Wednesday, 27 August 2025

Petitions

Daniel Andrews

Moira DEEMING (Western Metropolitan) (17:48): I move:

That the petition be taken into consideration.

Today I am rising to table a parliamentary petition bearing over 12,000 signatures, and almost 20,000 signatures from other platforms, from Victorians calling on this government to cancel plans for a statue of the former Premier.

It may be a case of former Premier derangement syndrome. Symptoms can include an inability to recall basic facts and say women’s names, and a total lack of socially appropriate shame. There is no cure of course, but we can slow the spread by not insulting the people of this state with statues of living politicians while serious questions about their legacy remain unanswered. Unlike the radical activists who tear down statues, I am not actually calling for history to be erased; I am just calling for a little bit of respect.

In liberal democracies statues are earned. They are not demanded. They are not vanity projects. They are supposed to be public expressions of gratitude for service, usually long after their deaths, when their legacies have been judged in the full light of time, like Curtin or Menzies. It is actually a hallmark of authoritarian regimes to be putting up statues while the leaders are still alive. Often it is done as a tool of political dominance, of intimidation, like with Lenin or Mao or Hussein. I think that we should be erring on the side of the tradition that honours leaders who did not lead their people into mass starvation and violence – but hey, that is just me. But even if we put tradition aside, thanks to that man and this Labor government we cannot even afford it anyway. This state is drowning in record debt: $20 million a day in interest. Families cannot even afford to pay their bills or for their basic groceries. Services are collapsing around them. Yesterday, and all day today actually, we heard about parents who are being told to go and get their little children tested for STIs when we know they cannot even afford the sick leave. To spend money that you told us all that you could not spare to fix child safeguards on a bronze statue of some former Premier is not just offensive, it is obscene.

The man’s political legacy is also a disaster. It is all about abuse of power. Over and over, his legacy was condemned by our own watchdogs. Freedom and rights were crushed. We saw the police used as a personal army with weapons of war and no name tags. We saw access to health care totally denied. We saw Nuremberg trial principles like bodily autonomy totally ignored. The freedom to move, to protest, to take your children to the playground – no, not without that man’s permission. It was absolutely a public expression of coercive control. It was cruel. It is no wonder, actually, that there is also a 40,000-strong petition to have his Order of Australia stripped from him.

But there is another reason why I and many others believe that this statue should not go ahead. It has become known as the bike-boy scandal, but it raises grave questions much bigger than this statue about governance, corruption and the coercion of our public sector. It revolves around Ryan Meuleman, the young boy who almost died after being hit by the car of the then future Premier and his wife, Dan and Catherine Andrews. Mr and Mrs Andrews have repeatedly said that the crash was Ryan’s fault, that it was investigated thoroughly and that justice was done. However, Ryan and his family dispute this. They have shown me some evidence that they are now in possession of, including various phone records and emails from the day of the crash. I really do believe that once this evidence is made public in the coming weeks, criminal charges will become an inevitability.

I am going to briefly outline that evidence now under the protection of parliamentary privilege, so that we can pause. The 2013 crash in which Daniel Andrews and his wife Catherine drove their government-provided Ford Territory into 15-year-old Ryan Meuleman nearly killed him, and he was airlifted to hospital and lost 90 per cent of his spleen. D24 recordings from the day of the crash show that the two young police officers attending the scene, Shayna Sage and Daniel Ward, were under the authority of Karl David. No breath tests were carried out on Daniel or Catherine. Daniel Andrews was permitted to drive his smashed-up, unroadworthy car away from the site shortly after the crash. No photographs exist of the scene. The major crash investigation unit was never called, despite a child fighting for his life and having to be airlifted to hospital. To this day, not a single statement has been taken from any witnesses from the scene. Andrews has repeatedly said that Ryan crashed his bike into the side of their car; he described it as a perfect T-bone. But the original crash repair report for the Andrewses’ car has been sourced, and it shows that there was no damage to the side of the Andrewses’ car. The damage was to the front. It was a head-on collision. Records show that just 30 minutes after the crash – (Time expired)

Michael GALEA (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (17:53): Yesterday two serving Victoria Police officers lost their lives in the course of duty. Today someone whose title is the Leader of the Opposition’s representative has made outrageous accusations against Victoria Police officers. This is beneath contemptible.

Moira Deeming: On a point of order, President, they are not outrageous accusations. I would ask the member to withdraw. There is no accusation.

The PRESIDENT: There is no point of order.

