Wednesday, 18 October 2023
Committees
Select Committee on the 2026 Commonwealth Games Bid
Committees
Select Committee on the 2026 Commonwealth Games Bid
Premier
The ACTING SPEAKER (Meng Heang Tak) (15:17): I have received a message from the Legislative Council requesting that the Legislative Assembly grant leave to the Premier the Honourable Jacinta Allan to appear before the Legislative Council Select Committee on the 2026 Commonwealth Games Bid to provide evidence in her capacity as the former Minister for Commonwealth Games Delivery.
Ordered that message be taken into consideration immediately.
That this house refuses to grant leave to the Premier the Honourable Jacinta Allan to appear before the Legislative Council Select Committee on the 2026 Commonwealth Games Bid to provide evidence in her capacity as the former Minister for Commonwealth Games Delivery.
Sam GROTH (Nepean) (15:19): This is a historic day for this state, a time when the Premier of this state, the former Minister for Commonwealth Games Delivery, has been asked – now formally, through a motion in the other place – to front the Commonwealth Games inquiry, an inquiry into something this state, because of the performance of this government, should be utterly ashamed of. The Commonwealth Games was supposed to be, by the government’s own admission, something that delivered for regional Victoria. It was something that the government had plans to deliver in 2026. Evidenced by what we have seen already in the upper house inquiry, what the government has said is a stark contradiction of those members that have appeared in front of the inquiry so far.
We know that the now Premier in her role as the Minister for Commonwealth Games Delivery has been the chief architect in botching the 2026 Commonwealth Games, which has absolutely trashed this state’s reputation and has torched close to $600 million of taxpayer funds. We know that as far back as late 2022 and early 2023 the government was made aware and the minister was made aware on many occasions that the cost of delivering the Commonwealth Games was not the $2.6 billion that they stated but was pushing upwards of $4.5 billion. We know that the Department of Jobs, Skills, Industry and Regions (DJSIR) had briefed and put budget submissions to the government outlining a more than $2 billion cost. We know that the business case advised against delivering a regional games and advised that if they were going to deliver it, it would need to be done in a three-city capacity. The government decided to move ahead with a five-city games with multiple extra sports, a games that, through everything that we have heard so far in the inquiry, was never, ever possible to deliver. We know that the government continues to spruik a cost blowout somewhere in the range of $6 billion and $7 billion, with $2 billion of additional costs allocated to the Office of the Commonwealth Games, and we know that the CEO – or former CEO now that has been shut down – of the Office of the Commonwealth Games admits that he had never, ever seen that $2 billion in additional cost blowouts before.
We on this side of the house fully support the motion that has come down to bring the now Premier up in front of this inquiry. Yes, we know that she has been formally requested to do so and that previously she has said that she will not, but it is the right thing to do. It is early on in this Premier’s tenure, it is early on in her time leading this state, and I think when the former Premier left we all had some level of optimism that things might change here in Victoria and in this place and that we might actually see something different, but from what we have seen over the last month it is just more of the same. It is the status quo. It is just a continuation of what has happened previously. The Premier has the opportunity to come and set the record straight. She has refused, and now a motion moved in the upper house, in the other place, has once again asked that she come and front this committee.
If we look at the evidence that has been provided to the committee so far, it is in stark contrast to what the Premier has said numerous times in this place – and numerous times in this place over the last few weeks. We had an assertion from the Department of Treasury and Finance that the Office of the Commonwealth Games, which I mentioned, was responsible for the $2 billion blowout. That was ignored by the Premier earlier this week. We had claims from Visit Victoria that the cancellation of the Commonwealth Games in 2026 has actually enhanced Victoria’s reputation somehow internationally.
A member interjected.
Sam GROTH: It actually is like something out of Utopia. It is unbelievable to think that you can go and cancel a major event and it is somehow going to enhance the reputation of this state. We know that there was $600,000 in marketing to spruik about delivering a games like no other – a games that will never be delivered. The now Premier fronted the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee on 13 June and finished delivering her evidence just after 10 am. We know that at around 11 am the Premier was already engaging with lawyers to go ahead with the cancellation of the Commonwealth Games. Not even an hour had passed after the now Premier finished delivering her evidence at PAEC –
A member: It’s just a stunt.
