’s life. The government is doing everything it can to get it right the first time. We need to be quick, but we cannot rush. That is also why we need a capable person like Jeroen Weimar involved. The housing statement will build cheaper affordable housing in areas more central to Victoria’s places of business and leisure. Victorians should have the option of having easier access to community areas, and this kind of investment in housing will ensure that. These homes will also be close to transport, ensuring that all Victorians are able to move around in the way that they want.
Materially, though, what does that mean? Beyond the big ideas, we are simply building houses. That is right – it is the Allan Labor government that is delivering the Big Housing Build. That is a $5.3 billion investment in building homes in Melbourne and across Victoria, with a total of 12,000 houses set to be built from this investment. There are already over 3000 houses built, with over 5000 in progress. The Big Housing Build will also see an increase in social housing supply, an increase of 10 per cent to be exact. This will be a massive help for anybody waiting for social housing. This is the kind of policy you get from the Allan Labor government – a policy that helps everyone.
We are also cutting red tape to get more Victorians building houses that will become homes. The Allan Labor government has recently begun implementing planning reforms that help speed up the process of approving building permits. This means more houses being built on a quicker time schedule. The backlogs across the state were substantial before these reforms were implemented – 1400 projects had been waiting for approval for more than six months. But with these Allan Labor government planning reforms, 60 per cent of that backlog has been cleared. This has been a massive relief for Victorians trying to build houses. This also helps the supply of rental properties.
The Allan Labor government is also reforming renters protections to ensure that tenants keep safe within their rental markets. A lot of this includes closing loopholes that have had serious negative effects on the housing market, like increasing the cost of housing. The Allan Labor government is delivering more certainty to Victorians over their leases and improving living standards required for tenants. Just like any consumer industry, it is vital that renters are protected by law. In addition to this, we have also introduced measures to keep disputes out of VCAT, ensuring that they are resolved quicker and keeping VCAT running more functionally.
We are also investing money in social housing, as I touched on before. These houses will be built for the future, built to be modern and energy efficient. This could not come at a better time, as we saw 7000 households moved to social housing in the 2022 financial year. The Allan Labor government understands that swift action needs to be taken to address the supply of social housing, as seen in our commitment.
The Allan Labor government is also doing a much-needed overhaul project of Victoria’s 44 social housing towers. This project will provide not only modern and safe living for those already living in these public housing towers but also more supply of public housing for people waiting on public housing lists. Every Victorian deserves housing, and that housing should not be dilapidated or downright dangerous, like we are seeing in some cases across Victoria. These towers were built in the postwar period in response to the population increase, but they have far outlived their usefulness. It is time we built housing for the future, and that is what these urban renewal projects will be. These urban renewal projects will affect more than just housing. We are also building precincts close to refurbished towers to encourage a more positive way of living for tenants. Victorians do not just have to live in these towers; they deserve to thrive.
Because of the size of this policy we need it in the right hands, and there should be no doubt that Jeroen Weimar is more than capable of assisting in his capacity as deputy secretary of housing implementation in the Department of Premier and Cabinet to deliver a policy that will ensure a better outlook for housing in Victoria. Put simply, he is the right person for the job.
Let us talk more about that job. This is a six-month position that requires a talented individual. Government needed to employ a public servant who had already proven themselves to be capable of this kind of work at quite short notice. Furthermore, under the Public Administration Act 2004 the Secretary of the Department of Premier and Cabinet can approve executive appointments at the Department of Premier and Cabinet, including the advertising or direct appointment of these roles. As has been said before, it was determined that due to the short nature of this employment a direct appointment of an experienced and proficient senior Victorian public servant would be the most efficient and effective course of action.
Because this government, the Allan Labor government, is committed to effectively delivering essential policy for Victorian people, that policy will change lives for the better. I will finish by saying that I will not be voting in support of this motion. I would also like to reiterate that Jeroen Weimar has proved that he is an effective and talented public servant with a broad set of skills that will no doubt have an overwhelmingly positive influence on this essential response to the rising cost of housing in Victoria. The housing statement is essential to all Victorians, and Weimar’s appointment will no doubt impact on its delivery in a positive way.
Richard WELCH (North-Eastern Metropolitan) (15:23): I stand to address notice of motion 313, the Ombudsman referral for the appointment of Jeroen Weimar. I do not know Mr Weimar, so nothing I say or refer to here is personal, but certainly this points to a genuine problem – in this case and systematically – around government appointments, so we must not shy away from the conversation and the analysis. It requires investigation.