Michael GALEA: I am also, frankly, thrown by a reference to the Nuremberg trials. It is frankly offensive to many, many people in the community, many people who deal with – whether it is firsthand or second-hand – experiences or bearing witness to the Holocaust. I am appalled by the opposition leader’s representative – a title he has given to Mrs Deeming – saying this in the Victorian Parliament to make a political point about a statue.

Moira Deeming: On a point of order, President, I was not making a political point, I was referring to the dissenting ruling by the judge.

The PRESIDENT: There is no point of order. Mr Galea can respond to your contribution.

Michael GALEA: I had notes about this. Clearly you are not serious. None of you are serious – the fact that you have taken this petition into the Parliament today as one of the things that you want to address. This government has taken bail reform to the Parliament this week, this government has taken working with children check reform to the Parliament this week, and this is what you take in. I mean, it is a joke. Saying some of those things, Mrs Deeming, that you said – they are not a joke. I am gravely offended by that, to be honest – gravely and genuinely offended. But this is at its heart not about that. This is a bizarre motion. Feel free to have your say. Personally, I do not give a damn if we build a statue of former Premiers or not. I do not know why Jeff Kennett bought it in the first place. I do not know why we apparently had one Premier who did serve more than 3000 days who never got a statue – one of the earliest Premiers of the state. I do not know why you are seeking to implement these bizarre tests on it. Either we do it or we do not. Frankly, I do not give a damn. I am sure most Victorians do not. They want us to be here to legislate –

Ann-Marie Hermans: On a point of order, President, I do believe that the member is using unparliamentary language.

The PRESIDENT: No, he is not.

Michael GALEA: They are a joke. They are an absolute joke. The Leader of the Opposition’s appointed representative putting these ridiculous things into this chamber today is a very sad indictment on the entire Liberal Party, and I am sure many of their members are rightly hanging their heads in shame right now – in fact I am not quite sure of it; I know it. By all means let us spend the time in this place discussing whether we should build a statue to the former Premier or not. I think in your remarks, Mrs Deeming, you referred to authoritarianism. It sounded like you were talking about your own former Premier Jeff Kennett – I could not be clear. I would say it is a joke. It is an offensive joke to be quoting Nuremberg trials, to be bringing up allegations against police officers. It is a joke.

Ann-Marie HERMANS (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (17:58): The erosion of democratic principles in this state under the leadership of the former Premier Mr Daniel Andrews cannot go without comparisons to Joseph Stalin. Joseph Stalin ruled the Soviet Union from the 1920s to 1953, and it has been described as a totalitarian dictatorship. It was built on fear, on violence and on absolute control. His key tactics included total state control. The state controlled every aspect of life. There was no free press, no political opposition and no individual rights.

Members interjecting.

The PRESIDENT: Order!

Ann-Marie HERMANS: On a point of order, Mr President, I cannot hear myself.

The PRESIDENT: Can the house come to order. I have indicated to members that sometimes, if you are going to do a provocative speech, there might be a reaction from some people. I ask Mrs Hermans to continue without any assistance.

Ann-Marie HERMANS: Dissent was a crime. For years we have heard his supporters praise his decisive and strong leadership. They call him a man who gets things done. But let us be clear, getting things done is not a substitute for due process, transparency and accountability. A government that centralises all power in a single office is not strong, it is autocratic. A leader who dismisses any dissenting view as unhelpful or selfish is not decisive, he is authoritarian. This is not a new criticism. We have seen a pattern of behaviour that has systematically undermined the foundations of the Westminster system. Cabinet was bypassed, with crucial decisions made by a small, hand-picked inner circle. We have seen it in the hugely expanding size and influence of the Premier’s private office, which became a de facto shadow government, operating with minimal scrutiny.

The most glaring example of this was the government’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic. I can say that the number of signatures on this petition is testament to the fact that there are a number of people in this state who were severely hurt and injured by this government, in particular during the COVID-19 lockdowns, not to mention that some of them were members of Parliament who have spoken in this chamber today and were originally from the government’s side.

Under the guise of an unprecedented crisis, this government sought and was granted unprecedented power. Powers designed for a short-term emergency were extended and extended again in a clear overreach. We saw a government, led by Daniel Andrews, that was more interested in controlling every aspect of Victorian lives than trusting its own people to make valid decisions. The public health legislation, which we were told was necessary to get through this, became a permanent blueprint for the suspension of our freedoms. Daniel Andrews – a politician, not a medical professional – took his power to declare a pandemic for an indefinite time. This was not about saving lives, it was about seizing power.

We have heard from legal experts, including the Victorian Bar Association, who condemned this legislation as a threat to the rule of law. We have seen the Inspector-General for Emergency Management Victoria and the Ombudsman raise serious concerns about the lack of oversight and accountability. This is not about policy disagreement, this is about the fundamental health of our democracy.