Sam GROTH: ‘It’s just a stunt’ is right. That is what the Commonwealth Games were. They were a stunt by those on that side of the house to deliver in seats like those on the other side – a swimming pool in Barwon South that was not required. It was in complete stark contrast to the business case. The business case never spoke about delivering some of the projects that were being delivered.
A member: They made it up as they went along.
Sam GROTH: They absolutely made it up as they went along. There were projects in the business case like delivering the swimming at Kardinia Park. It was something that the city of Geelong, in the business case, wanted to go ahead. They did not want to put the swimming at Armstrong Creek, which was a temporary facility to be moved away. At 11 am, less than an hour after the now Premier gave evidence to the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee, the Department of Premier and Cabinet (DPC) briefed on the cost blowouts of the games, even though the Premier, or the now Premier, had said, ‘Things are moving ahead. We are making tremendous progress’.
In recent times, on the time line, Tim Ada testified to the committee that on numerous occasions he had briefed the now Premier, the minister at the time, on cost blowouts. In March they had delivered advice that there were cost blowouts of up to $2 billion as early as March. The Premier, based on evidence we have heard so far at the inquiry, was given briefings as frequently as fortnightly, if not more regularly, on where the costings were at for the Commonwealth Games. The Premier has stood in this place and misled this Parliament on a number of occasions with what she has said around when she knew about the cost blowouts. The Premier has said they became aware of cost blowouts in the weeks leading up to the cancellation. Between her time at PAEC on 13 June and when the games were cancelled on 18 July, in the weeks leading up, is when they became aware of cost blowouts. So you are saying that either the Premier has an issue with the facts and the numbers that she is aware of and those time lines or it is the department, who on numerous occasions put in requests for extra budget and who briefed on budget blowouts repeatedly.
You have got Victoria 2026 with Peggy O’Neal and Jeroen Weimar, and Peggy O’Neal writing to the Minister for Commonwealth Games Delivery to let her know that they could not deliver the games within the scope needed with the budget that was allocated and to request more funds. In February they requested upwards of $700 million. In April they requested more money, and there was a formal budget submission that was not even looked at by this government prior to the cancellation. It was just left sitting there. We know that Peggy O’Neal met with the Premier – the now Premier – after lawyers had already been engaged. Did the now Premier have the decency to let Peggy O’Neal know that they had engaged lawyers and that they had sent them over to London? Did they have the decency to let her know that they had engaged with lawyers and had plans to cancel the Commonwealth Games? Absolutely not. It is not going very well.
Victorians deserve answers. They deserve accountability from this government. We had hopes that that was what would happen under this new government – we had hopes. They deserve answers, and they deserve for the now Premier, as requested formally in the other place today in the motion by those members of the committee of the inquiry, to attend the inquiry. The Premier refuses, and I will note this is not the first time this has ever happened here in this Parliament. Multiple times this has been requested. This is not something new. In 2007 this house, the Assembly, granted leave for the then Minister for Consumer Affairs to appear before the Legislation Committee. In 2007 this house granted leave for that. In the 55th Parliament, between 2003 and 2006, this house granted leave for a minister to attend meetings of the Council’s Legislation Committee. This is not something new; this has happened previously.
Sam GROTH: I like the fact that the member for South Barwon kept collecting his pay cheque even after the Commonwealth Games had been cancelled. He is very, very chirpy over there because his bank account continued to tick up and up and up for weeks after the Commonwealth Games had been cancelled. If you want to talk about accountability, feel free to keep interjecting.
