Wednesday, 26 August 2026

 Sarah MANSFIELD (Western Victoria) (11:14): I move:

That this house:

(1)   notes that:

(a) the ministerial register of gifts, benefits and hospitality, between July 2025 and January 2026 shows:

(i) seven Labor ministers and parliamentary secretaries accepted at least 26 free tickets and VIP hospitality packages to Victoria’s biggest sporting events from gambling corporations;

(ii) the Minister for Casino, Gaming and Liquor Regulation accepted three hospitality packages for two people to attend Derby Day, the Brownlow Medal and the AFL Grand Final from Tabcorp Holdings, Crown Casino and Endeavour Group, despite having official responsibility of gambling, gaming and liquor regulation;

(b) the government has been criticised by experts for watering down gambling and alcohol harm reduction reforms;

(c) the ministerial code of conduct states a minister must not accept any gift, hospitality or other benefit that could reasonably be expected to give rise to a conflict of interest or could reasonably be perceived as an inducement or reward for doing or not doing something in the exercise of official functions;

(2)   calls on the Premier to back up claims that integrity is not optional by making changes in time for this year’s spring carnival, Brownlow Medal and AFL finals by:

(a) introducing legislation that implements all outstanding recommendations from IBAC’s 2022 Special Report on Corruption Risks Associated with Donations and Lobbying;

(b) banning all gifts, hospitality packages and other potential inducements from gambling corporations to ministers; and

(c) investigating and taking strong action on potential conflicts of interest and breaches of the code of conduct by ministers.

Having spent much of the last four years in this place introducing legislation and amendments to strengthen the state’s integrity regime and having been blocked in these efforts at each and every turn by the Labor MPs to my right and frequently, I should add, by my Liberal colleagues over on the left, I admit to somewhat bittersweet feelings when Premier Carroll announced earlier this month that integrity would not be optional under his Labor government. As I noted a few weeks ago, I am not sure the statement reflects all that well on the new Premier, given he was a senior minister and even Deputy Premier over the last 12 years when the state Labor government apparently considered political integrity as optional. But in introducing this motion today I am effectively taking Premier Carroll at his word that Victorian politics is now at long last entering into a post-optional integrity era, which I hope will mean that Labor and the Liberals will now stop blocking the essential legislation and other integrity reforms to hold all politicians in this state to higher standards of conduct.

The list of overdue public integrity law reform in Victoria is so long that I could not get close to covering it all within the 250-word limit of this motion, but at the very top of this list is the need for Victoria to introduce strong laws on corporate lobbying and influence on ministers and ministerial staff and to strengthen and legislate the management and oversight of the ministerial code of conduct. These measures were recommended not only in IBAC’s Special Report on Corruption Risks Associated with Donations and Lobbying back in 2022 but also in recommendations from IBAC’s Operation Clara, Operation Daintree, Operation Sandon and, most recently, Operation Richmond reports. Despite this litany of recommendations from IBAC, most of these key lobbying recommendations are yet to be implemented.

I have also introduced this specific motion today because nowhere is the effect of corporate lobbying more pernicious and destructive on the lives of everyday Australians than in regard to the hold that the corporate gambling industry, along with its money and lobbyists, continues to have over Australian politicians from the Liberal and Labor parties. Australians hold the infamous title of being the biggest gambling losers in the world by dollar value, and we have the highest rates of gambling harm in our society. Every day gambling addiction destroys families financially in this state and contributes to endemic levels of family violence we are experiencing, and in this nation it quadruples a person’s risk of suicide. That we have got to this place today is not through chance or the vagaries of our society’s cultural and commercial evolution; it is because of the deliberate choices of successive Labor and Liberal politicians and governments over decades in continually caving in to, backing down from or simply ignoring altogether the need for strong and effective regulation to control the gambling industry.

