Thursday, 30 July 2026

 Moira DEEMING (Western Metropolitan) (17:23): I rise to make this personal explanation to correct the false and defamatory public narrative that I was disendorsed by the Liberal Party after making a false complaint against Mr Guy and then refusing to apologise for it. I was presented with two options, both of which led to being disendorsed. Either I could make an unqualified apology, falsely confessing to everything Guy had accused me of, which would be grounds for disendorsement, or I could refuse to confess to the things that I did not do, be framed as an unrepentant liar and be disendorsed for refusing to agree to that. I chose to stand my ground and stand on the truth.

The incident underlying my complaint occurred publicly before witnesses and was captured on CCTV. I made a confidential complaint about years of undenied escalating physical intimidation by certain males in this party, including the incident where Mr Guy, the twice former Liberal leader, a man known to have targeted me publicly and privately since before I set foot in this Parliament, while seated at a table with me at an event suddenly reached forward across a guest seated between us, grabbed me around the base of my neck –

Wendy Lovell: On a point of order, President, the member is making assertions against a member of the other place, and I do not believe that is appropriate.

The PRESIDENT: I have been following closely. Personal explanations can be broad under the standing orders. I am monitoring what Mrs Deeming is saying. I do not think there is anything outside what has been in the public in what she has indicated anyway, so I will ask her to continue.

Moira DEEMING: While seated at a table with me at an event, Mr Guy suddenly reached forward across a guest seated between us, grabbed me around the base of my neck and upper shoulder, gripped me painfully and forcefully pulled my face across that man’s lap, even though my arm was braced on the table, straining against him until my face was pulled right up close to his. I was shocked, as were the others who witnessed it. In other witness statements provided to senior Liberals they reported seeing that I could not move my head freely, that I was straining against Mr Guy’s grip, that he did not release me until he had overpowered my resistance and that after he let go I slumped back in my chair and remained silent and still and was deeply troubled. I could not see what he did at the time.

Wendy Lovell: On a point of order, President, these assertions have been the subject of a police investigation, and the police did not uphold these aspersions. I think it is inappropriate that the member is using this place as cowards castle to make this statement tonight.

The PRESIDENT: Ms Lovell, it is not for the chair to determine what is factual and what is not from a personal statement that a person is making. As I said, there can be a broad range of things someone can cover. I am monitoring the personal explanation.

Evan Mulholland: On the point of order, President, allegations against a member of Parliament need to be made by a substantive motion.

The PRESIDENT: As I said, it is not for me to consider the relative facts of Mrs Deeming. It is a fact that she sees it in her personal explanation. That is what personal explanations are for.

Wendy Lovell: Further on the point of order, President, the police have ruled on this. It is not for you to rule on whether things are correct or not. The police have ruled on these allegations.

The PRESIDENT: As I just said, I am not ruling if something is factual or not. The standing orders afford a member the right to make a personal explanation as they see fit on a broad range of issues.

Wendy Lovell: Further on the point of order, President, a personal explanation is usually when somebody has said something in this place that is wrong and they wish to come back and correct the record, not when somebody wishes to make allegations against a member in the other place that are contrary to what the police have found and have been subject to a legal process.

The PRESIDENT: I have been here, and there have been personal explanations that have not been as you describe, Ms Lovell. Mr Somyurek is one that was not concerning correcting the record of what someone said in here. It was actually directed at a lot of other people outside of here.

Wendy Lovell: The President at the time ruled him out of order.

The PRESIDENT: No, what the President did is he followed the speech that he was given, and when Mr Somyurek went out of the speech, he pulled him up.

Evan Mulholland: On the point of order, President, imputations against a member in any chamber need to be made by a substantive motion. Many on this side and many on the other side of the chamber have been stood down on previous occasions in my 3½ years. There are countless occasions I can recall where members have been halted from putting allegations against a colleague and been told to do so by a substantive motion.

The PRESIDENT: As I said, it is not for me to determine what is factual or not. As I said, a broad range of issues can be covered.

Melina Bath: Further to the point of order, President, I ask your clarification: is there any cap or limitation on what that broad range of discussions can be? The house is saying, if I can read your shaking of your head, that somebody can say absolutely anything in a statement and that that is deemed acceptable. Is there some limitation on what can be said?

The PRESIDENT: On appropriate use, explaining media reports:

A member may make a personal explanation to correct or explain matters of a personal nature that occur outside the Chamber, including matters that have been reported in the media or are likely to be reported at some point.

