Wednesday, 26 August 2026

 Jacinta ERMACORA (Western Victoria) (14:01): We have had a few things go on since we started this debate on ministerial integrity, although we could be excused for thinking this is also a debate about racing or a debate about major events in Victoria – not quite sure. We did have a bit of an outbreak of conviviality between those opposite but not agreement with those on our right.

To get started I want to return to the topic in question, which is integrity. Integrity is so much more than allegations. It means respecting evidence, and that is where I fundamentally disagree with the approach taken by the Greens here today. It is definitely hard to work out if this motion is about integrity or a policy debate about gambling and horseracing and indeed whether or not Victoria should host major events. They have taken information that is publicly disclosed, listed a series of events and organisations and invited this house to draw a conclusion of wrongdoing. But disclosure is not evidence of corruption, attendance at an event is not by itself evidence of a conflict of interest and an allegation is not a finding. In fact, there is an irony at the centre of this motion: the Greens know about the hospitality they are criticising precisely because this government requires it to be disclosed. My colleague Ryan Batchelor mentioned that, but also from those opposite we had Mr Mulholland mentioning exactly the same point.

We – that is, the Labor government – established the requirement for ministers and parliamentary secretaries to disclose gifts, benefits and hospitality above a relevant threshold. The register is maintained by the Secretary of the Department of Premier and Cabinet and published every six months for every single Victorian to see, and that is transparency working as it should. This government also publishes a ministerial register of interests and quarterly summaries of ministerial diaries covering stakeholder meetings, external organisations and lobbyists. And in December 2023 we established Victoria’s modern ministerial code of conduct. The code sets a high standard whereby ministers must act in the public interest. They must identify, disclose and appropriately manage actual, potential and perceived conflicts of interest. That is completely different. If you are the minister for racing, the absolute purest definition of ‘public interest’ is to look after the jobs of people who are in the racing industry and to make sure that everything is appropriate in that space, so attending races is absolutely appropriate. They cannot knowingly conceal a conflict from the Premier. They cannot seek or solicit gifts or benefits, and they cannot accept hospitality that could reasonably create a conflict of interest or be perceived as an inducement or reward for exercising an official function.

Members interjecting.

Jacinta ERMACORA: I can hear the interjections from my right, and you would have us not attending any public events or supporting any public events if the principle from there was in place. These are serious obligations, and if somebody believes they have credible evidence that those obligations have been breached, there are appropriate avenues for those to be examined. What we should not do is reverse the burden of proof and decide that because something was transparently disclosed wrongdoing has occurred. Just because something has been transparently disclosed in an area that your policy does not agree with, it does not mean that that is inappropriate.

The motion identifies no ministerial decision that was improperly influenced. It identifies no private benefit that shaped a government decision. It identifies no direction to any agency resulting from this hospitality, and it points to no finding from an integrity body that a minister breached a code. Proper governance requires us to apply standards to facts, identify any conflict and assess the evidence. We should not appoint ourselves investigator, prosecutor, judge and jury simply because doing so produces a political headline or, in the case of what Mr Mulholland said, a great social media tile. But if those opposite want to have a debate about integrity, obviously we are in agreement.

Georgie Crozier: Perhaps you should read this report, Ms Ermacora. Maybe you should read that.

Jacinta ERMACORA: All right, I am happy to go there. In July this year the Age reported that retiring coalition MPs had claimed about $65,000 in taxpayer-funded travel, and some announced their retirements remarkably soon afterwards. One Liberal MP reportedly travelled to New York and Hong Kong at a cost of $8635 and announced their retirement five days later. Another travelled to Japan and Singapore at a cost of around $7000 and announced their retirement six weeks later. This is according to Annika Smethurst in the Age. And then there was a trip to Barbados costing $11,410, with the Liberal MP announcing their retirement three months later. According to the Age, one itinerary included New York’s Hudson Yards, a meeting at a New York pub and sightseeing. Another MP travelled overseas to investigate what were described as political and economic opportunities, despite subsequently announcing their retirement – and who picked up the bill? Victorian taxpayers picked up the bill. These trips were funded through parliamentary travel allowances. The very same investigation by Annika Smethurst –

Renee Heath: On a point of order, Acting President, I believe that Ms Ermacora is misleading the house. She mentioned a trip to Barbados paid for by the taxpayer. It is just, quite frankly, not true, so I would ask her to withdraw.