To say that Australians have had an absolute gutful of being sold out again and again by politicians effectively working on behalf of the gambling industry is an understatement. Just last week we witnessed another cave-in on gambling reforms, this time on legislation at the federal level that should have introduced a blanket ban on gambling advertising and gambling companies providing inducements to problem gamblers, but ultimately it ended up with Labor, the Liberals and One Nation once again siding with the gambling companies. Last week, yet again, Labor and the Liberals chose to put the corporate profits of the gambling industry over and above the unanimous recommendations from health experts, people who have lived experience of gambling addiction and their families and a committee chaired by a member of government but also went against the wishes of the overwhelming majority of sports lovers and regular Australians who just want to be able to watch a game of cricket or footy without being forcibly told every few minutes that they need to be betting on it. It is scarcely believable to children and young people today that watching a game in such a way was not only possible but actually normal no more than 20 years ago. We have of course seen similar backdowns, obfuscation, delays and watering down of gambling harm reduction reforms by politicians at the state level in Victoria as recently as last year, when they delayed mandatory precommitment for pokie machines. Thanks to Labor’s and the Liberals’ efforts last week, gambling companies will continue to be able to shower gamblers with inducements to keep them gambling, such as free VIP tickets, hospitality and alcohol at major sporting events.

Gambling companies do not just provide these inducements to problem gamblers to keep them gambling; they also provide the very same inducements to greedy politicians to influence them to block, delay or water down gambling reforms and legislation. The extent of this systematic and predatory inducement of politicians by gambling corporations is no less shocking than that of problem gamblers. According to the most recent reports from the gifts register, in just six months seven Victorian ministers or parliamentary secretaries accepted at least 26 free VIP hospitality tickets to our biggest sporting events from the nation’s largest gambling and pokies corporations, including Tabcorp, Sportsbet, Crown Casino and the Endeavour Group. The likely value of these hospitality gifts from gambling companies to Victorian politicians would be in the tens of thousands of dollars, if not more. These are ministers, by the way, who are being paid upwards of $450,000 a year by Victorian taxpayers yet still hold their entitled hands out for luxury freebies from the gambling corporations every year in September, when many of the state’s biggest sporting events are held.

Gambling companies operate primarily for profit and to increase shareholder value. They are not benevolent organisations working for the social good. The only logical reason for gambling companies to incur the substantial costs of handing out expensive free gifts and hospitality to politicians, along with millions of dollars in donations to the Labor and Liberal parties, is to try and directly or indirectly influence politicians’ decision-making to favour the gambling companies over other stakeholders, primarily the general population. The effectiveness of these inducements from gambling companies to politicians and political parties is there for everyone to see. It is evidenced in every policy backdown, in every watering-down of harm reduction legislation and regulation and every time the Labor and Liberal parties choose to side with the gambling industry over the public they are meant to serve, and ultimately it is evidenced in the very real harms and devastation lived by countless people every day.

I have mentioned the most recent watering-down of reforms at the state and federal level, but here are some more decisions we could explore. Why else would Premier Andrews deny that there were any issues and turn a blind eye to the obviously illegal goings-on at Crown Casino for almost a decade, until the weight of media pressure ultimately required a royal commission? It is a familiar story under Labor. For what other reason did Premier Andrews lock down every home and business in Victoria during the pandemic but somehow decide that the sole exception to this list should be Crown Casino? How, at the same time, could an Andrews Labor minister – who, due to a lack of current lobbyist laws, now sits on the board of Crown Casino – decide that the sole exclusion from the statewide lockdowns should be made not for funerals or family reunions but for the owners and connections of those involved in a horse race, the Cox Plate? These – let us be generous and parliamentary – completely irrational decisions from Victorian Labor ministers only make any kind of sense when we consider the uniquely pernicious relationship that the gambling companies and lobbyists have with Victoria’s politicians and the political parties that they donate to.

Not even Labor or Liberal politicians are naive or stupid enough to try and claim that the gambling corporations and lobbyists are not trying to buy influence in our politics. If we all accept that this is the case, then we must also accept that it is the minister for gambling regulation that is particularly susceptible to improper lobbying or influence from the gambling lobby – just as, say, the Minister for Health is to tobacco or the planning minister is to property developers. Yet despite this risk, the latest gifts register shows that the biggest grafter from the gambling companies, incredibly, also happens to be the Victorian minister directly responsible for regulating the gambling industry. In just six months the Minister for Casino, Gaming and Liquor Regulation accepted entertainment packages for two to Derby Day, the Brownlow Medal and the AFL Grand Final from Tabcorp Holdings, Crown Casino and liquor and pokies giant the Endeavour Group. Indeed if there was a Brownlow Medal for conflicts of interest, there is no doubt the Minister for Casino, Gaming and Liquor Regulation would be taking home the Charlie this year.

While we have all seen that it is common for Labor to claim that no rules or laws have been broken when defending the indefensible political integrity scandals, unfortunately for the minister involved, even in Victoria the ministerial code of conduct expressly prohibits Victorian ministers from accepting hospitality that could be reasonably seen as a conflict of interest or an inducement to reward for doing or not doing something in the exercise of official functions. Rules have been broken, yet the minister yesterday displayed no genuine contrition and offered no plausible excuse or explanation in response to his serious and repeated conflicts of interest in direct breach of the ministerial code with regard to accepting luxurious hospitality from the gambling companies he is meant to regulate. In fact the minister’s response seemed to indicate that he considered breaching the code of conduct to accept expensive gifts and hospitality from gambling companies an essential part of the job of being a minister. Whether the minister’s actions and response come from a sense of impunity from consequences or accountability, whether it shows just how normalised the influence of the gambling corporations has become or whether it simply demonstrates what the Premier intimated this month – that Labor ministers really have considered integrity as an optional extra up until now – is not easy to determine. But what we can call out is the astounding cognitive dissonance and complete lack of professional awareness on display.

I say to the minister: whether you like to think about it or not, there is a direct relationship between you being wined and dined at great expense by the gambling companies and the level of gambling losses and harm that occurs to individuals and families in this state. While you are enjoying playing dress-up and schmoozing with rich-listers in a glitzy corporate box, an everyday Victorian is remortgaging their house, unable to pay for their groceries at the checkout or burying a loved one because of gambling. In fact this is the exact reason why under the ministerial code you are expressly directed to avoid accepting hospitality that could be perceived in any way as creating a conflict of interest. It is simply not good enough for you as a grown man, let alone the responsible minister, to make-believe otherwise. It is public integrity 101 for a junior public servant, let alone the Minister for Casino, Gaming and Liquor Regulation.

But now a line in the sand has been drawn on integrity, at least rhetorically, by the Premier. Whether or not this line is genuine or just another empty line for the media from an under-pressure Labor Premier comes down to what happens next. This motion is unashamedly presented as a test for the new Premier on integrity. It asks: is the ministerial code of conduct worth the paper it is written on under Ben Carroll, or is it just window dressing? Will there be real consequences under Premier Carroll for breaches of integrity, standards and rules that apply to ministers? A good place to start in answering these questions would be by publicly banning his Labor ministers from accepting tickets to hospitality at next month’s AFL finals, Spring Racing Carnival, Brownlow Medal count and any other sporting event from gambling corporations.

As I have outlined, this issue is not isolated to individual ministers accepting gifts and hospitality from gambling companies. It is part of a much bigger problem in Australian politics, which is the pernicious relationship between the corporate interests, lobbyists and money, and politicians and political parties. So the Greens are also testing this Parliament and the Premier to go further than just addressing the broader stain that gambling money and corporate lobbying has had on our politics for far too long. This motion also demands the Premier urgently introduces tough lobbying laws for all corporate lobbyists, ministers and ministerial staff in line with IBAC’s well-overdue recommendations. Integrity is supposedly no longer optional for the Victorian Labor government. Today we will see if this statement holds any truth.

 Ryan BATCHELOR (Southern Metropolitan) (11:28): If there was a Norm Smith Medal for hypocrisy, the Greens would win best on ground every time. I am going to come to the utter hypocrisy that we see from the Greens when it comes to gambling interests and taking money from the gambling industry in a minute, because it is truly breathtaking that they can stand up in this place and cast aspersions on members of the government for accepting gifts properly disclosed from gambling corporations while accepting more than $3.8 million in political donations from gambling interests in the last 11 years, including nearly $1 million in 2025 alone. I will come to this, because the looks of incredulity on the faces of the members on the crossbench right now might give them pause to reflect on the exceptionally large glass house that they are living in.

The government does take integrity seriously, and one of the reasons for the details of the benefits and the gifts that have been received by ministers and parliamentary secretaries is because of the disclosure rules put in place by the Labor government. This material is on the public record because Labor passed the laws to require it. Labor put in place the practices to require it – and not just the gifts, benefits and hospitality received by ministers and parliamentary secretaries; all members are required in their register of interests to disclose interests which could give rise to conflicts of interest above a certain threshold. That is good. It is there for everyone to see – just as this Labor government has been the one to introduce electoral donation disclosure laws here in the state of Victoria. The reason that we know here in the state of Victoria that individuals and corporations donate to various political parties, including to the Greens political party, is because those donations are required by law to be disclosed. The transparency that is at the heart of the information this motion calls out was put there by Labor. That is because Labor does believe in transparency and accountability when it comes to electoral donations and gifts, benefits and hospitality. That is why we think it is important that things like gifts, things like meetings and things like donations are put in the public domain, and we do not resile from that for a moment. We think it is incredibly important that these matters are placed on the public record.

It is just slightly galling to hear the Greens accuse one particular minister, but Labor and others more broadly, of staining our politics through gambling money. I think the quote from Dr Mansfield was ‘the broader stain that gambling money has had on our politics for far too long’. Let us talk about the influence of gambling money on politics in Australia, and particularly the money that has flowed from gambling interests to the Greens, because that should be in the public debate on a motion such as this moved by Dr Mansfield. According to the DonationWatch website, $3,811,223 has been donated to the Greens since 2014 by an individual, Mr Duncan Turpie, who is regarded by them as making his money from gambling.

Sarah Mansfield interjected.

Ryan BATCHELOR: They say it is completely different. It is really interesting, Dr Mansfield, that you say it is completely different. I am not sure that the gambling works any differently, whether it is online poker or poker machines or horseracing, because gambling in an online poker tournament means you are betting against other individuals. You are. The winnings that come from online poker do not come from a miraculous pot of money in the cloud; they come from other gamblers and potentially other problem gamblers. As Dr Mansfield said, gambling addiction destroys families. It is what Dr Mansfield said in her contribution: gambling addiction destroys families. I put it to you that the online poker industry is full of gambling addicts, and someone who makes enough money from online gambling and online poker tournaments to donate $3.8 million to the Greens is profiting off misery. You cannot get up here and suggest that online poker players do not involve some degree of problem gambling. You just cannot, and they do. We do know that there are significant concerns about people losing money in online poker tournaments.

We just do not hear it from the Greens. We just do not hear it from the Greens because, whilst they rail against certain gambling interests, they do not rail against those who donate to them. They try – they have tried now and previously – to say there is a difference between being a gambler and being a gambling company. That is in fact what the Greens said in 2025 when this issue was raised. But the money still comes from problem gamblers. It does not matter whether you are a gambling company or someone involved in a secretive gambling cartel that makes money from online poker playing, the money that you win still comes from other gamblers – and, as Dr Mansfield herself said, a large number of those are problem gamblers. A large number of those are problem gamblers, because we do, as Dr Mansfield said, have some of the highest rates of gambling losses in the world. You cannot have money won from gambling donated to the Greens and suggest it is not coming from problem gambling when you also say that Australia has some of the highest rates of problem gambling losses in the world.

We also know that they do rail against billionaires not paying their fair share of tax too, right? According to the Sydney Morning Herald, Mr Turpie, the person who has donated $3.8 million to the Greens in the last 12 months:

is reportedly part of the secretive Punters Club which came to the attention of the Australian Tax Office in a 2012 court case over reported activity of $2.4 billion a year.

The ATO accused the club’s 19 members of owing hundreds of millions in unpaid taxes after using software to maximise winnings. It alleged club members withheld information to give the impression its activities were recreational gambling.

So the ATO has taken action, for unpaid taxes and misleading the tax office, on gambling winnings, including on the person that, after this report came out, the Greens accepted $3.8 million in donations from. After this report came out, the Greens accepted $3.8 million from someone who, it has been publicly reported, was involved in gambling with an annual turnover of $2.4 billion, had millions in unpaid taxes and deliberately withheld information from the tax office to cover their tracks.

I do not think that anyone can take the hypocrisy of the Greens seriously here. And it was not 10 years ago. It was almost $1 million in donations in the first four months of 2025. This is not the deep, dark past; this is right now. It is very clear that the Greens are only critical of gambling interests that do not donate to them. They have not brought anything into this Parliament complaining about addiction caused through online poker being played by Australians. And we know why: because their political donors make money from it. Their political donors are making money from problem gamblers in online poker tournaments. And they sit there silent. The only gambling interests they appear to be concerned about are the ones that do not donate to them. If there was a Norm Smith medal for hypocrisy, the Greens would be best on ground.

 Evan MULHOLLAND (Northern Metropolitan) (11:39): I rise to speak on this motion. Usually on a Wednesday when I am speaking after Mr Batchelor I am scribbling away with rebuttals, but I found myself agreeing with most of that contribution. It is pretty wild debating on Wednesdays; you never know what they are going to throw up. This is I believe a sledge motion, and the Liberals and Nationals do not support sledge motions. Sometimes I think the Greens come to this place with a solution in search of a problem. There are legitimate questions that can be and should be asked about gifts and benefits and hospitality received by ministers. There should be a high standard for ministers, particularly when a gift of hospitality is provided by an organisation that operates within the minister’s portfolio responsibilities. But this motion goes much further. It draws conclusions that are not supported by the evidence presented, conflating separate issues and proposing a response that is arbitrarily poorly defined and based on a vibe rather than any kind of evidence.

The motion points to the ministerial register of gifts, benefits and hospitality and notes that ministers and parliamentary secretaries accepted tickets and hospitality from companies involved in gambling – and yes, they do. A lot of members in this place accept these sorts of gifts and hospitality because they engage with organisations that are relevant to their electorate or portfolio or broadly benefit the state of Victoria, adding lots of contribution to the state of Victoria and employing thousands of workers in this state. Ministers necessarily engage with organisations that fall within their portfolios. They attend events, meet stakeholders and represent the government at these kinds of events. Whether accepting hospitality is appropriate depends on the circumstances, the value, the purpose of the attendance and the nature of the relationship, and whether an actual or perceived conflict was properly managed is what actually matters.

I want to do something I do not do often in this chamber, and that is defend Minister Erdogan. The example involving the Minister for Casino, Gaming and Liquor Regulation understandably attracts attention. The minister accepted hospitality associated with Derby Day, the Brownlow Medal, the AFL Grand Final, Tabcorp, Crown and the Endeavour Group. The Greens know this – that is why they put it in their motion – and we know this. Do you want to know how we know this? Because it was disclosed through the proper channels.

The AFL Grand Final, which I am looking forward to, is one of the most significant dates in the Victorian calendar – a significant date that they have just made us do more work in the lead-up to due to an additional sitting week. It brings significant economic benefits to this state. It puts Melbourne at the centre of the nation. It is a significant driver of tourism. It also has a growing international audience and boosts our state’s economy. I do not for one moment begrudge a cabinet minister engaging with significant stakeholders in their portfolio in support of this. The motion also names Endeavour Group, which is a company that employs, according to its website, 30,000 Australians and, undoubtedly a significant number here in Victoria, in legitimate retail operations, including Dan Murphy’s and the like. Does the proposed ban apply to an entire company because one part of its operations involves gambling? The Greens are trying to imply that they are just another gambling company, with the sort of university left academic insinuation that it brings.

It also makes me wonder how the Greens would act if, God forbid, they were ever elected to govern. Engaging with stakeholders and getting input on policy is a fundamental part of being a government – something the Greens are demonstrating they are not prepared to do. What this motion tells us is that a minister in a Greens government would be openly hostile to industry stakeholders and to the needs of the thousands, in some cases, of workers and their families the industry employs and represents.