An objective, independent public service is a crucial part of a functioning democracy, and the public service works best when it has a diversity of ideas and talents, refreshed by external hires and renewed by new ideas. The concern arises if those are compromised. I have said to this house before, I am very concerned regarding the creeping democratic deficit in Victoria, a situation where unelected bodies are unaccountable to ministers or to the Parliament, let alone to the voters. This is compounded when the public service appears as a closed ecosystem with a lack of merit-based hiring, promotion and competition. There is no shortage of talent and experience across the community; it does not make sense that we are not recruiting there. The proposition that someone has to have worked in the public service to be hired by the public service is a reductive, circular logic that is poison to the cultural health of the public service. The fact that this role or any public service role is not put to public application is not just an invitation to insularity, groupthink and a closed culture incapable of self-reform, it is simply ethically wrong.
We believe in equality of opportunity and we believe in equality before the law, which I think this comes under. The public service exists at the voters’ pleasure. The public service is there to serve the public, and the public are entitled to have clarity and transparency on its operation, especially because of the radically undemocratic powers we have improperly devolved to these bodies. Jeroen Weimar’s appointment after the debacles of lockdown management and after the debacle of the Commonwealth Games, where we as Victorians were constantly misled on the parlous state of those projects, is for any normal person, any person struggling to run their business, simply bizarre. Not only does it not pass the pub test, it does not pass the boardroom test and it does not pass the dinner table test. For corporates, especially listed corporates who deal in similar levels of value and capital, it feels like the height of hypocrisy that the standard of disclosure and transparency they are ruthlessly demanded to provide somehow does not apply to the public service. The fact that it does not is clearly reflected in the government’s record on project delivery across the board.
To elaborate on projects across the board, projects generally have five levers – scope, cost, resource, risk and time. You lose control of any one or more of those, you lose control of the project. You lose control of several of those, the project is delinquent, and we have delinquent projects across the board in Victoria. In the private sector anyone even tangentially involved in a delinquent project is kept well away from future ones, which brings us back to Mr Weimar’s appointment. Mr Weimar’s case certainly has an air of inner circle favouritism and is a spectacular case of failing upwards. To say that it stinks is obvious, but the bigger concern to me is the effect on the public. They hear things like this and it is no longer a surprise. It no longer generates anger as it once did, anger born of care and concern for the health of our democracy. No, very tellingly and troublingly, it is now just met with a roll of the eyes, because of course this government will have its favourites and hire its mates. Yes, of course it will politicise the public service. Look at every root and branch of the public service, and it has been politicised.
We merely need to look at the Ombudsman’s report. We have stats here that in the DJPR, the Department of Jobs, Precincts and Regions, 45 executives were appointed in the first 45 months with 21 roles not advertised, 17 alone from the Department of Premier and Cabinet. We had 21 direct appointments, five with no briefs, three with no recorded rationale, six with the same generic reason. In the Department of Justice and Community Safety there were 60 executive appointments, 20 were former DPC colleagues; 42 executive directors and directors were appointed, almost a third former Department of Premier and Cabinet. Once is a failure, twice is intent, more than that is clearly a systematic problem. That goes far too close to the appearance of corruption for Victorians, and this must be referred. I heartily endorse this motion.
Michael GALEA (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (15:29): I also rise to speak on yet another shoddily put together Liberal motion, as we have become increasingly accustomed to.
Nick McGowan: On a point of order, Acting President, it has long been the custom in this place that when a member speaks, they rise in their place. The member is not in his place, it occurs to me.
Michael GALEA: It is nice to be directly opposite my good friend Mr McGowan as I make this contribution today and speak on yet another ridiculous motion put together by his colleagues in the Liberal Party – a motion today about Mr Weimar, who has been, as my colleague Mr Berger said, an outstanding civil servant in the state of Victoria across a wide variety of areas. I am looking forward to seeing the work that he is going to do in housing now.
Mr McGowan, I know you fashion yourself as the self-appointed Greens spokesperson for housing, but I am sure you too will appreciate the work that he has done in his previous roles and will continue to do in this new role as well. Housing is a very important policy for this government, at this point especially as we have talked about and as I have talked about many times in this chamber as well. We know that obviously Mr Davis – perhaps he feels like he was outwitted by Mr Weimar in the Commonwealth Games hearings we had just a few months ago, perhaps this is some form of petty revenge on the part of Mr Davis. But as I said, there was nothing in that hearing that led to any of the insinuations that we are seeing thrown out quite recklessly by those opposite today.
During Mr Davis’s contribution it was pointed out that, yes, it was actually under the previous Liberal government in late 2014, the process for recruiting Mr Weimar from the UK – apparently from such a troubled public transport operator in the UK – and Mr Davis was a cabinet member of the government that recruited him from there. So obviously it was good enough for him then, or if he is standing by what he says today, then clearly there was some sort of issue with these processes and what he thought was an acceptable standard back when he was a minister; we would have to find out from him what his view on that is. Did he have those views that he has today back then? If so, that is deeply troubling. As I say, it is strange to be part of a government that recruits someone from abroad, only to come into this place and slam them for being a captain’s pick.