When a Premier refuses to appear before a parliamentary committee, when a government buries reports and avoids answering questions and when the public is told to get on the beers rather than to seek answers, something is deeply wrong.

The former Premier’s defenders will say that he was a victim of a biased media and a political witch-hunt, but the truth is the most devastating criticisms of his government came not from journalists but from the institutions that are supposed to hold power to account: the Parliament, the Ombudsman and the anti-corruption bodies. A functioning democracy is built on checks and balances. It is built on the principle that no-one, not even a popular Premier, is above scrutiny.

The legacy of the former Premier is not just his infrastructure projects or his social reforms, it is the precedent he set for centralising power, avoiding accountability – ‘I don’t recall’, if you recall – and governing by fear. I urge this Parliament to remember that our duty is not to serve the government of the day but to serve the people of Victoria and the democratic principles that protect them. We must commit ourselves to restoring the integrity of the institution and ensuring that this state never – (Time expired)

Tom McINTOSH (Eastern Victoria) (18:03): I have been in this place for about three years now, and I can distinctly remember a few times when I have felt deeply disturbed by what I have heard in this place. I will not mention what those times were, but I remember them vividly. This is probably up there with them. On today of all days, with what has happened to Victoria in the last 24 hours, I think it is a very good reminder for all of us to be very, very mindful about the language we use. If you are talking about Stalin, millions of people –

John Berger: Murdered.

Tom McINTOSH: Thank you. I will not say died – murdered. I think we need to be very, very thoughtful about the language we use, because what do we want to be like? Do we want to head down the path that some other nations are heading down, where their democracies are being destroyed? I did not have my great-uncle track Kokoda to see our democracy disrespected. I had two great-uncles on warships in the Pacific getting sunk, seeing their mates die, coming back here to work on the wharves and drinking themselves to sleep every night because of the trauma they went through at war, when they fought for this nation so that people could respectfully discuss democracy and go to the fabric of policies. The reason why you are standing over there and you are talking about Stalin is because you are unable to identify the values that you have to inform plans that create policies. It is absolutely disgusting. I will bring politics into this. There is a reason why the Liberals got wiped out at the federal election because the dog whistling –

Ann-Marie Hermans: On a point of order, President, this is a debate about a Daniel Andrews statue that received –

Tom McINTOSH: Really, is it?

Ann-Marie Hermans: thousands of signatures from Victorians in a very short space of time. I ask that –

The PRESIDENT: There is no there is no point of order because you hit the nail on the head: this is a debate, and a speaker is responding to a previous speaker in the debate.

Tom McINTOSH: I also want to comment on something I have been fairly passionate about in the last few weeks, the Labor state conference. We have had it for 20, 30 years up at Moonee Valley Racetrack. The carpet is not that flash, but it is open, it is televised, it is democratic. In recent years we have enabled working-age people to bring their kids into a creche. Last year that place got run through. We had people on the floor – observers, media, delegates – and people ran through and were trying to smash through a wall and on the other side were kids in a creche. Do you know what happened this year? The place was locked down; people could only access through one point. That has really stuck with me. I came in here for question time the other week and I was a bit shirty with a few people – oh, you are kidding me. You are kidding me.

Ann-Marie Hermans: On a point of order, President, this is a debate about a statue of Daniel Andrews.

Members interjecting.

Ann-Marie Hermans: I do ask that the member return to the topic.

The PRESIDENT: I think it has been a quite broad-ranging debate from both sides of the chamber, so I will ask Mr McIntosh to continue.

Tom McINTOSH: What I am trying to say is this year parents with kids did not come, did not attend. I know that. I have heard from them. Because when they were on that floor and their kids were on the other side of what they did not know was going on with wall smashing and crashing, that was terrifying.

I was recently out and there was some pretty poor language used towards me, and I called it out. Some pretty, pretty ordinary language, the same sort of language that was used about Dan Andrews, and I called it out in a room of 20 or 30 people, and it was taken back. I am not going to say what was said, but the person who said it apologised to me later. The point is, it does not matter whether people are on the left or on the right, if we are going to debate things, we have got to do it respectfully if we value our democracy, because where are we going to be in 20 or 30 years? It is really easy to go for the cheap wins and try and fire people up. The last 24 hours, of all time, to use Stalin. Seriously. Like really, really seriously, let us have a bit of respect for our democracy.