There is another side of the spectrum to which the motion goes, where the Greens would have a minister who would have no relationship with the stakeholders they are responsible for and in fact would be openly hostile to them. That itself would create all sorts of issues. It would create conflict and would be completely unworkable to be openly hostile to those industries. I guess the Greens would say they want to shut down all of the industries that they are talking about here, but it would be completely unworkable to have a minister who is openly hostile to any stakeholders in their portfolio. The motion places hospitality by ministers alongside criticism of government gambling policy and then immediately quotes the ministerial code provisions dealing with inducements and rewards. The insinuation is obvious, yet no evidence demonstrating the connection is provided. If there is a legitimate piece of evidence, I welcome you to table it.

Then there is an artificial deadline imposed by this motion. Apparently these sweeping integrity reforms must be implemented by the time of the Spring Racing Carnival, the Brownlow Medal and the AFL finals, and I cannot help but wonder if this motion and this timeline are designed for social media tiles that we have seen from Greens HQ that have already been prepared ahead of this motion’s likely defeat.

I understand that this motion is coming from a good place and that you want to insinuate that every Minister for Casino, Gaming and Liquor Regulation is somehow doing dodgy deals in front of probably a hundred people in a room that includes some stakeholders who, honestly – I have been to these events – he probably speaks to for 60 seconds before he has to speak to another stakeholder. It is not the way these things work, particularly at hospitality events and stakeholder events and breakfasts and things like that. What basically you are insinuating is that Minister Erdogan would go to an event, chat to someone for maybe 2 minutes and then say, ‘I’m going to introduce laws that benefit you because you’ve given me hospitality to the value of $500.’ I have criticism of Mr Erdogan, but I do not think he is that sinister. I do not think he is changing government policy for accepting a ticket to the Spring Racing Carnival or the grand final et cetera. As I said, the only reason we know about this and it is in your motion is because it was properly disclosed through the appropriate channel. I think this is a stunt motion that, through murky insinuation, seeks to cast doubt on the integrity of individual ministers and members of Parliament based on engaging with legitimate stakeholders and employers simply because the Greens political party does not like them.

As I said, at the other end of the spectrum, in a hypothetical Greens government, you would have an unworkable situation where the minister responsible for that sector wants to shut it down so would be openly hostile to legitimate businesses. If you are having a crack at Endeavour Group, which employs thousands and thousands of people, tens of thousands of people, in Victoria, you are basically saying, because one part of that business deals in gambling affairs, the minister should not engage with it on a professional level or, with other businesses present, attend hospitality and stakeholder events. I think it is legitimate for a minister in the Victorian government, regardless of political stripe, to be present at some of these big, significant stakeholder events, particularly when they are meaningful for our state’s economy and they are meaningful for our state’s jobs. It does drive investment to our state, and Victoria does need a representative at these kinds of events.

 David ETTERSHANK (Western Metropolitan) (11:49): I rise to make a brief contribution on the motion before the house, and I thank Dr Mansfield for bringing this question before us. In addressing this motion I am reminded of an anecdote about a former Victorian Labor Premier, the late John Cain Sr. I am told that he kept a jar of stamps in his office that he used for his personal correspondence, rather than using taxpayer-funded stamps. This of course harks back to a time when the merest hint of ministerial impropriety could threaten to bring down a government, when the disclosure of a minister receiving gifts could lead to their resignation and political exile. I am sure those of us who are a little more senior would recall the Paddington Bear affair or the colour TV imports that cost ministers their jobs. But that degree of personal and political rectitude seems very quaint today, certainly in this Parliament, where ministers routinely shrug off questions of transparency and integrity. As Dr Mansfield explained, this was exemplified, I am afraid, yesterday by the Minister for Casino, Gaming and Liquor Regulation in his nonchalant response to a question posed by Ms Copsey. This acceptance of hospitality from the very sector you are charged with regulating could be reasonably perceived as a conflict of interest.