We also know that at least two weeks prior to the cancellation date of 18 July DPC had sent someone over and requested a formal meeting with CGF, with the Commonwealth Games Federation, and when the Commonwealth Games Federation asked what the meeting was about there was no response. If the decision was only made in the days leading up to 18 July and the cost pressures only became apparent in the weeks leading up to 18 July, why did DPC request a meeting with the Commonwealth Games Federation after engaging with lawyers two weeks prior to the cancellation and then, when asked why, provide no response? There was silence, absolute silence.
A member: Well worth it.
Sam GROTH: It was well worth it. It is incredible. Throughout the whole process so far there have been serious revelations about the now Premier’s version of events. The department came in and said that they made the government aware of cost blowouts in March – $4.5 billion was what they were told in March that the Commonwealth Games would cost. When the department was told to go away and rework the figures to find a cheaper way to do it and they came back with a number of $4.2 billion, the government completely ignored it, went to the budget and continued to tell Victorians that the games could be delivered for $2.6 billion.
I do not see how you can have multiple departments and organisations – DJSIR, the Office of the Commonwealth Games, the organising committee – continually briefing the then Minister for Commonwealth Games Delivery on a cost blowout and the now Premier can sit in this place and tell everybody that she did not become aware of the cost blowouts until the weeks leading up. It just does not make sense. The Victoria 2026 organising committee asked for $722 million in February.
A member: Just go to the select committee and explain yourself.
Sam GROTH: That would be the easy thing to do. The easy thing to do would be just to front up. The Premier will say, ‘I gave my evidence at PAEC. I fronted PAEC.’ It does not exactly align, the evidence that was given with what we now know. But even if you want to talk about the ability for the members of PAEC to get the correct information, those on this side had roughly 20 minutes, if they were lucky, to ask the Premier questions. There were Dorothy Dixers throughout PAEC, questions lined up, to make sure that the now Premier was able to just speak it out and talk about the tremendous progress in not being able to deliver yet another project on budget. It is –
A member: Outrageous is what it is.
Sam GROTH: It is outrageous. This house has an important motion to debate. It has been sent down, and this house should vote to do the right thing. Those on the other side have the chance to do the right thing. They have the chance to stand up for what is right. They have the chance to show that they support transparency – because there are many people in here whose communities are now missing out. They are now going to miss out.
Members interjecting.
The SPEAKER: Order! The member will be heard in silence.
Sam GROTH: Thank you, Speaker. Look, there is no doubt the evidence we have heard in front of the inquiry so far –
John Pesutto: It’s damning.
Sam GROTH: It is damning, Leader of the Opposition. The time lines do not add up. The evidence does not add up. The Department of Treasury and Finance’s evidence does not match the evidence of the Office of the Commonwealth Games. The Office of the Commonwealth Games’s evidence does not match that of DJSIR. DJSIR’s evidence does not match that of the Premier. The Premier’s evidence does not match any of the evidence given by those above in any way, shape or form.
The only common factor across all of these and the only person that had a finger in this right from the start is the then Minister for Commonwealth Games Delivery, the now Premier. She is the only one who had, right from the start, a finger in every single part of this. She needs to come clean about exactly when she knew the Commonwealth Games were in trouble and why she has continually misled Victorians. When did she know about the blowouts? Why didn’t she announce them? Why didn’t she tell anyone? What were the dates? She needs to front the inquiry. This motion has come down. It is an important motion. It is important for the Premier to front up to this inquiry. You have the ability to tell Victorians what happened.
The SPEAKER: Order! The use of the word ‘you’ is a reflection on the Chair. Through the Chair.
Sam GROTH: My apologies, Speaker. Those on the other side of the chamber have the ability to not use their numbers to block this motion. The majority of the other place sent this here for a reason. They sent it because they believe it is important enough that this state knows exactly what has happened with the time lines and the costs and what the Premier knew around the Commonwealth Games cancellation. The Victorian people need and deserve the truth. They deserve the truth around what the Premier knew and when she knew it. Did she know about the $2 billion blowout? Did she know that $2 billion in additional costs is a number that according to evidence has just been made up? Did she know that the games could not be delivered? When did she know? When did she know the Commonwealth Games could not be delivered? Time and time again we know this government has a real issue with transparency when it comes to decisions and it comes to costings and it comes to the delivery of projects. Did she know the lawyers had been in again? Well, we do not think she did. We do not think the –
Anthony Carbines: On a point of order, Speaker, I remind members of the house to refer to other members by their correct titles. Thank you for your consideration.