There is a lot of grey in politics. We can agree to disagree; that is fine. I value the fact that most of us can walk out of here and still engage with each other in a respectful way. That is something we should cherish. We should be very, very mindful of the language we use,. It is okay to come in here and rip apart the policies we bring. We should absolutely do that. But when it comes to inciting hatred, when it comes to bordering on inciting violence, that is where we risk our democracy.

Moira Deeming: I ask that you withdraw. Are you accusing us of inciting hatred and violence? Are you seriously doing that?

The PRESIDENT: Mr McIntosh did not single anyone out.

Tom McINTOSH: What I am saying is there a responsibility collectively for us all to be mindful of the language we use when we come and debate an issue. We can come and debate a statue. That is fine. We can debate whether or not we build a statue. Absolutely. Let us do that. But let us not use language that is absolutely ridiculous. I think to compare a democratic leader in Victoria, a democratic leader in Australia, to Stalin is disgusting.

David DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan) (18:10): I want to make some statements about this matter today. A large petition has been brought to the chamber and people have expressed their views that they do not want a statue of Daniel Andrews, the former Premier, and I can understand that. I do not devote much of my time to thinking about whether Daniel Andrews deserves a statue or not. That is a secondary matter, but it does cause me to revisit his legacy and his achievements and what he has done or not done for Victoria.

I think it is important that we look at our economy and the massive debt that he left. More than $200 billion is where the number will be for the general government sector, and it is much more if you count the outer sector in. The massive tax increase is a legacy of Daniel Andrews –the debt and the tax and the sluggish economic growth with declining living standards. The hallmark of this period of government since 2014 has been the declining living standards per household and per Victorian. Our economic performance was not good under Daniel Andrews, and that is a central legacy of his. We should not step away from measuring him on the things that matter to Victorians. What matters to Victorians is the cost of living, what matters to Victorians is the living standard and what matters to Victorians is the ability to get into a home, and on all those basic metrics the performance of this state drifted under Daniel Andrews. He has left the state in a terrible position.

Look at the mismanagement of COVID. I do want to put on record the undemocratic way the chamber was run, the undemocratic way that the Parliament was run and the draconian approach that was adopted with COVID, which was much more stringent than in any other state in Australia. That is the truth. The consequences of that have been serious, and the truthfulness of the decisions that were made do not bear scrutiny. We have seen that. I followed some of those freedom-of-information requests from the time to seek the explanation for the orders that had been made under the health powers, and Daniel Andrews and his government fought and fought and fought the release of those orders. I am a former health minister. I believe in the use of those powers where it is appropriate, but I also believe in the transparency that is involved in that. Great power begets great responsibility. Great power begets the need to be honest, open and truthful, and they were not. He was not. He fought and fought to prevent the information coming out. What we know is that some of the central things, like the curfew, were not based on health advice. It was made up by Daniel Andrews.

Members interjecting.

David DAVIS: The FOI that was released by the Court of Appeal made it clear. They fought all the way, and the Court of Appeal released that document. The document made it clear it was not based on health advice. It was concocted by government in the Premier’s office. I say these were bad decisions and the wrong decisions.

But I also want to talk about red shirts. You talk about the standards here and the corruption –

Members interjecting.

David DAVIS: No, it was pure corruption actually; it was pure corruption.

Members interjecting.

David DAVIS: Yes, it was. It was bad, and what was done was quite wrong. I say when you go back and you look at the legacy of Daniel Andrews, if you look at his time from when he was in opposition through the period until he resigned and handed over to Jacinta Allan, you see massive cost blowouts on projects, you see the tax go up massively, you see the debt go up massively and you see the living standards of Victorians falling.

Members interjecting.

David DAVIS: Living standards per head and per household in Victoria are not better. It was a terrible performance over the last period of government, and that was Daniel Andrews’s responsibility. Daniel Andrews has to accept responsibility for that. When I review his legacy, he did win elections, but he did other things too. He left the state in a weaker and worse position than before. That is his legacy. If you ask the question: does he deserve a statue? On those hard assessments about the state’s debt, about tax and about the living standards of Victorians, my answer is no, he does not. Do I devote a lot of time to thinking about whether he should get a statue? No. But is it an opportunity to look at his legacy? Yes, and I say he should not get it.

Sheena WATT (Northern Metropolitan) (18:15): Let us talk about legacy, because I want to talk about former Premier Jeff Kennett and his legacy. That is where I want to start, because indeed it was former Premier Jeff Kennett who implemented the commemorative statue policy. This is in fact his idea. May I remind the chamber that the standard set by former Premier Jeff Kennett is that you serve 3000 days – not 3000 days plus having the approval of every politician that ever served in the chamber after you leave, not 3000 days plus approval ratings or 3000 days plus whatever it is that serves your purpose over there. I will tell you right now, Jeff Kennett set the standard. The standard has been set. There are already four former premiers in this state that are all recognised for meeting the standard set by the former Premier. I would just say he has met the standard and be done with it.