Mr Batchelor conflating ‘gambling’ with ‘gamblers’ with ‘gambling companies’ is mind-boggling. And now that the government apparently has a newfound compassion for problem gamblers, I am sure we are all dizzy with anticipation, waiting for this government to introduce legislation with some guts on gambling that would address that question. But let us not let consistency stand in the way of a good cheap shot, Mr Batchelor. That sort of brush-off has become part of the culture of secrecy and non-disclosure that characterises this government. Week after week we witness the government’s refusal to release documents that have been ordered to be released by this Council. How utterly pathetic to receive a letter from the Attorney-General that the government has not had time to release a single document ordered by this house. It is nothing short of contempt for this chamber. It is contempt for the Victorian Parliament, it is contempt for democracy, and ipso facto it is contempt for the people of Victoria.

The ministerial code of conduct states that each minister shall provide a diary summary within 10 days of the end of each quarter. We are now approaching two months since the end of the June quarter, and where are the diaries? What is so secret? Or has the Premier’s private office had no time to release the diaries because it has been too busy refusing to release the documents ordered by this chamber? Well, we know what was in the last lot of diaries, don’t we? As the Age reported, it was Danny Pearson duchessing a dozen data centre executives at the Australian Open, followed by a private industry dinner at Government House – and a few weeks later there was a gift to the ALP of $4300 from data developer NextDC. I mean, seriously, whether it is corrupt or not, it is the perception of corruption that you need to remove from your culture.

The value of that donation is as of nothing compared to the value of having a data centre approved at Fishermans Bend in only 75 days. A community cannot get a pocket park approved in 75 days by this government. It is nothing compared to the government’s stoic resistance to releasing any meaningful information on how those plans are approved. It is nothing compared to having the then Premier Jacinta Allan, Danny Pearson and Harriet Shing out there singing the praises of that project before it has even been approved. And it is nothing –

Ryan Batchelor: On a point of order, President, Mr Ettershank in his wideranging contribution appears to be straying quite a way from particular interests that have been alleged in the motion, going on to all sorts of other policy matters. I think he should be brought back to the motion.

The PRESIDENT: I urge Mr Ettershank to stick to the motion.

David ETTERSHANK: President, I appreciate that. Perceptions matter, and there is a very clear perception in the community that this government has been captured by vested interests – exactly this question of gifts. Whether it is data centres, waste-to-energy incineration, property development, the fiasco of public housing towers, the Suburban Rail Loop or gifts to ministers, this government keeps on saying, ‘There is nothing to see here,’ and then refuses every reasonable request to disclose information. For those who want to see, there is rejection, and that is utterly suspect.

Perceptions matter, and having one minister being both our first law officer as well as our Minister for Planning is glaring. Watching this government year after year reject any expansion of IBAC powers is glaring. We all welcome Premier Carroll’s commitment to addressing this issue, and I am sure we are keen to see the issues, but again, these all strike to the culture of corruption. Maybe this government are not wrong in thinking that the public just accept these weaker standards of integrity these days and that they can just ride out these incidents, these minor corruptions. If people are cynical and have lost faith in government – well, what are they going to do about it? This is the status quo. The circus will move on.

Mr Mulholland, seriously, you had the opportunity to seize the moral high ground, and yet you took an opportunity just to bash the Greens. You have become an apologist for the government. It is remarkable. Do you not get that people are looking at exactly those gifts, disclosed or not, and see politicians that are compromised? You, sir, have abandoned the moral high ground and taken a delightfully precise deep dive into a pit of sewage. It is so disappointing.

People have a right to know their representatives are actually working for them. We all need to be assured that our leaders are working in the interests of Victorians and that they cannot be bought and cannot be influenced with trinkets, with gifts, with entertainment – seriously. That needs to be demonstrated through tougher action on conflicts of interest and breaches of the ministerial code of conduct. At the heart of this matter that is exactly what we are talking about. You have set a standard, and then you have turned your back on it. Legalise Cannabis Victoria wholeheartedly supports the motion moved by Dr Mansfield and commends it to the house.

Business interrupted pursuant to sessional orders.