The SPEAKER: The member for Bentleigh included.
Sam GROTH: Thank you, Speaker. I will take note of that, do not worry. I think what is also important is that you look at, for example, the Premier’s own electorate, the people in Bendigo. Now, we went around – the member for Caulfield when he held the shadow portfolio for the Commonwealth Games – we went to Bendigo. We went to Ballarat. We went to Geelong. We went to all of the places that were supposed to be receiving the benefit of hosting the Commonwealth Games, and they had no idea. They had no idea that this was going to happen. They had no idea a cancellation was on the cards. They were not engaged with.
I also find it extremely challenging to think that the Premier will talk about only having knowledge of the blowouts in the weeks leading up when you have got the secretary of the department saying ‘Yes, we knew, we knew’. I also find it challenging to think that they got a business case put to them – there was a business case put to them that was not even looked at by the state’s tourism, marketing and major events body. It was not even looked at. They did not look at the business case. How does our tourism body, Visit Victoria, not look at the business case? How did they not engage with the regions? Was that a directive – for them to not look at it, to not analyse it properly, to not go out to the regions?
I mean, I am sure that the committee running this inquiry have a number of questions they would like answered. I think the Victorian public deserves to have those questions answered, and this place and those members of the government should not use their numbers to block transparency, to block the truth coming out, to block the now Premier fronting that inquiry. It is the right thing to do. Whether there is precedent, whether it is the standing orders of this house or whether it is all those things, it is the right thing to do. It is the right thing to do. And there is precedent in this place. This house has the ability to decide whether the Premier will front up. You will use your numbers to block –
The SPEAKER: Order! Member for Nepean, through the Chair.
Sam GROTH: Those on the other side – members of the government, this house – will use their numbers to block.
A member: It’s not in the standing orders.
Sam GROTH: Those standing orders in the past have been granted leave – this house has granted leave previously for members to appear, as have other parliaments within the Westminster system. In New South Wales we have seen it – under ‘Members of the Assembly’ a council committee can:
… formally invite … attendance of a member of the Assembly … by way of message to the Assembly …
It has been done on numerous occasions. It has been done here on numerous occasions. It has been done here.
Members interjecting.
The SPEAKER: Order! Member for Frankston, you are not in your place.
Sam GROTH: It has the opportunity to ask the Premier to come clean, to tell Victorians the truth, to tell those people in Geelong, to tell those people in Ballarat and to tell those people in Bendigo, in Shepparton and out in Gippsland – to tell them why they will no longer be hosting the Commonwealth Games. There are questions about the saleyards in Ballarat. There are questions about the costs. There are questions about the Premier’s time lines around when to pull out. There are questions about when lawyers were engaged, when they were not engaged, when the Premier knew.
James Newbury: What other questions?
Sam GROTH: What other questions? There are so many questions. We know that the Commonwealth Games Australia CEO knew there were problems, that the original plan to host the games in regional Victoria blew out in costs and they ran into trouble. This government ran into trouble by playing to local politics in the run-up to an election. If you were aware of cost blowouts from the department, if you were aware of the cost blowouts back in late 2022 and early 2023, and you were advised of them in fortnightly briefings you were given, just stand up –
The SPEAKER: Order! Member for Nepean, I was not advised. If you continue to use ‘you’, you are reflecting on the Chair. I am sure you do not mean to, but try to keep your comments about ‘you’ to yourself.
Sam GROTH: Thank you, Speaker. I appreciate that. The Premier has claimed she is not one to cut and run. She is not one to cut and run when challenges get hard, but at the moment that is exactly what she is doing. If this house votes this motion down, when the challenges get hard the Premier is cutting and running. She is not fronting up to the debacle that has been the Commonwealth Games cancellation, and when you think about all of the things that this Premier has bungled – when you think about Melbourne Airport rail, Geelong fast rail, West Gate Tunnel, Suburban Rail Loop and now the Commonwealth Games – the financial mismanagement of this government and the projects that the Premier has touched, for some reason this is the one that has stuck with Victorians. It is the one that they were really looking forward to. Victoria is broke. It is getting harder and harder for Victorians, and now this government is wasting $380 million to cancel the games, $550 million-plus and rising to cancel the games. It is the right thing to do. Front up to the inquiry. This house should support this motion. Those on this side of the house will be supporting this motion because it is the right thing to do.
A member:We believe in integrity.
Sam GROTH: We do believe in integrity on this side, absolutely we do, and we do not wait for someone to leave before we start pushing matters of integrity forward. We support this motion. The Premier needs to front up. She needs to come clean. Those members on this side of the house fully support this motion.
Michaela SETTLE (Eureka) (15:49): I am following Inspector Clouseau there. We had some wonderful points of moment by moment what has gone on. The member for Nepean might not respect the Westminster system, but those of us on this side do. He talks about precedents. Let us talk about precedents. On this side of the house the Labor government has been in power for quite a few terms. I was looking through when this has been used in the past. The only time that it has been requested in the last 40 years is while we have been in Parliament, so basically, it is one of their stunts. It is their continuing, continuing stunt. The reason I think that it is a stunt, and why I find it so extraordinary, is that I have sat in this house all week and listened to the questions during question time be put to the Premier, and she has answered each and every one of them. So my question is: does the member for Nepean think that in fact David Davis is a better questioner than the Leader of the Opposition? Is this a sign that you have no faith in the Leader of the Opposition?
The SPEAKER: The member for Eureka shall refer to members as ‘in the other place’.
Michaela SETTLE: Certainly. We are looking basically at a stunt when we have had the Premier – and previously when she was the minister – answer these questions again and again and again in this chamber. What we are trying to do here is break what is a basic Westminster tradition, which is that we have a separation of the two houses. Now, the expert on the Westminster tradition, the member for Nepean, likes to talk about the fact that there have been precedents. As I said, they are precedents that have come as requests from the other side, but within those precedents when that permission is given it is always with ‘if they think fit’, so it remains the prerogative of the minister that is being required.
I personally think that adhering to the Westminster system and the separation is incredibly important. I was lucky enough to attend the Commonwealth Parliamentary Conference in Ghana just a couple of weeks ago, and one of the things we talked about there was the importance of what in this case they referred to as the Latimer House Principles. The Latimer House Principles refer to the separation of the different branches of government and jurisdictions, but what we are talking about here in the Westminster system is making sure that we keep separate the two houses, and that is an incredibly important principle. Erskine May: Parliamentary Practice, which I believe we can find sitting by the clerks, is the tome to which everyone refers for the Westminster system. It most recently, in 1989, found that:
The underlying rationale is the desire to avoid conflict between the two Houses. It means that a member of one House, in respect of what he says –
‘he or she’ it should say –
or does as a member of that House, is not accountable to the other House.
This is an incredibly important separation of the two houses and not something that one should fly in the face of or turn into a political stunt. I think that we should really be looking to uphold it. As I say, in the 11 years that we were in opposition – 11 out of 41 – we never tried to contest this important principle. But as I say, the Premier has answered these questions –
James Newbury: On a point of order, Speaker, on relevance and just to assist, a former Labor minister, Minister Robinson, did agree to just such a motion in this house in 2007.
The SPEAKER: That is not a point of order.
Michaela SETTLE: Thank you. It is not a point of order. And did they include the words ‘as they think fit’? I think they would have, because that, again, is the convention.