You see, I do not agree with the legacy of every one of those former premiers. I have not moved petitions about what they have done and what they are all about. But what I will say is that for 3000 days he served honourably the people of Victoria – that is what he did. For 3000 days, that is worthy of recognition. I could go to his legacy and all the things that I really admired about Daniel Andrews. I am going to need more than 2 minutes, let me assure you of that. I am not going to relitigate COVID and what happened – the lives saved, the hospitals, the workers – because I am not going to talk about that. I served on hospital boards before coming to this place and was there seeing the very impact of lives saved by the decisions made by that Premier each and every day. Then I followed that by coming into this place.

I will tell you that this policy has been applied equally. Whether or not we like that former Premier, this policy has been applied equally, and I am saying that it should continue to be. I have no concerns that we should absolutely call out the hypocrisy in its purest forms from those opposite, because this debate is about fairness and honesty. You created the rule, and now you do not like it. That is not good enough. You are all about celebrating your own good selves with public money. Well, now you are going to celebrate a Labor Premier. Maybe it is that you dislike him and his legacy, but I will tell you what, a whole bunch of people loved him. They loved what he did and the lives that were saved and the raft of incredible, incredible achievements for our state.

I am going to tell you, I was one of the 1,339,496 Victorians that after the pandemic voted 1 for Victorian Labor. I will tell you that that number is much stronger than the 13,000 signatures to this petition, and we should remember that each and every day. This Premier deserves the respect of being recognised for time immemorial as somebody who saved lives each and every day of those 3000 days that he served in our state. I honour him and his remarkable legacy to the people of Victoria. He will be remembered with much respect and admiration from those on this side for many years to come.

Moira DEEMING (Western Metropolitan) (18:18): As I was saying, it was a head-on collision. The car struck Ryan. Phone and email records show that just 30 minutes after the crash Daniel Andrews phoned his then staffer Chris Reilly asking him to urgently arrange a new windscreen, that the state government insurance VicFleet refused to do so without a proper claim form and that Reilly then rang to arrange it with O’Brien glass directly. This all would have happened while Ryan was lying on the road fighting for his life.

Isn’t it interesting to see you all close ranks on the basis of tribal loyalty for someone that we all know – you know – did things you did not agree with. I chose my words very carefully. I referenced proper historical facts. I referenced an actual judge in this state who did reference the Nuremberg trials, condemning that man’s governance. Listen to your language. What about your language? Listen to the contempt you just poured out on the people of Victoria for a legal, democratic petition scheduled permanently in the timetable that you guys obey. It is ridiculous the way that you just poured contempt on Victorians. Honestly, that is just disgusting, what you just did. You have contempt for working-class people that you rule over.

Michael Galea: On a point of order, President, pointing out that it is perhaps inappropriate to compare a democratically elected Premier to Stalin is not the same as what you are saying, Mrs Deeming. Furthermore –

The PRESIDENT: That is not a point of order. Mrs Deeming to continue.

Moira DEEMING: Thank you. As a collective, you called these concerns a joke and bizarre. It is just absolutely –

Michael Galea interjected.

Moira DEEMING: Well, excuse me, he just admitted to calling me a joke. Can he withdraw that? Am I allowed to take a point of order in my own speech? I do not know.

Michael Galea: I will clarify that the ‘you’ was the collective Liberal Party, but I am happy to withdraw.

Moira DEEMING: Thank you.

The PRESIDENT: Mrs Deeming to continue.

Moira DEEMING: The statue proposal is out of step with tradition, financial reality, morality and common sense. You should get over yourselves; that is what you should do. Serve your constituents.

Michael Galea: On a point of order, President, let us just melt the statues down, because clearly Rupert Hamer is rolling in his grave.

The PRESIDENT: That is not a point of order.

Council divided on motion:

Ayes (8): Gaelle Broad, David Davis, Moira Deeming, Renee Heath, Ann-Marie Hermans, Joe McCracken, Nick McGowan, Rikkie-Lee Tyrrell

Noes (13): Ryan Batchelor, John Berger, Jacinta Ermacora, David Ettershank, Michael Galea, Shaun Leane, Tom McIntosh, Rachel Payne, Harriet Shing, Jaclyn Symes, Lee Tarlamis, Gayle Tierney, Sheena Watt

Motion negatived.