But that just goes to the very heart of the shambles that this Liberal opposition is in – completely reckless, without any clear policy agenda that we have seen. We saw it in the earlier bill today, we are seeing it here again now, and no wonder – they cannot even get their own act together. I am sure you probably know that too, Mr McGowan. We hear from Assembly members even that apparently in your partyroom meeting this week your fearless leader had to bring in his new chief of staff to yell at everyone, apparently, I am told, for leaking. It is quite ironic that obviously some of your colleagues in the other place have seen fit to spread that around already, as it is. But what sort of leader has to bring in his own chief of staff to defend him? It is quite extraordinary.
Clearly things are continuing to go well in the Liberal Party. This motion is another example of the absolute shambolic nature in which they operate, as so beautifully epitomised by you, Mr McGowan, with your boisterous interjections and points of order, which certainly cheer us up, even on a day like today, when we all had a late night last night. I believe you were still on the precinct, Mr McGowan, I am not sure; perhaps Mr Mulholland locked you in a cupboard after your speech on the Workplace Injury Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment (WorkCover Scheme Modernisation) Bill 2023 yesterday. But we all did have a late night last night; it is no excuse for shoddy workmanship like this. I do not support this motion.
Nick McGOWAN (North-Eastern Metropolitan) (15:34): Where do we start? At the beginning yet again. This is sort of reminiscent of yesterday. I do rise in my place to speak on this, and like many in this place, I do not know the individual concerned, and –
Members interjecting.
Nick McGOWAN: No, I have not written a speech. I have got some notes. I have got a LinkedIn page on my laptop, which I intend to refer to and I will have some fun with that. But I think we will start with the motion. We have got 9½ minutes left, so that is great. I have plenty of time with you, my friends – nowhere else pressing to be today. Unfortunately, this is where we are at, so we have got a similar lot.
I have got to make this single observation: in my day – and I know I am getting old and grey and the rest of it – the very concept that DPC, the Department of Premier and Cabinet, was somehow a department that did anything was comical. It is still comical now, I get it, except it is a multibillion-dollar department, and they have added to it – what is his title? – the deputy secretary of housing implementation. They do not build a single house. This is like some Monty Pythonskit. This is better than Yes Minister. It is, ‘Minister, minister, we have to build some houses.’ ‘Yes, you’re the director of housing, Minister.’ ‘Oh, excellent. But do we build houses?’ ‘Well, of course we don’t build houses. That is the Minister for Housing.’ ‘Well, do you have any relationship with her?’ ‘No, nothing at all.’ Sitting in this place today, even the minister says, ‘Oh no, nothing to do with me. That’s just DPC.’
We all know what DPC are like. They’re a lovely bunch over there at 1 Treasury. Ever since they refurbished the office in 1996, they have just got carried away with themselves. It has got bigger and bigger and they have built this sort of empire there. I mean, it is billions and billions of dollars in having a budget every year and nothing to show for it. So, sadly, they are going to have even less for it. The only thing I would have to take exception to is this: my colleague, my good friend David Davis, did say something there that I was a little uncomfortable with, because he suggested that maybe this individual, and I am not going to name him, did not have the sort of experience in the housing area. Well, I do not think that is 100 per cent true because, in all fairness, if you look at his LinkedIn profile, he did do some work with Serco. Serco is known to a lot of us. If you worked federally at any point or you have had an interest in immigration matters and Christmas Island, I think we would all agree that they did a certain kind of housing job there. It is sort of ironic that this is a government that is now waxing lyrical about what a great job he is going to do for housing. The only experience this guy has in housing is on Christmas Island – the same company on Christmas Island. That is his sole experience in the housing sector. Well done. What a choice pick. It gets better than that –
Michael Galea: On a point of order, Acting President, I do not believe it is appropriate for members to be clapping in the chamber.
Nick McGOWAN: I withdraw my clap unreservedly. I think we might have a microphone problem, but that is okay. We will just entertain ourselves while they solve that problem. For the purposes of Hansard, you can take everything I have just said off the record. We will resume.
Serco was what we were discussing. The sole experience this individual on, I do not know, let us say half a million dollars – I will round it up just to be kind, because it makes it easier for the story, it makes it easier for the journalists, it makes it easier for everyone because he is probably on that – but then I learn today he is going to be there for six months. Six months! Twenty-four weeks! How many houses is he going to build in 24 weeks? This is not Beijing, China, where they can build a hospital in a week. This guy is going to be flat out –
Lee Tarlamis: You know that he is not actually building houses. You know that.
Nick McGOWAN: I realise he is not. Mr Tarlamis, I have to take up –
Nick McGOWAN: Thank God. That is the kindest interjection we have had perhaps in the entire term of government. You are quite right. He is not actually going to be building a single house himself. On that, this house is in complete agreement. So we have appointed someone for six months, 24 weeks, on half a million dollars who is never going to actually build a house himself and has no experience in building houses other than the fact that he worked for a company, Serco, that did construct some houses, pretty horribly, on Christmas Island, which was the subject of another Ombudsman inquiry and so on and so forth.
But I did find his LinkedIn profile. Not naming the individual, and all credit to him, maybe he is what he says he is. But I do love some of his descriptions on LinkedIn. The title ‘Commander’ – I was an innocent civilian at this time when we were all having inflicted on us the damage you all wrought on us during the COVID period. I will not go there because it does provoke the less kind side in me, I must say. To call himself a commander, this is James Bond-esque. Who on earth in government, what sort of spin doctor, turned to the Premier at the time and said, ‘Mr Andrews, I’ve got an idea. Let’s call this person a commander?’
Forgive me, perhaps I am wrong. Perhaps he is a commander of some sort. I will happily stand corrected at any point if any one of you want to stand up and tell me he had some sort of military past or he has suddenly been appointed by some wave of the wand by the Queen and now the King and has received some commandership I am not aware of. I am not a big fan of these commanderships, as people here would well be aware. But he called himself ‘Commander’. Wow. He says this – this is part of who he is and what you have brought into here as this tsar for housing who is not going to build a single house thanks to the confession of those opposite: he led the operational response to the COVID-19 pandemic in Victoria. Led – I am not sure he led; we shared the lead, let us be honest. There were a couple of people doing it and I would say even a couple of people on the other side could say the same thing. He was responsible for delivering the state’s COVID testing program and contact tracing and oversight of the largest, swiftest – he likes the word ‘swift’; I see that in a number of locations; he is very swift, a Swiftie – and most comprehensive vaccination program across the whole population. What?
A member interjected.
Nick McGOWAN: Yes, I am a Swiftie. I do not mind admitting it. She is great.
Look, to be honest, had you employed her, I would see the merit in a 24-week appointment. It would be global attention. We would have had a focus on the issues at hand. I think you might get something in return for the money. In fact at the rate she charges, it would be the greatest single contribution you have made to the Victorian economy in the last, I do not know, 20 years.
Sonja Terpstra: On a point of order, Acting President, I do not know what Taylor Swift has actually got to do with this motion, but I think Mr McGowan has strayed far from the content of this motion.
Evan Mulholland: On the point of order, Acting President, Mr McGowan was drawing on an interjection from a member of the government, so it is perfectly valid for him to respond to that interjection.
Sonja Terpstra: On the point of order, Acting President, Taylor Swift is not germane to this motion.
The ACTING PRESIDENT (Michael Galea): I note that Mr McGowan was responding to an interjection, but I ask him to return to the motion at hand.
Nick McGOWAN: Thank you. I just felt compelled to defend Taylor Swift, because when she is attacked by those opposite and when Ms Terpstra is attacking Taylor Swift – she has enough people attacking her day and night – I cannot stand idly by and let that happen on my watch. Too many of my constituents, too many kids –
Sonja Terpstra: Mr McGowan, withdraw that remark. I did not attack Taylor Swift. I did not attack her at all, thank you. I would ask that you withdraw that remark. It was misleading the house.
Nick McGOWAN: I withdraw that unreservedly.
The ACTING PRESIDENT (Michael Galea): Thank you, Mr McGowan.
Nick McGOWAN: Taylor Swift has led us to bring great focus here to what was the swiftest and most comprehensive vaccination program, according to the individual we are discussing today. Of course he has had all these other roles too: CEO of VicRoads, head of transport services, Myki – remember that? Remember the Myki? That went well. I will never forget when the poor minister went to use that Myki machine and it fell off. That did not go so well. We all know how that ended. Although we are still going down that debacle of a track as well – no pun intended, but there it is. A number of members today have made a number of points about the Public Administration Act 2004, which is sort of useful really because it is not often that we refer to that old chestnut, but it does sit there. It is one of those rare acts, because it does have objects. They call them ‘objects’ as opposed to ‘objectives’. I do not know why, but they do. One of the objectives of the Public Administration Act 2004 – and they have a number; they have got (a), (b), (c), (d) et cetera. But in particular (d) says:
to ensure that employment decisions in the public sector are based on –
not a popularity test but –
merit …
That is what the act says. Isn’t that intriguing? Mr Berger is no longer here to defend himself and his remarks in respect to the act and how he was leaning onto that particular act to somehow justify the fact that the Secretary of the Department of Premier and Cabinet can just make a magic wand decision and bring in this sort of fairy godfather of whatever it is he is going to fix. It is clearly not housing, because we know he is not building any housing.
I have very little time left, so I need to make a serious point, and I think it is a point that those from the crossbench have already made today. I accept that governments from time to time will make appointments and they will make appointments without consultation, and I would also say that governments over time, of all persuasions, have done that. But what is absolutely critical is that we make sure we have value for money and that there is transparency around that. I have been a government appointment, so I am not immune from this, and I am not about to be a hypocrite on this subject. But I was also subjected, through ministers of the day at a federal level, to an inquiry as to how I was appointed and why I was appointed, and the minister had to answer for that. To my mind, that was absolutely appropriate. In fact I would say of those who were also appointed to the same tribunal that I was appointed to that they knew exactly how I got appointed, because of the scrutiny that was applied at the federal level. We do not have that scrutiny here today, and while I jest about issues like Taylor Swift and all these other aspects – notwithstanding that clearly this individual is not going to build a single house – there is an absolute need to make sure that public money is well spent, that there is transparency and that there is accountability. In this case there is none of these things, much less any guarantee that any of the work he will do will have a meaningful impact for the people of Victoria, notwithstanding that he is about to receive a large sum of money.
Jacinta ERMACORA (Western Victoria) (15:44): I want to thank those opposite for providing an opportunity to talk about the work of our public servants and in particular one of our most exemplary public servants in Mr Jeroen Weimar.
Jacinta ERMACORA: Exemplary. But before I do so I want to express concern about the highlighting of an individual public servant to use as a bit of a tool to argue that the government has done something wrong. I think that someone’s integrity or honour has been called into question, and the very content of this motion cannot avoid doing that. I mean, that is what the discussion is all about. I think that Mr Weimar would be pretty mortified by this. I respect that our public servants are independent and work really hard to be independent. I think that it is at least important to acknowledge that this is an awful day for a highly professional public servant who has been singled out and named for 90 minutes of debate in this chamber.
Sonja Terpstra: On a point of order, Acting President, the constant interjections by Mr McGowan are excessive, and Ms Ermacora cannot get one sentence out without a continuous stream of interjections by Mr McGowan. I ask that Ms Ermacora be allowed to continue her contribution in silence and without assistance.
The ACTING PRESIDENT (Michael Galea): Ms Ermacora, without assistance.
Jacinta ERMACORA: Thank you, Acting President. I just wanted to say that at the start, because I think when you work so hard to conduct yourself professionally and then a bunch of people in a room are judging your role in something for 90 minutes, it is pretty awful. But I will now go on to say that we all kind of know him, don’t we? I have never met him personally – I do not think I have – but like many Victorians I do feel like I know him quite well because of the high-profile roles that he has had over the last five to seven years. It was not just COVID; I know him from before that in the media.
I will give you a bit of background as to his professional experience and qualifications. He holds a bachelor of science in economics and a master of science in urban and regional planning, both from the globally prestigious London School of Economics. His CV speaks to his skills in change management, team leadership, program leadership and operations management, and before coming to Australia he worked in governmental bodies such as the British Transport Police Authority, the Greater London Authority and Transport for London – I have that app. I have had the privilege of using that app; it was pretty good. He was the CEO of the UK bus company FirstGroup from 2012 to 2014, and that service delivered over 2.5 million passenger journeys a day. His professional peers speak of him as being a rare, exceptional leader and someone with incredible energy, who is authentic and down to earth with an ability to get people onboard. Unsurprisingly, Mr Weimar’s professional LinkedIn account has 5594 followers.
To Victoria’s benefit, he relocated to Australia in 2015. He worked for VicRoads, and for over four years Mr Weimar was the CEO of Public Transport Victoria. The first time I heard Mr Weimar was on the radio, and he was taking calls from the public, Melburnians, on all things public transport. A woman rang in with a very specific inquiry about, I think, the number 1 tram route – I do not even know if that actually exists – and a particular tram stop in South Yarra. I was listening and I thought, ‘Oh, this guy’s not going to know about this.’ He actually responded, saying he had been down there the day before. Then he described what the challenge was and where they were planning to go. The woman on the other end of the line was very satisfied with the answer, and I was very surprised, actually. So I think that is an example of his particular talent that he has – focusing on what is actually happening on the ground but keeping a bigger picture strategic focus as well. I thought his ability to flip from strategic to operational, showing enormous respect in this case to public transport customers, was very special.
The next I saw of him was on TV, like we all did, in the incredibly difficult role of COVID response commander. I noticed that he applied that same set of skills. He was visiting immunisation centres. Remember those massive queues? He went down there and had a look to see what was going on so that he and his team could respond and fix the issues. It is little wonder that he is known as a logistics giant. He has excellent communication skills and an ability to make complex situations and information simple to understand. I know his calm presence, experienced almost daily on TV screens during COVID, reassured me and many other Victorians who needed that information to understand what they needed to do from month to month, and even year to year, as the changing circumstances emerged. He has played some amazingly important roles.
I want to finish up by expressing again the gist of this really unfortunate motion. I do find it disappointing to see that this motion singles out an individual public servant. In doing so it puts that individual under enormous pressure, if they have any respect for the independence of the public service role, and we know he does. I am sure the opposition are aware that under the Public Administration Act 2024 the Secretary of the Department of Premier and Cabinet holds the delegation to approve the appointment of and terms and conditions of executive appointments for the DPC – all the better to listen, again. This includes the advertising or direct appointment of candidates to executive roles. I am disappointed that this motion seeks to politicise the work that this individual has done.
In closing, I want to express my appreciation for all public servants in Victoria, whether they work in fisheries, land management, education, health or Victorian parliamentary services. Last night the staff that support the Legislative Council were held back at work until 2:30 in the morning to indulge this chamber. I cannot thank you enough for tolerating what happened last night. I hope everybody was safe afterwards, and I also hope that everybody here today, particularly the parliamentary services staff, remains safe throughout the rest of the day as well, because we know a lot of people are operating on not much sleep.
Evan MULHOLLAND (Northern Metropolitan) (15:53): I rise to speak on this important motion moved by my colleague Mr Davis on Jeroen Weimar and on, I think, public service accountability. We need to have scrutiny of appointments in the public service. I heard Ms Ermacora say that Mr Weimar would be mortified at the debate going on today. I have got to say that it is actually a significant public interest piece. It was not just the opposition talking about this appointment, it was people flooding into talkback and it was basically every single media outlet that reported on this story. It is a significant appointment.
Mr Weimar is going to have his work cut out as director of housing implementation because of Labor’s new member for Dunkley. She is not the biggest supporter of new housing, and she is making statements contrary to what the Minister for Planning is saying. So Jeroen is going to have his work cut out for him to deal with NIMBY Labor federal members – opportunistic Labor federal members. I was interested to see an article in the Guardian saying:
Housing is also a pressure point for this electorate.
As mayor, Conroy has spearheaded a push to increase developments in the Frankston area. This includes a plan to construct apartment towers on the Nepean Highway of around 14-to-16 storeys, overlooking the beach.
Now, all the narrative I hear, whether it be from Mr McIntosh or Mr Galea, would be that they would be pretty supportive of things like that because it offers more housing to more people. I know Ms Kilkenny has allowed for that as well, but there are several people from what is called ‘Stop the Great Wall of Frankston’ that are raising concerns about that. But during an election Labor people cannot help saying one thing and doing another. Belyea said:
… people want to feel as if they are being listened to and consulted, and “having 20 storeys on the Frankston beach line is not what they’re wanting”.
“I am for responsible development. We need more homes and housing in the Dunkley electorate, but we need the right sort of homes that are going to really cater for the diverse demographic of the populations …
I hear members on the other side talk about new housing and I wonder whether anyone counselled Ms Belyea. Did Mr Galea counsel Ms Belyea? Did Mr McIntosh? Or, in the neighbouring electorate, did Ms Kilkenny say, ‘Ugh, I actually just made an order and approved what you’re criticising here’? No. So they are all talk on the other side because this housing statement is a con.
It is a con. We saw new data released by the ABS that confirms approvals for new private sector houses in Victoria fell by 16.7 per cent across January 2024, the single sharpest reduction of any state in Australia. Across this period a total of just 2370 new dwellings were approved, the fewest monthly approvals since October 2013.
The ACTING PRESIDENT (John Berger): Order! Mr McGowan, contain your comments to yourself, please.
Evan MULHOLLAND: The target is a con. They are not going to get anywhere near 80,000 homes a year and they know it; industry know it, people like the Housing Industry Association know it and people like the Grattan Institute know it. We have a significant lack of availability of skills, supply and labour to meet this challenge, and I tend to blame it on all of it being sucked up into the government’s Big Build, which is the government’s big bill of waste and mismanagement – $38 billion of cost blowouts.
Sonja Terpstra: On a point of order, Acting President, I notice Mr Mulholland is referring to the government’s Big Build program. That is not part of the motion that has been moved by Mr Davis, so it is not germane to the motion. I would ask that Mr Mulholland contain his comments to the motion that we are debating.
Evan Mulholland: On the point of order, Acting President, I was talking about Jeroen Weimar being the deputy secretary of housing implementation. I was talking about challenges for him in that role and the housing statement, which he is implementing, and the challenges to that, which is the Big Build and several –
Sonja Terpstra: Further to the point of order, Acting President, Mr Mulholland is debating the point. He has not indicated what information is further to the point of order, so I ask that Mr Mulholland be relevant to the matter being debated. It is not relevant to talk about the Big Build.
The ACTING PRESIDENT (John Berger): Okay. Let us try this: how about we bring Mr Mulholland back to the motion in the 3 minutes that he has left, and we do it in complete silence.