Jacinta Ermacora: I am quoting the Age. I do not think that is a point of order.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (John Berger): Just for a point of clarification, Ms Ermacora, that was a CPA event, so there was no cost to the taxpayer. I will bring you back to your submission.

Jacinta ERMACORA: The very same investigation reported that six retiring Labor MPs had made no interstate travel claims before announcing their retirement, so if we are going to have a serious conversation about the moral high ground, then respecting taxpayers and the appropriate use of public money should absolutely be a part of it, because public money is a privilege. Victorians work hard for every dollar they earn, and they rightly expect public money to be spent in the service of the public. They do not expect it to fund an overseas trip on the eve of an MP’s retirement. That is why integrity cannot be reduced to political allegations or guilt by association. It must be grounded in evidence, proper process and consistent standards, and that is the approach the Carroll Labor government takes. When IBAC makes recommendations, we take them seriously. Following IBAC’s 2022 donations and lobbying special report, the government supported its lobbying recommendations in principle and referred the donations recommendations to the independent electoral review expert panel. I am almost out of time; I am still winding up here. Following the independent review, Parliament passed the Electoral Further Amendment Bill 2026. I could go on about IBAC’s Operation Richmond report, which was accepted; that work is underway. What we need to be very clear about here is that the moral high ground goes two ways, and you cannot apply it in one place and not in another.

 Georgie CROZIER (Southern Metropolitan) (14:12): There are a couple of comments that I would like to make in relation to Dr Mansfield’s motion. Basically it is looking at the integrity component of ministers and the government and looking at codes of conduct, and really I think there were some good points. I have not listened to all the debate, but I have picked up bits and pieces around the responsibilities we have as MPs when we are dealing with public moneys and dealing with people involved in various positions. Of course in government, when you are a minister of the Crown, you are dealing with a lot of people and you are making decisions on behalf of the Victorian taxpayer, and it should be up-front. There should be integrity, and that is I think what the taxpayer deserves. They deserve to understand exactly where taxpayer money is going. I note the comments around the ministerial code of conduct, which state:

… 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 …

I understand where Dr Mansfield is coming from with this. It is about not being bought and not being favoured. At times you do come across and meet people in your work. You might speak to them and they might say things that you agree with them on, and you are working through that. I know that I meet a lot of people, and I have never actually had so many stakeholders reach out to me. It is extraordinary. I think they, like the rest of the community, are so frustrated with this government and where they are going. It is about ensuring that we are up-front with them.

The motion 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, and goes on to talk about banning all gifts and introducing legislation. There are a few things that I do not quite agree with on this; I think this is going a bit far. We talk about the AFL. It is a great time for the state. It is a great part of our state, the AFL and the grand final. It signifies spring – that we are coming out of winter and all of those things and coming into the spring – with the racing carnival and the Melbourne Cup. It is a fantastic event. I know that there are some people in this chamber that do not agree with that. I certainly do. It is brilliant for the community, it is brilliant for the economy and it puts our state on the map. I, for one, am very, very supportive. The Brownlow Medal – I do not know about that. I look at it in the paper, and I am quite amused by some of the things I read and see when it is talking about the Brownlow Medal. I do think it is an opportunity for those AFL footballers, who are elite in their sport, to be able to come together to celebrate and to have the voting, if you like, for the best and fairest and to have a look at who it is decided wins that award. I have no problem with that at all. But I want to go back to this point that Dr Mansfield raises about ‘calls on the Premier to back up claims that integrity is not optional’.