That is a ruling from President Atkinson.

David Limbrick: President, on the point of order, I have heard nothing said by Mrs Deeming so far that is not already in the public domain.

The PRESIDENT: Going by Mr Atkinson’s ruling:

… a personal explanation to correct or explain matters of a personal nature that occur outside the Chamber, including matters that have been reported in the media or are likely to be reported at some point.

That is my understanding of where Mrs Deeming is. I am not determining whether her account – it is not for me to say her account is right or wrong. But there have been media reports, she believes those media reports have been incorrect as far as she is concerned – it is not for me to determine that – and this is a personal explanation she is making.

Evan Mulholland: Further on the point of order, President, I believe we are setting an extraordinary precedent here, where members of Parliament can make imputations about other members of Parliament, and on this particular occasion I think every Victorian could see with their own eyes that that was an allegation that was found to be incorrect by the Victoria Police and the Chief Commissioner as well. We are talking about a very, very serious imputation against a very good man that was found to be wrong by Victoria Police. If members of Parliament are allowed to make imputations against other members of Parliament in a way that is not by substantive motion, I believe we are setting a very broad precedent that is very concerning.

The PRESIDENT: I think this was Mr Elasmar’s ruling, I think, in recent times:

A member must seek the prior approval of the President before making a personal explanation. Personal explanations must be brief, contain facts and not engage in argument or go to a difference of opinion. The member should be heard in silence. No debate is permitted.

I think we have debated a number of points of order. I will monitor Mrs Deeming’s speech. I think she is, in her opinion, not correcting but giving her opinion about the way she sees the media reporting about her.

Melina Bath: On a further point of order, President, this is a serious situation, and we do not stand up lightly to have this point of order. You just said, quoting former President Elasmar, that it was making a point of fact – a point of fact. Are you then staying saying, President, that the commentary that Mrs Deeming is making is a fact? Because clearly it has been proved a non-fact by Victoria Police.

The PRESIDENT: I restated a number of times that it is not for me to determine truth or not or what is factual in a personal explanation. It is for a member to give the facts as they see them. I understand the points of order that you are making. But as I said, I will monitor this.

Wendy Lovell: Further on the point of order, President, I draw your attention to President Elasmar’s rulings of 10 December 2020 where he said:

Personal explanations should be limited to how the member claims to have been misrepresented not why the member was misrepresented.

He also said:

Personal explanations should not expand on the scope of the matter and attack or make allegations against others.

I would say that the member is going against both of those rulings.

The PRESIDENT: Mrs Deeming is going to get to that point in terms of how she feels that she has been misrepresented. It is not for me to judge her opinion. I will ask Mrs Deeming to continue.

Moira DEEMING: In other witness statements provided to senior Liberals, they reported seeing that I could not move my head freely –

Wendy Lovell: On a point of order, President, she is now introducing new information.

Moira Deeming interjected.

The PRESIDENT: It is her view of the media accounts.

Wendy Lovell: President, why are we giving additional time to this? If the member wanted to do this, she could have done it by way of a 90-second statement.

The PRESIDENT: A member has got a right to do a personal statement. It is not for me to determine what time or extra time or –

Wendy Lovell: President, are you saying we can all get up whenever we want to make a personal explanation and interrupt business of the house and just use the chamber for our own uses?

The PRESIDENT: It has happened before, and I am sure it will happen again. It is not a precedent set by me, so please – Mrs Deeming to continue.

Moira DEEMING: In other witness statements provided to senior Liberals they reported seeing that I could not move my head freely, that I was straining against Mr Guy’s grip and that he did not release me until he had overpowered my resistance, and that after he let go I slumped back into my chair, remained silent and still and was deeply troubled.

I could not see what he did at the time. I thought he had used one arm. Others at the table thought that he had used two. The CCTV has confirmed that he used just one arm, as I stated. Had a stranger done it, I would have given him the benefit of the doubt, but Mr Guy and I were not friends. We did not have an ordinary collegial relationship, and he has a documented history of hostility towards me. I raised the incident privately with my husband –

Evan Mulholland: On a point of order, President, this is going outside of the Elasmar ruling that you previously read out.

The PRESIDENT: It is not for me to judge whether Mrs Deeming and Mr Guy had a friendship. This is Mrs Deeming’s point of view.

Wendy Lovell interjected.

The PRESIDENT: It is Mrs Deeming’s point of view relative to media reports.

Wendy Lovell: On a point of order, President, this is just a direct attack. The member is being aided and abetted to make a direct attack on a member in the other place, and if she wants to do that, she should do it by substantive motion.

David Davis: Further to the point of order, President, standing order 12.12 talks about a personal explanation and it says:

… a member may explain how they have been misrepresented or explain another matter of a personal nature another matter of a personal nature.

It goes on to say:

A proposed personal explanation must be provided in writing to the President prior to consent being granted.

I understand that is what has occurred here. But a personal explanation is equally not a wideranging attack on another person or indeed, in particular, on another member of the chamber or another chamber. In this case this is a wideranging attack on Mr Guy. I do not want to enter into the details of that for the obvious reason that I am not familiar with the details other than to the extent of what is in the public domain, which seems to show directly contrary to what Mrs Deeming is saying. On a matter here, it cannot be open-ended. The member should bring a substantial motion if there are matters that she wishes to attack Mr Guy over.

The PRESIDENT: Thank you, Mr Davis –

David Davis: President, just further, I want to make the point that you have obviously seen this ahead of time and, when this is concluded, I would request that you provide some explanation to the chamber about how that has worked.

The PRESIDENT: I am happy to do that now. Mrs Deeming gave me this script to her speech just before I entered the chamber at about – I think I came into the chamber around 5-ish.

David Davis: Did you grant consent, President, after you had read it?

The PRESIDENT: Yes, I did. I respect that, but let me say that if this was the last sitting week and Mr Guy did not have the opportunity to respond in a personal explanation next sitting week, I would have considered it differently. Mr Guy will have an opportunity next sitting week to make a personal explanation in response if he wishes to. I do not want to be in the middle of the disagreement between these two members. It is the last thing I want to do.

David Davis: Further to the point of order, President, in fact what you have now described and set up is a tit-for-tat personal explanation. That is not how personal explanations are intended to operate.

The PRESIDENT: I am just suggesting, Mr Davis, that could be the potential. If it was the last sitting week, that potential would not be there. I am not suggesting the course of action of anyone else.

David Davis: Further to the point of order, President, I do not believe that the intention of a personal explanation is to set up a tit-for-tat arrangement between members.

The PRESIDENT: I understand that, but that is not my suggestion. I am just saying that could be the potential.

Wendy Lovell: Further to the point of order, President, I have been here 24 years, and normally when there is a personal explanation the chamber is advised that a member is going to make a personal explanation. There was no advice given to the opposition that this member was going to make a personal explanation. In fact I was scheduled to be the next person speaking on the budget and was asked by the government whip if I would mind doing my contribution in the next sitting week because they wanted to take the messages straightaway. President, I am going to make an allegation here that the government is setting this up, because the government asked me not to speak on my budget reply. The government said that they were going to bring in the messages. The government must have known that there was a personal explanation, and we were not advised.

The PRESIDENT: The government was not advised.

Georgie Crozier: Why was the chamber not advised?

The PRESIDENT: There is no onus that the chamber be advised.

Moira DEEMING: After he let go I slumped back into my chair and remained silent and still and was deeply troubled. I could not see what he did at the time. I thought he had used one arm. Others at the table thought he had used two. The CCTV has confirmed that he used just one arm, as I stated. Had a stranger done it I would have given him the benefit of the doubt. Mr Guy and I were not friends. We did not have an ordinary collegial relationship, and he has a documented history of hostility towards me. I raised the incident privately with my husband, close friends and a small group of senior Liberals. For 32 days it remained out of the media. The party would not investigate or refer the matter for an independent non-criminal investigation. When senior Liberals directed me to Victoria Police as a last resort I followed that direction. I told police that I did not know whether Mr Guy’s –

Evan Mulholland: On a point of order, President, on standing order 12.18(2):

No member will make an accusation of improper motives or a personal reflection on any member of either House, other than by substantive motion.

What we heard just then was an accusation of improper motive due to hostility. I ask you once again to draw the member to order.

The PRESIDENT: As I said, Mrs Deeming – I am not judging whether it is her truth or someone else’s truth – is responding to media reports she believes are incorrect on her motives and her actions.

David Davis: Further to the point of order, President, as Mr Mulholland has made clear, it is not only the standing order regarding personal explanations that governs what occurs in this chamber. There is standing order 12.18. It is not the case that a member can make substantive allegations against a member of either house – that is 12.18(2) – other than by substantive motion. I would put it to you very clearly that Mrs Deeming has made substantive allegations against a member of the other chamber and that ought to have been by a substantive motion. It was not proper to do so by the mechanism of a personal explanation.

The PRESIDENT: I have been through this, Mr Davis, as far as a member’s right to cover broad issues goes. Mrs Deeming is now talking about her interaction with other entities, so I will ask her to continue.

Gaelle Broad: On a point of order, President, I just want to clarify too because I have been acting whip here. I did seek to get your advice earlier, and I was told that once the messages were received we were going to adjourn. My understanding is we have not adjourned yet.

The PRESIDENT: Once the messages are read we are going to adjourn, which we will get to.

Gaelle Broad: Ms Lovell did adjourn and did not actually speak.

Members interjecting.

The PRESIDENT: Order! There is nothing to do with the procedure as far as it goes. Mrs Deeming to continue.

Evan Mulholland: On a point of order, President, I will just take you again to standing order 12.18, ‘Unparliamentary expressions’, which states:

(2)   No member will make an accusation of improper motives or a personal reflection on any member of either House –

We have a member who says they were violently attacked by a parliamentary colleague but then said if it was anyone else, they would have given them the benefit of the doubt. That is an improper motive for a personal expression. That is an exact reading of the standing orders, and I ask the President to bring the member to order.

The PRESIDENT: You can dissect the personal explanation later. It is not for us to do that now.

David Davis: Further to the point of order, President, it is for us to do that now. If another standing order is being breached in the process, it is for us to raise as a point of order the other standing order. That is what Mr Mulholland and I have done.

The PRESIDENT: No. Mr Mulholland’s point of order was not in line with that. There is a page left, and I will ask Mrs Deeming to continue.

Moira DEEMING: I asked the police to assess it, hoping that if the police found that it did not meet the criminal threshold, the party would then be able to investigate it confidentially and internally. While I was overseas and unwell, and while the police investigation remained underway, my confidential communications and the CCTV footage were leaked to journalists. My private words were isolated from the other evidence, conflated with my police statement and used to publicly discredit me on the basis that I said what Mr Guy did felt like or was some kind of headlock rather than saying something like ‘my head felt locked in place’. ‘No offence detected’ does not mean that no assault occurred. Guy’s actual actions in grabbing and pulling me were ignored, and I was –

Wendy Lovell: On a point of order, President, I think that the member has gone over the top by saying what she said about no offence detected. I draw your attention to the rulings of President Atkinson when Mr Somyurek was making allegations against Mr Andrews and he ruled it out of order – that it was not the right thing to use this chamber for.

The PRESIDENT: That is because Mr Somyurek went outside what was intended.

Melina Bath: On a point of order, President, just for clarity, anything can be written on a piece of paper that somebody deems as being a fact even if it has been disproved by the police, and as long –

The PRESIDENT: It is not for me to determine facts. It is the member’s response to media reports. Whether it is right or wrong – as in the facts – is not for me to determine.

David Davis: Further to the point of order, President, I understand your point, but your point appears to – if I can be direct – wilfully misunderstand that there is another standing order that is being breached in the process. Each standing order does not stand alone. It stands as part of a context and is about behaviour in the chamber. If there is a breach of behaviour that is occurring through the breach of a standing order, then you in your role are empowered and have a responsibility to rule and stop that breach of another standing order.

The PRESIDENT: The member is summarising a number of media reports and putting her view on those reports as part of a right of reply and a personal explanation, which people in here have the right to do.

Wendy Lovell: On the point of order, President, Mr Guy is a man of good standing. He has a reputation that this member is trying to destroy. He has a wife and three boys. I know his wife and three boys. I know how this has hurt them. This is just appalling, what is being allowed to happen.

The PRESIDENT: I am not reflecting on Mr Guy at all. I am not reflecting on any member. I am affording a member a personal explanation.

Moira DEEMING: No offence detected does not mean that no assault occurred.

Katherine Copsey: On a point of order, President, I ask about the process that has occurred this afternoon. I want to ask whether you turned your mind to standing order 12.18(2) in the limited time that you were given to consider the statement that was put before you this afternoon.

The PRESIDENT: I put regard to the standing order around personal explanations.

Katherine Copsey: Further to the point of order, President, can I just confirm that you have only had a limited time to consider the statement that was put before you; however, you have not considered whether that statement falls foul of section 12.18(2).

The PRESIDENT: I put into account the personal explanation as far as a member relaying their opinion on media reports that they believe reflected on them.

Moira DEEMING: Guy’s actual actions in grabbing and pulling me were ignored, and I was framed as a liar and Guy as an innocent victim. No police officer, judge or other authority found that I had lied, acted maliciously or made a false complaint. I asked Ms Wilson to specify exactly what I was required to apologise for, and she did not answer. The only –

Katherine Copsey: On a point of order, President, I am conscious that this has caused a lot of consternation for members this afternoon, and I simply put it to you that you have been put in a difficult position this afternoon, with limited time to make a ruling on something that I feel is quite consequential, around whether content that you have been asked to personally allow in the chamber is in breach of 12.18(2). I wonder if you would like to take time to consider that, given that that standing order has been raised repeatedly by members in debate this afternoon.

The PRESIDENT: I feel that we have been through a long journey here. I appreciate you saying I have been in a difficult position. Thank you for putting that to me. There are a few sentences left, and I think Mrs Deeming can finish her statement and then we can have conversations about what rulings may have been okay or not.

Moira DEEMING: The only apology wording ever presented to me came through an intermediary. It required me to say that Mr Guy’s conduct was a ‘non-incident’ and that I had ‘no right to complain’ and to apologise for ‘making a fuss’. I would not say those things, because they were not true.

I followed the party’s processes. I kept the matter confidential. I followed its direction to police, disclosed my uncertainty and sought investigation and mediation. Every member and staff member should be able to raise genuine safety-in-the-workplace concerns without fear of career-ending political retaliation. I have no idea what Mr Guy’s intentions were when he grabbed me. All I have wanted from this situation –

Evan Mulholland: On a point of order, President, the member is making imputations against another member of Parliament. What we have found today is that you have not sought to consider standing order 12.18(2). The member has not just made an imputation against one member of Parliament, she has also just made an imputation about the Leader of the Opposition and member for Kew as well.

The PRESIDENT: I do not think she has made a serious accusation against her.

Evan Mulholland: She accused the Leader of the Opposition of not taking correct action. President, you have heard from multiple sides of the chamber today about your consideration of the standing orders prior to allowing this personal explanation. I ask you to consider the standing orders and consider asking the member to make a substantive motion rather than air false allegations in this place.

The PRESIDENT: I think every member has got a right to make any motion or substantive motion as they see fit.

Members interjecting.

The PRESIDENT: There is one sentence left. Mrs Deeming to finish her statement and then we can take points of order.

Moira DEEMING: All I have wanted from this situation, where I have followed the rules and eventually been disendorsed for making a private complaint, was for somebody to tell Mr Guy to keep his hands to himself.

David Davis: On a point of order, President, I can humbly just say I think you have made some rulings that are not ideal today. What I would request is that the Procedure Committee look at this matter of the interplay between those two standing orders that have been quoted. This is a problem if this is to occur frequently. Members in the other chamber in particular will have little opportunity to respond – not that a personal explanation should be eliciting a response; it should be something that is more –

The PRESIDENT: I am happy to take up that suggestion, Mr Davis, as far as the Procedures Committee.

Wendy Lovell: On a point of order, President, I just wonder if you can give us an assurance that this is not going to be a regular occurrence in the remaining weeks of this Parliament?

The PRESIDENT: Ms Lovell, personal explanations have been few and far between when I have been in this chamber, and I would hope I would not have to deal with another one.

Bev McArthur: On a point of order, President, I wonder if you could also clarify your definition of ‘a gross abuse of parliamentary privilege’?

The PRESIDENT: I am not going into my interpretations on certain things with definitions, because we could all get up and ask for definitions. I would hope, as I said, that I am not having to deal with something like this again.

Bev McArthur: On the point of order, President, you have actually set a precedent so that anybody could come into this chamber –

The PRESIDENT: No, it is not a precedent.

Bev McArthur: you have –

The PRESIDENT: There have been a number of personal explanations over the years.

Bev McArthur: and make accusations against other members of this house or another house. It is a precedent.

The PRESIDENT: Well, you are giving your opinion, and I have to determine if someone has a right to give a personal explanation as far as media reports.

Evan Mulholland: On a point of order, President, can I ask that after this evening’s episode, where multiple members of Parliament from different sides of the chamber have questioned the direction in which this was taken and the lack of reference to the standing orders which govern this place, perhaps in future there could be some kind of review on personal explanations so that members of Parliament are not defamed in a way that we have just seen tonight, as they were outside of the chamber as well. Members of Parliament should not be able to use the parliamentary chamber to get away with serious allegations that have affected someone’s family – they should not be able to.

The PRESIDENT: The house has the right to review all standing orders and how they operate.