Evan MULHOLLAND: What I want to know from this government, and what this chamber deserves to know, is: why was the role not advertised? In what selection process was Mr Weimar interviewed along with other potential candidates? Prior to Mr Weimar giving evidence to the Commonwealth Games inquiry of the Victorian Parliament, were there discussions with any other person on the government’s behalf about the possibility or existence of any role being made or offered to Mr Weimar, such as that of deputy secretary of housing statement implementation? Was Mr Weimar promised this job because the 2026 Commonwealth Games was scrapped at a cost of at least $600 million to taxpayers? What is Mr Weimar being paid for this new role? How long is it for, and could it be extended? What skills and experience does he bring to housing? What is the so-called housing implementation team? We know from question time this week that Ms Shing as the Minister for Housing has nothing to do with the housing implementation scheme – funny that. How many staff are in it, and what are they being paid? Why does the team need to be set up in the Premier’s department? How is he going to deliver 80,000 homes a year for the next 10 years when his record on public transport, COVID-19 and the Commonwealth Games is so poor? And isn’t the housing statement just another con job by Labor?
We know that he was given the plum role. Of course Jacinta Allan defended this new appointment, but for someone that was in charge of the Commonwealth Games that was meant to bring Victoria so much investment and legacy and infrastructure and excitement – many young athletes in my electorate were very excited at the opportunity to compete in the Commonwealth Games – this is someone, along with Jacinta Allan, that let the whole state down. He is being set up for failure as deputy secretary, even though he did receive a payout for his work on the Commonwealth Games. He and Jacinta Allan have let the entire state down. The future of so many athletes – and speaking to many people at the Olympic function that was here last night, they are still devastated at the effect that this has had on grassroots sport. I commend this motion. It needs to be investigated. We need transparency in our public service.
Sonja TERPSTRA (North-Eastern Metropolitan) (16:03): I rise to speak on this motion in Mr Davis’s name in regard to the appointment of Mr Jeroen Weimar, who many would know is a very well-known public servant and a very public-facing public servant, somebody who has served Victoria incredibly well during some of our most testing times, particularly throughout the pandemic. I think Ms Ermacora’s contribution very ably detailed the role that Mr Weimar had as commander during that period, when he stood up a lot of the COVID testing regime that we had at the time.
I think what is obvious and apparent in regard to this motion today is that really when it comes to those opposite, nothing has actually changed. If we go back to look at what happened during the Kennett years, it was the Kennett government who mercilessly went after public servants. They went after public servants, they sacked them, they sacked teachers, and many, many public servants did not feel safe as public servants working for the good state of Victoria under that administration. What we see here is that nothing has actually changed. It is the same nasty personalised attack on somebody who is a very valued and skilled public servant and somebody who has done an enormous power of work for Victorians and for the public good.
It is regrettable that we see such a personalised attack by those opposite on Mr Weimar. The very disappointing thing is that what those opposite do not seem to understand is that Mr Weimar is a person and someone who is not a politician. As politicians we decide to stand for election. Often people think that politicians are fair game and that they can make comments about us, make personal accusations, all those sorts of things. We are on the public record as saying things. Public servants are not politicians. They do work for the state, and it is really disappointing to see such a nasty personalised attack by Mr Davis on Mr Weimar. As I said, those opposite tend to have a bit of a pattern, which is they attack the person, so they play the man, not the ball. This is just another example of that, and it is a very shameful situation.
I listened to Mr Mulholland’s contribution, and I have read the motion moved by Mr Davis. Mr Mulholland in his contribution focused on the fact that there had just been an appointment of a candidate and there had been no recruitment selection process. Let me address that point now, because those opposite clearly are not aware of the functions and the ability of government to appoint people. Again, those opposite may not be aware that under the Public Administration Act 2004 the Secretary of the Department of Premier and Cabinet holds the delegation to approve the appointment of and terms and conditions of executive appointments to the Department of Premier and Cabinet, including the advertising or direct appointment of candidates to executive roles. Hello, nothing to see here. Honestly, nothing to see here. But let us try and make something of it, because that is all they have got over there – smear and innuendo and nasty personal attacks. I think this is a really poor reflection on those opposite. It is like ‘We have got nothing of substance to say, so we’ll smear somebody. We’ll smear their reputation and them personally.’ It is shameful.
Mr Davis’s motion references the Ombudsman’s report. Let me talk about that for a moment as well. I like to dismantle these fake arguments that get put up by those opposite, because it is actually quite easy to do so. What we see here is selective reporting of bits of information that may be contained in the report.
Harriet Shing: Really, from the opposition?
Sonja TERPSTRA: I know. It is surprising, Minister Shing, that that would in fact happen. Let us talk about what the Ombudsman found in her report, because it is important to make sure that we get the full picture about what the Ombudsman actually said. I do not know whether the opposition has read that report, because what she said is she examined 5.4 million records. That is a lot of records. She examined 5.4 million records and 545 public sector appointments. That is a lot of appointments. That is a lot of appointments over many years – in fact 20 years. Twenty years of appointments. I will say it again: the Ombudsman examined 5.4 million records and 545 public sector appointments and yet did not find one example of partisan political hiring in the Victorian public sector in the past 20 years.
Harriet Shing: That includes Mr Weimar’s recruitment from the UK by the coalition.
Sonja TERPSTRA: Incredible. Let me just put that on the record, because that interjection by Minister Shing is an important one. It was the opposition who recruited Mr Weimar back in the day. This motion speaks to a personal attack on Mr Weimar, who has dedicated much of his working life to public service. I know Ms Ermacora put this on the record, but I think it is important to do this again. He was the CEO of Victoria 2026. He was the commander of the COVID response for two years. Before that he was the CEO of VicRoads for 12 months. He was the head of transport services in 2019–20. For four years he was the CEO of Public Transport Victoria. I could go back to what he was doing in the UK: CEO of UK Bus for FirstGroup. He was also a non-executive member of the British Transport Police Authority for over seven years, and he spent nine years in various roles for Transport for London – it goes on.
Any suggestion that Mr Weimar is somehow not a meritorious candidate and that there is some personal friendship connection with the Premier is just not plausible. It is just not credible. It is a nasty personal attack and needs to be seen for what it is – just that, a nasty personal attack. Again I remind those opposite to think about how this is a person you are talking about. It is somebody who has dedicated their life to public service, not only in the state of Victoria but in England, and in doing so they do not deserve to be publicly attacked. I will reference remarks I made earlier: under the Kennett regime there was a very distinct pattern of going after public servants, and nothing has changed. It is part of their DNA to attack public servants, and it is shameful.
Our public servants in Victoria work incredibly hard for Victorians every day in a whole range of ways, whether it is police, whether it is teachers, whether it is nurses in our hospitals, and we need senior public servants who can deal with complex policy rollouts like our housing statement. There are many other areas of complex policy rollout, like our mental health space and our Big Build. There are so many things that we have on our agenda.
In regard to our Big Housing Build, we need to build 12,000 homes. That is a 10 per cent uplift in the number of social homes across Victoria and an added $1 billion for an additional 1300 homes in regional Victoria with our Regional Housing Fund. This is a big undertaking and a really big operation, so you want and need a safe pair of hands, somebody who can be across the brief and somebody who can come up to speed quickly and make sure that we get the rollout of these homes happening. Victorians are depending on us, a government that they voted for. They voted for this Labor government to make sure that we could do the things that they voted us in to do, like deliver on public housing and so many of the other commitments that we have made, like our Big Build and, like I said, the infrastructure we are building.
I think it is a fantastic appointment. Mr Weimar will be in charge of housing and will be working with Minister Shing and others to make sure that we roll out that very important commitment. I encourage members in this chamber to not support this motion. It is ill founded and ill considered.
David DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan) (16:12): This is an important motion. This senior public servant is a public servant who has held a swathe of jobs, all appointed without proper process, the most recent example being the appointment into the housing role in the Department of Premier and Cabinet. It is very clear that this appointment was made with the Premier directing the Secretary of the Department of Premier and Cabinet to make that appointment. There was no proper process, there was no advertisement and there was no proper arrangement to go forward, and that is a serious concern. Whatever the background and history of Mr Weimar –
Members interjecting.
David DAVIS: I am happy to go there if you would like, but I think I have said enough about that. I am zeroing in on the actual, clear appointment issue: the failure to properly advertise, to properly recruit, to properly appoint someone of this seriousness to the arrangements that will see housing advanced hopefully in this state. This is an important motion. The Ombudsman is a very relevant place to examine this appointment. The Ombudsman has obviously looked at a number of these matters in the recent period and is well placed to examine the appointment of Mr Weimar. Now, Mr Weimar has many flaws, and they have been aired to some extent in the chamber today. But it is the government that have made the mistakes with these appointment processes. It is the government that have got to be held to account. The Premier and the Secretary of the Department of Premier and Cabinet have not set the right example here with the proper recruitment processes, and these need to be investigated properly and reported to the community.
Council divided on motion:
Ayes (15): Melina Bath, Gaelle Broad, David Davis, David Ettershank, Renee Heath, Ann-Marie Hermans, David Limbrick, Wendy Lovell, Trung Luu, Joe McCracken, Nick McGowan, Evan Mulholland, Rachel Payne, Rikkie-Lee Tyrrell, Richard Welch
Noes (18): Ryan Batchelor, John Berger, Lizzie Blandthorn, Katherine Copsey, Enver Erdogan, Jacinta Ermacora, Michael Galea, Shaun Leane, Sarah Mansfield, Tom McIntosh, Aiv Puglielli, Georgie Purcell, Samantha Ratnam, Harriet Shing, Ingrid Stitt, Lee Tarlamis, Sonja Terpstra, Gayle Tierney
Motion negatived.