Moving on, after Inspector Clouseau’s long list of questions that he would like answered, I put to him that we have a very robust house. We have a very robust process which is known as question time, and again and again those on the other side have had the opportunity to ask just those questions, and again and again the Premier has answered those questions frankly and fully. It can only be a stunt. Or perhaps David Davis in the other house has always had aspirations for leadership. Maybe this is some sort of an early step in trying to get a crack, because otherwise why is it that question time is not sufficient for the Leader of the Opposition? They ask these questions, the Premier answers them, and now they want someone else to ask the questions.
I think that it is incredibly important that we continue to stand by some very important principles, exclusive cognisance being the bedrock of the Westminster system. We stand by that, but more than that, perhaps if they would just like to listen to the Premier instead of yapping on the other side of the table, they might find out that she has answered each and every question.
David SOUTHWICK (Caulfield) (15:55): If the Premier has nothing to hide, then the Premier should simply front this committee. The Premier is simply hiding from her responsibility to explain to the Victorian taxpayers why this money has been wasted and why she mismanaged her portfolio prior to becoming the Premier. This is the Premier that was responsible for the delivery of the Commonwealth Games which have been non-delivered. They have been cancelled. The cost has blown out from $2 billion to $6 billion. Victorian taxpayers are none the wiser in terms of how this cost blew out. Question after question has been put to the minister, and the minister, who is now the Premier, has failed to respond. What we are requesting here in this house is simply for the Premier to front up before this committee and explain what has happened and why taxpayers money has been wasted. Why have we got more blowouts? If the Premier has got nothing to hide, the Premier should front up. It is very simple. It is very, very simple.
We hear the government members talking about there being no precedent, that we cannot do this, that we cannot compel. We know that in 2007 Labor minister Robinson was compelled by a Labor government to front up to a Legislative Council committee, so it has been done before and it can be done again. We are seeing the government lacking in transparency, lacking in integrity. This is the very government that wants to put up an integrity bill to talk about integrity and to consult on integrity, but they want to hide their Premier from fronting up and dealing with integrity. I mean, this is the most loose government we have ever seen.
Members interjecting.
The SPEAKER: Member for Eureka, you had your turn.
David SOUTHWICK: This is a government that is all focused on themselves and not on the Victorian taxpayer. If there is ever an example of how taxpayers money has been literally wasted, it is the Commonwealth Games. The Minister for Commonwealth Games Delivery, who is now the Premier for Victoria, is hiding behind this motion.
We heard in the Legislative Council that not just the Liberals and Nationals but a number of parties voted to say ‘Come forward and tell us what happened. Don’t tell this Parliament, but tell the Victorian taxpayer why their money has been wasted’, and the Premier is now hiding. The Premier is now running from this very thing that she was so proud to talk about prior to the cancellation. She was literally cutting ribbons on pre-emptive works. She was running out and saying, ‘Look at this Commonwealth Games. It is fantastic. It’s the best thing since sliced bread.’ And then what happens? She hides, she says, ‘I’m not going near it. Please, I’m hiding.’
It is very simple. This is a committee that the government did not want to form in the first place. We had a precedent in which unanimously the Council voted to say, we want transparency, we want the truth – show us the truth – and what has happened again? The Premier is running as far as she possibly can from it. The Premier, the member for Bendigo East, has let down her very own electorate, promising a Commonwealth Games and running away from it, and now we talk about legacy, now we talk about housing – a lot of the stuff you would not build in the first place.
This is the Premier and her first legacy since becoming the Premier is cancelling the games, wasting taxpayers money and not fronting up to the public, not fronting up and showing why this money has been wasted, where the $4 billion has been blown out to. Where is the budget? Where is the detail? This has all been made up. Every single project the Premier touched when she was the minister blew out – $30 billion blown out, Commonwealth Games cancelled, no detail. $2.8 billion to $6 billion overnight, no detail. The Premier needs to front up. If the Premier wants –
The SPEAKER: Order! The time to interrupt business for the matter of public importance has arrived. The member for Caulfield will have the call when the matter is next before the chair.
Business interrupted under sessional orders.