I have been just flabbergasted by the Auditor-General’s report that has been tabled today, Delivering the Suburban Rail Loop, and the findings in this. If the Premier is fair dinkum about integrity, then he will come clean about what he has known around the secret tax that was applied on public transport fares. I am going off on a bit of a tangent, but I think it comes to the point about what the Premier said when he came to office, that integrity is not optional. I think the Premier has a lot to answer for, and I think there are many things that this government has to answer for. I will say more about this report in other opportunities, but I did want to say a little bit in terms of what Dr Mansfield has raised in her motion. I understand some of the intent and the motivations for it. I do not agree with it all, but I do think that all of us have a responsibility to manage taxpayers funds very carefully and to ensure that we are always, to the best of our knowledge, conducting ourselves with the highest of probity. That is what the community expect, and I think they have been severely let down, given the findings of not only today’s report but whether it be red shirts, whether it is Operation Richmond, whether it is any other number of scandals, or the Commonwealth Games – I mean, I could just go on. The list goes on. I just wanted to place a few words on the record.

 Sarah MANSFIELD (Western Victoria) (14:17): Well, that was pretty depressing. It looks like the non-optional integrity standards lasted less than a month for the Carroll Labor government. What a spectacular and telling attempt to deflect attention on all sides. In particular, it was interesting that Labor barely made a mention of the ministerial code of conduct, which was really the essence of this motion. I have to make a special mention of Mr Batchelor’s mind-boggling contribution. I really expected, I guess, a slightly more sophisticated argument for some reason. I have heard a lot of arguments about why we have a gambling crisis in this country. To blame gamblers themselves is really something else. Equating an individual gambler with – as somehow the same thing as – the gambling industry is like saying that having a Sportsbet account is the same as running Sportsbet or, let us use another analogy, like saying a smoker is somehow akin to the tobacco industry. The fact that this flimsy argument was the only arrow in his quiver I think really says everything. Gambling harm can only be addressed by regulating the industry itself, and the Greens have never wavered from this, ever. Harms from gambling are profound, and I talked about that in my previous contribution. It is astounding that neither party were willing to acknowledge that at all in their contributions today.

With respect to some of the comments made by Mr Mulholland, they were also rather outstanding, and perhaps more so since I think he would know that people are crying out for something better than what we are getting from Labor. All it would take is them giving up some of the perks and the free tickets to attend some of these events. He did not have a lot to say about the substance of this motion, making almost no mention of the ministerial code of conduct. He argued that accepting gifts and hospitality from the gambling industry is somehow an essential part of engagement. Putting aside the fact that he himself pointed out that these glitzy events do not really allow for proper engagement as you flit from one plate of hors d’oeuvres to the other, I fail to see how engagement has to take this form. What happened to organising a meeting in one of the many offices that ministers have? Or, if that is too hard, have a meeting over Zoom – make a phone call. Let us also acknowledge the fact that this is the Minister for Casino, Gaming and Liquor Regulation attending sporting events. He is not the sports minister, he is the gambling minister. If it is that important that you attend these events, buy your own ticket. What better way would there be to support these events than to buy your own ticket?

Refusing hospitality and gifts from an industry a minister is charged with regulating is not hostility, it is actually just a requirement under the ministerial code of conduct. This requirement exists for a reason. There is a very real conflict of interest that arises, because these things do have a powerful influence over behaviour. It is called the reciprocity effect, and it has been well studied. It is where even small gifts have been shown to trigger a psychological sense of mutual obligation or reciprocity. There is a vast body of evidence showing how the pharmaceutical industry exploits this to influence doctors’ prescribing habits. They give them stationery and morning teas and dinners, and they are more likely to prescribe that company’s drugs.

Even if Victorian Labor ministers have special psychological immunity from any such forces, what has been lost here is that even the perception of a conflict of interest is profoundly damaging for democracy. People’s faith in government and institutions is at rock bottom right now, and no wonder why. We only have to look at the display we have seen here today in this chamber to see why. It is actually frightening how normalised corporate lobbying has become for Labor and the Liberals and the lengths that they will go to to distract from it and excuse the behaviour.

Mr Mulholland asked what a Greens government might do. I will tell you what we would do. We would actually put the interests of the community first, and we would not be accepting lavish gifts from industries we were charged with regulating in the name of so-called engagement. I say that with full confidence and sincerity as someone who has seen the harm from gambling firsthand. We deserve so much better than what the major parties have shown here today. You should be ashamed of yourselves, and I am absolutely proud to be standing where I am over here.

Council divided on motion: