Wednesday, 18 October 2023

Committees

Select Committee on the 2026 Commonwealth Games Bid

Premier

Debate resumed.

David SOUTHWICK (Caulfield) (18:02): I want to return to the matter of ensuring that the Premier fronts the select committee and comes clean when it comes to the waste and mismanagement of the Commonwealth Games. This is absolutely vital. This is so important. It comes to the core of a government that wastes and mismanages taxpayers money. If you ever wanted an example of how Labor cannot manage money, you only have to look at the Commonwealth Games debacle. It is an absolute disgrace. It is such a mess.

We have had so many changes in this – more changes than you would see at a Taylor Swift concert. Seriously, this has changed so many times. It was a Commonwealth Games that was going to be for some in the regions, excluding Shepparton when Shepparton was part of the initial bid to put on the Commonwealth Games in the first place. Then the government magically said ‘We’d better include Shepparton as well’. What we saw was so many regions: it expanded, it grew. Why? There was no plan. There was no vision. There was no detail when it comes to the money, and ultimately taxpayers are paying for this mess. That is why it is so important that the Premier fronts the committee and explains why $600 million has already been wasted and why $2 billion is going to be wasted for games we are not going to deliver.

We have had the Premier front up and say on numerous occasions that this was something of a bipartisan nature, that this was bipartisan, that we agreed to deliver the games, to cancel the games and to pay out money for the cancellation. Wouldn’t it be wonderful if we had that amount of power? But I tell you what, the government has got the chequebook, the government has also got the phone call to the lawyers and the government has got their finger in the pie of this and their hand in the taxpayers pocket. That is what the government has got. And who is leading the charge? It is the former Minister for Commonwealth Games Delivery, who has been elevated because she did such a wonderful job with the Commonwealth Games delivery portfolio on top of the major projects portfolio, which had $30 billion of waste and mismanagement. We have wasted taxpayers money. Every single project that this Premier has touched has ended up with waste, mismanagement and blowouts. We also have the Suburban Rail Loop. That was initially a $50 billion project that has blown out to $200 billion. We have all of this kind of back-of-the-envelope stuff.

What really annoys me and many people that I speak to is when people are doing it really tough – they see their energy bills going through the roof, they cannot afford to put food on the table – and they see a government with just absolutely not a care in the world. ‘Yes, we will cut a cheque for the cancellation of the games, and you know what, we’ll spend the $2 billion to deliver sporting infrastructure for a games we are not going to deliver into the regions.’ If you were going to do this in the first place, which is all about delivering vital legacy to the regions, you would not have done it in the way that it is being done now. So we are spending $2 billion of taxpayers money not to deliver the games. We are spending $600 million to cancel the games. There is no detail about how the Commonwealth Games blew out from $2 billion to $6 billion. Hang on, the former Premier said it was $6 billion to $7 billion, so we do not even know where the magical billion dollars has disappeared. Every time we hear it, a billion here, a million there, and you know what: who pays for this mess? Taxpayers pay for it. That is why it is absolutely crucial for the Premier to front.

If the Premier has got nothing to hide, she should simply front the committee, explain it all, bring the plans, bring the details, bring the legal advice, bring who spoke to who, when, how and what. Ultimately, we would all be wiser, but that is not going to happen. This has been the most secretive, corrupt government that we have ever seen. And now we have a Premier that has taken over, and she has had a perfect opportunity to be different than the former Premier Andrews. It could have been very, very different. She could have said, ‘You know what, I’m going to be transparent. I’m going to stand up and front the committee.’ This committee was unanimously voted on by the upper house because they wanted to get to the bottom of the blowouts, get to the bottom of the race, get to the bottom of all of this, and what happened? Up in smoke. No wonder we are broke. No wonder we have the most debt, more than every other state. No wonder we are paying more taxes, because ultimately, when Victoria ends up losing to this hopeless government, taxpayers end up paying. And that is why the Premier needs to front the inquiry.

Nick STAIKOS (Bentleigh) (18:07): The government opposes this motion, and the government opposes this motion because –

John Pesutto: Because they are opposed to accountability.

Nick STAIKOS: No, the government opposes this motion because it is longstanding convention that members of the Assembly cannot be compelled by members of the upper house. That is fact. This is therefore nothing more than a stunt. I am glad that the member for Nepean is back at the table because I was here for your 30 minutes, and let me tell you, sometimes celebrity candidates are not all they are cracked up to be. They come in with all sorts of promise. I understand this guy was on Postcards, but he forgot his cue cards today. It is not easy without an autocue, is it?

James Newbury: On a point of order, Speaker, on relevance, the question before the Chair is the motion to not have the Premier attend the upper house committee. I would ask the member to come back to that question. No-one will ever, ever not know who he is. I am absolutely sure that he does not have to –

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: This has been a wide debate already, and I would hope we can all continue to keep to form. The member for Bentleigh to continue on the motion.

Nick STAIKOS: Frankly, a contribution on this motion need not be lengthy because it is clear-cut. Now, the opposition do not have a leg to stand on on this issue because the opposition did support Victoria hosting the Commonwealth Games and the opposition also supported Victoria withdrawing from the Commonwealth Games. Those are the facts. Just because now they dedicate every single question they have in question time to this issue – they are out of step with the rest of Victoria. Nobody in my electorate is asking about the Commonwealth Games. The member for Caulfield in his contribution talked about energy bills. Indeed, the people of Victoria are asking about their energy bills. That is why this government is bringing back the SEC, and the Premier is focused on bringing back the SEC and addressing the housing crisis. These ostriches have their heads in the sand on what the issues are to the people of Victoria. It is not the Commonwealth Games. That issue is behind us. The Premier is focused on the issues that matter to Victorians. We oppose this motion.

James NEWBURY (Brighton) (18:10): I rise to speak on this motion and speak with deep concern that the government would be using its numbers to block what should be an opportunity for the Premier to come clean, attend the Council committee hearing and speak to the truth, speak to what occurred and most of all speak to how taxpayers money was spent. Today in the debate in this chamber we have heard much from the government about precedent, so let me start by talking about precedent and Westminster principles, because this is an issue that I have certainly been fighting on weekly in this place, and I have never once heard the government speak to Westminster principles.

The former Labor government allowed in 2007 one of their ministers to go to the Council and present, on request of the Council, to a Council committee hearing – a Labor minister in 2007. So for the government to come in today and say that there has been no circumstance where the Westminster principle has allowed a member of this place to go to the Council, all that tells me is they are either hiding the fact or they have not looked through the books. It is probably both. It only happened 15 years ago, and it happened when a Labor minister did it. It was not a Liberal minister, it was a Labor minister. The former government had one of their own ministers go to the Council, and in that circumstance it was right.

What is interesting in this debate is that members on that side of the chamber have spoken about these motions being new, and I have just mentioned one example where a Labor minister went to the other place. There is another example where the Council requested the appearance of a minister. Who would that have been? Who would that have been some five years ago? The current Premier. And guess what happened in that circumstance? The Labor government used their numbers to block it. So this Premier has form, because it has happened twice. This Premier has used the numbers of the government to stop any sense of accountability about her behaviour as a minister and now as Premier.

It is outrageous. It is absolutely outrageous to think that a minister would not want to be forthcoming with how they are spending other people’s money. It is not their money. We always hear Labor talking about how they spend money. It ain’t their money. Someone has worked hard for that money. It has then been taxed. It has then gone into the government coffers. Every dollar that is in a government coffer has the sweat of a hard-earning Victorian on it. It is something that this government has no idea about. I have never heard the government talking about that ever. The former Premier – I never once heard him respect the fact that money was earned before it ended up in the taxpayer coffers.

We have a motion that has been put to this house that provides the Premier with the opportunity to show that this new government will have a degree of integrity, and that more than anything is what this is about. The details of who knew what when are absolutely critical – of course they are. But more than that, this motion is about one thing: this is a test of the new Premier’s integrity. That is what this is about. This is a test of integrity, and on the first hurdle the Premier has failed. What is more outrageous than that is that yesterday the Premier dropped to the newspaper the fact that the government would be consulting on new parliamentary integrity measures – 24 hours ago – and 24 hours later we have a test of integrity that the government is using its numbers to block this. It is extraordinary. Here is the first material example of where the Premier can show her integrity. That is all that Victorians would ask for. The committee would show the Premier the respect that someone in her position deserves – of course the committee would. The committee would treat her with respect, would consider and raise matters that every Victorian deserves to understand and know about and would ask in a methodical fashion questions you would expect a Premier to have consistent answers to who knew what when and how much was spent. These are not hard questions. They are not unreasonable questions. Within 24 hours of dropping to the media that this government are consulting on how to have more integrity in this place, they are using their own numbers to block that from happening. It just shows you that actions always speak louder than words.

What is so egregious to me is that it is not the first example of where this member has used their numbers to block appearing and having a degree of accountability for their work – it is the second. There are so few examples of where the Council considers a member being called to appear before a committee. It has happened so irregularly in the history of this Parliament – and of course it would, because you would only as a Parliament use that power sparingly. The Council has considered this matter today and said, by a strong majority – not a majority of one, but a strong majority – ‘Premier, please come to our place and please answer questions in relation to a matter’. It was a polite request, where the committee will be respectful and would just ask the Premier about their own work and about the work that she did, when she did it, how much money was spent and when the decisions were made. I note the Deputy Premier has come to the table. I am going to be very interested to see if he is the next speaker to defend the Premier. I am waiting to see if he is the next speaker. Will he be the next speaker to defend the Premier?

Let the record show, as I was saying, that there are almost no instances in a Parliament where the Council requests the appearance of a minister – very, very few examples. There have been three that I am aware of in 20 years – it happens very, very irregularly – and the last two were requests of the same person, the Premier. In the first instance the government used their numbers to gag it: no, not going. Labor used their numbers to gag it, and today we know – the government have already confirmed – that they intend to do the same. I would suspect that the Premier is the only person in this place to have ever denied the request of the Council twice. I could be wrong – I would be happy to be proven wrong – but I am sure that it is the only time a member has twice refused that request. How extraordinary. What a test, and failed test, of character. What a failed test of integrity. Imagine going down in the history books as twice having failed to be accountable for what you do as a minister and the way you spend taxpayers money. What a shameful entry into a career. The Premier I would like to think is better than that – a long-term member of this place. It is disappointing to think that twice now this member has refused. As I finish my contribution, as I said, I look forward to seeing whether the Deputy Premier will stand and explain and defend the Premier’s character, because this Premier has been proven to lack integrity.

Iwan WALTERS (Greenvale) (18:21): It is still a pleasure to rise to contribute following that bloviating contribution of sound and fury, as I was saying.

James Newbury: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, I apologise, I thought the Deputy Premier stood to speak. Was that wrong? Was the Deputy Premier seeking to speak?

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member for Greenvale has the call.

Iwan WALTERS: Before I was so rudely interrupted by the member for Brighton and the member for South-West Coast I was going to say – and I am coming in at this point of the debate to make the point – that the Premier has been delivering for regional Victoria since 1999 and for our entire state as Deputy Premier and Premier. The reason that is relevant is because the Premier is in her post because she commands the confidence of this house and she commands the unanimous support of our party, hence her position. The reason I want to talk about that is because it touches on the doctrine of exclusive cognisance – not cognitive dissonance, which is what the opposition leader brings to bear every single time he asks questions about legal fees and other such things. Now, of course he would not really understand the nature of exclusive cognisance. Those Tories opposite probably want to have a Premier in the upper house – Lord Salisbury, David Davis, whoever it might be. They would not be familiar with the concept of having a Premier from the lower house, because they are still stuck in the 19th century.

This is a stunt. The Premier has answered each and every single question that she has been asked on this matter, and the Leader of the Opposition has been chortling away very rudely throughout this entire contribution. It is an indictment of the quality of his questions if he has not received answers to them. If he has to seek a stunt of a motion to try and find answers to this rather than seek answers through his own questions, that is a shameful indictment of him and his party.

Sam HIBBINS (Prahran) (18:23): The Greens supported the motion in the other place for the Premier to appear before the Select Committee on the 2026 Commonwealth Games Bid. It is not about political pointscoring, it is about the principles of transparency and accountability. It is more than reasonable that the Premier appear to answer questions particularly about the decision-making process in regard to the Commonwealth Games. This was a major project. To put it bluntly, this was a pretty big deal when the government first announced it. I think some of us might have even baulked at just the initial price tag of the Commonwealth Games, but we were assured by the government that there were going to be significant benefits in relation to this project and it required the significant government money, time and energy that went into this project.

It is entirely appropriate now that the Commonwealth Games have been cancelled and that they have now effectively gone from being ‘the Commonwealth Games’ to only being referred to as ‘a 12-day sporting event’ that the Parliament be allowed to scrutinise what has occurred and why and where the money has gone and what has been the decision-making process and what were the actual benefits of this Commonwealth Games project. Certainly having seen just part of what has already occurred in terms of the select committee there is a need for even more scrutiny. We have just had a 1-hour appearance by two ministers responsible for delivering the legacy respectively, much of the time taken up by Dorothy Dixers from the government, with many relevant departments not being there or only getting to contribute when the minister called on them, so there is definitely a need for more scrutiny of the Commonwealth Games.

I also just finally want to touch on the argument put forward by the government in relation to the Westminster system – that somehow the differences between the two houses should mean that the Premier should not appear before a committee. This is false. It is already there within the standing orders for the upper house to request a member of the lower house to appear before a committee. Even the most cursory research would find that there are multiple examples with Westminster systems where you have actions by one member taken in another place. We have had Treasurers sit in the upper house and be requested to come to the lower house to deliver budget speeches. We have got upper house ministers in Tasmania regularly appearing before the lower house to answer questions in relation to their portfolios. I will just read you this line from a research paper on the federal Parliament’s website:

Furthermore, while members of the House of Representatives (including its ministers) are accountable (in the context of parliament) only in the House, and senators are accountable only to the Senate, there are provisions in the Standing Orders to enable minsters from one house appearing before the other or its committees.

This is a standard practice within Westminster governments. The two houses do interact. They may be separate in the passage of bills and other mechanisms, but they do interact and there are provisions for ministers to appear before committees of other houses. It is entirely consistent with the Westminster system. It is entirely appropriate in this instance for this house to have the Premier appear before the select committee on the Commonwealth Games, and I would urge the house to oppose this motion preventing the Premier from appearing.

Mary-Anne THOMAS (Macedon – Leader of the House, Minister for Health, Minister for Health Infrastructure, Minister for Ambulance Services) (18:27): I move:

That the question be now put.

James Newbury: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, the National Party have not had an opportunity to speak, and under the standing orders they are provided an opportunity to speak.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, member for Brighton. I understand your point of order. Standing order 155 does state that the minority does get a chance. You are correct; the National Party has not made a contribution. Could you assist the house in possibly informing your National Party colleagues that this would be a good chance for them to come to the house.

James Newbury: I am more than happy to do so, noting that the Leader of the National Party will want to speak and it will take him a moment to come up to the chamber.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, member for Brighton. The Leader of the House still has the call if she wishes, or has she concluded?

Mary-Anne THOMAS: I have asked that the question be put. I accept your advice, which is that the National Party take the opportunity to take the next call.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: We will continue on the motion for now.

Cindy McLEISH (Eildon) (18:28): We have a pretty interesting situation before us at the moment with regard to the highly promoted then sensationally dumped Commonwealth Games, and we are debating a motion that has come down to us from the Council. That motion was put forward by Mr Limbrick in the other place, and it says:

That this house requests that the Legislative Assembly grant leave to the Premier, the Honourable Jacinta Allan MP, 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.

I certainly support that motion and would expect that the Premier will in fact do that. But what we have also seen is the Minister for Government Services put forward a counter motion that is also part of this debate, so that tells me the government absolutely do not wish to debate this motion at all. There is a bit of a protection racket going on.

We do know that the current Premier was formerly the Minister for Commonwealth Games Delivery, and we would expect with a change of leader that there may be more transparency – greater openness – so that we understand a little bit more about what has been happening, because we were left in the dark a lot under the former Premier. When we heard the new Premier outside talking to the media and trying to present a different approach, I thought this might be a great opportunity for her to show that it is a different approach.

What we are requesting is not new either. We have had Treasurers from the other place who have come down here. We have had a former member for Mitcham Tony Robinson. He also came here, and he also participated. The Premier is integral to this inquiry, and I will tell you why: because we need to determine the extent to which the Premier’s fingerprints were all over the decisions that were made during the Commonwealth Games discussions and while it was actively being promoted, what decisions were being made at the time and also the decision to cancel. We need to know the real story about the costings. Was it a back-of-the-envelope method or was it Gold Coast plus a bit? I think it was Gold Coast plus a bit. I am not quite sure; there were a lot of blowouts. The Premier says from the $2.6 billion – Gold Coast plus a bit – it had gone out to $6 billion to $7 billion. We want to see that, because if it has blown to that extent, perhaps all other major projects that the Premier has touched previously have blown out to the same extent.

Has the minister been involved in extending the actual original scope? If the Commonwealth Games organising committee are given the budget to run the games, I reckon they could pretty much do that. But when the goalposts keep changing and when government keeps imposing new ideas – additional sports, for example, or maybe ‘We want to have the opening of the Commonwealth Games in Melbourne, not in Geelong, where they’re having the closing games’ – it would make a lot of sense to me if you had them in the one place so you do not have the additional costs of bumping in and bumping out. Was it decisions of the government like that that led to this blowout? These are things that we certainly need to know.

With regard to the cancellation, it is a little bit unclear exactly what the Premier’s involvement has been. When did she know? How much did she know? We heard evidence from Peggy O’Neal of the Victoria 2026 organising committee. She certainly seemed to be missing a bit of information. The Premier has been very fuzzy in any answers that she has given about any decisions. It is hard to understand exactly what has happened, and that is what she and the government want us to believe, because they do not want us to get the full story. What engagement did she have with the Commonwealth Games Federation? What was she telling them? Were they left in the dark, finding out at the last minute on the news? It seems that when the decision was made a lot of people had no idea it was coming. But we know the lawyers were involved, certainly for some period, probably doing more than just giving a little bit of advice: What is it going to be like to cancel it? What is this going to mean for us? How much are we going to be up for? That is just losing the games, not including the cost of the lawyers. We are not sure about that.

We have had this project, the Commonwealth Games, still without a home, going from $2.6 billion to now $6 billion to $7 billion. We need to understand absolutely what that means. We know where about $600 million has been spent, but there is an awful lot that we do not know. Personally, I would like to hear the Premier give her definition of a legacy and legacy projects because I am very sure that her definition is exceptionally different from mine. My definition of a legacy project is that you build or enhance something that is there in the longer term. It is not building a swimming pool and then pulling it down, which was what was on the cards – build a swimming pool and pull it down. That is not a legacy project, that is a waste of money when you could have a good legacy project at Kardinia Park, with the 50-metre indoor pool there, expanding and upgrading that to an international-standard facility. That would be a legacy for years to come for Geelong as a regional swimming centre – another hub, not just the sports and aquatics centre at Albert Park. This would have been a much better use of money – better value for money, I am sure of that – and a much better legacy than building something and tearing it down. We know that council in Ballarat were pretty keen to have a rail platform out there at Mars Stadium near the showgrounds.

Now, that made good sense to me because that is a great legacy project, because any games and things that happen out there could utilise this. It would get cars off the road; the congestion around the stadium and the showgrounds would be gone for all the events that happen there. That is a good legacy project, but they did not want to have a bar of that because they were too busy trying to build and pull down things in other areas. Gymnastics in Geelong – well, they were really excited about what might have been able to happen there, and I fear very much that this is now off the cards because, again, my idea of legacy projects is different from the government’s.

If you are expanding or enhancing a stadium that is going to be there for years to come, you do not need to put that full cost against the Commonwealth Games. So I want to hear: was the Premier intending to put the full cost of the stadium upgrade directly to that Commonwealth Games budget or was she going to amortise it over the years to come? Over a 30-year period only part of it should be to the Commonwealth Games budget and the rest should be part of the capital expenditure around the state. You know, the athletics track at Ballarat would have been a good one as well, not to mention the social housing and the excitement that cities around the state, the regional cities, had when they were thinking that this was going to help them with their social housing projects. It concerns me a little bit when the government talks about how they were going to be temporary, knock it down – again, that is not legacy. If you have a look at what has happened elsewhere or perhaps in some cities, they used university accommodation, which could have been looked at. But if we wanted to have that accommodation that was there in the future, they could have worked out a very easy design to have something that was used for the athletes and officials – a lot of athletes and officials – to stay in comfortably and then to repurpose and refit those. It just required some good architecture, good thinking and legacy projects like the utilities that were to go in. I think for quite some time we had the government looking like they needed to –

Paul Edbrooke: Looking good.

Cindy McLEISH: They were not looking good at all. The government were looking for excuses about why they should not have the Commonwealth Games – about the saleyards and possible contamination. If you have a look at the tender documents that went out for the Ballarat saleyards, well, I could pull holes in that pretty quickly, because if you talked to people that were involved with the saleyards in the Ballarat area, you would know that the level of contamination would have been very low. When you have got cattle and sheep coming in you have got a whole lot of fertiliser. That is good for the ground. That is going to be great to grow gardens and things. It is not going to have long-lasting contamination by any means.

So I certainly do not support the alternative motion put forward by the Minister for Government Services, but I absolutely support the motion and the advice that has come down from the other place that has been generated from the chair of the committee David Limbrick in that place, and I happily support that because we need answers. We need this Premier to do more than just talk. We want her to show us that she is being a lot more transparent than things have been in the past, and I urge the government, when we have precedents in the past, to actually think about that, respect this place and support this motion.

Paul EDBROOKE (Frankston) (18:38): It is like we have been sitting through the NYPD Law & Order special games unit – big investigation here, big time. We are doing it. It is Harry Potter in the drawing room with a bloody candlestick. People are not very interested in this. Do you know why? Because this is about them, and they are not taking this seriously. Before – well, it was only about 20 minutes ago – we heard someone say ‘the west minister system’. It is the Westminster system. You might have to look past Google and you might have to go to Wikipedia, but it will tell you. Then we had someone say ‘the bi-caramel system’, and by God I think we had someone up the back, rumbly tummy, looking for the Werther’s Originals, looking for the Caramilk. What are you doing? It is unbelievable. And I will tell you why. This is about them, because at the moment, that gallery is clear. There is no-one out there. There is no-one listening. This is an issue that is not getting traction in the media, and this is about the Liberal Party and their internal machinations – because you are on this journey and it is about your own insecurities –

The SPEAKER: Order! Member for Frankston, I would ask you not to use the word ‘you’.

James Newbury: On a point of order, Speaker, this is an important motion for all Victorians, calling on the Premier to attend the upper house. This is not any other matter. It is an important motion, and the member is not speaking to the motion. I would ask you to bring him back to the motion.

The SPEAKER: The member is to speak to the motion before the house.

Paul EDBROOKE: I think it is important, and I think someone pressed snooze over there to cancel an alarm just then. Look, when it comes down to it, it is about the insecurities that you have in your leadership. We saw someone from the other house –

The SPEAKER: Order! I would ask you not to use the word ‘you’, member for Frankston.

James Newbury: On a point of order, Speaker, the member is now defying your ruling.

The SPEAKER: Manager of Opposition Business, we will give the member for Frankston an opportunity to speak to the matter before the house.

Paul EDBROOKE: There is no need for this motion, and we do not support the motion because the opposition have had the opportunity to acquit this in the media. They have had the opportunity to prosecute this successfully in the house in question time, and now they are again just trying to make political stunts that are unnecessary and wasting the time of this house. This is an absolute stunt and it should be treated as one.

Peter WALSH (Murray Plains) (18:41): I rise to speak against the government’s motion to reject the request for the Premier to appear before the upper house committee for the Commonwealth Games, and in listening to the debate and particularly listening to the very brief contribution from the member for Frankston, this is not a stunt. This is a genuine request from the upper house to have the Premier appear for her former role as the minister for the Commonwealth Games. It is not something that should be played out in the media, as the member for Frankston said, it is about the accountability of the executive government to the Parliament, to either house of the Parliament.

This is an important issue. From a regional Victorian point of view, the then Andrews government went to an election selling a vision of a Commonwealth Games that was going to be all things to all people. It was going to be bells and whistles right across the state, particularly for the Latrobe Valley, particularly for Geelong, particularly for Ballarat and particularly for Bendigo and for Shepparton. The government went to an election on this. They need to be held to account as to why they have not delivered on that particular promise from the election. Victorians were told the games would cost $2.6 billion. We had the budget in May, where the budget papers were signed off, and the budget papers said the games were going to cost $2.6 billion. Within a matter of a couple of months of the budget being delivered in this place, somehow the games had magically blown out to $5 billion, $6 billion, $7 billion. You grab a number, that was the number that was being bandied around.

The upper house has a very diverse range of members of Parliament, but there was a united push from all those in the upper house other than the Labor Party members in the upper house to set up the Commonwealth Games inquiry. That has been doing its work. We have seen from evidence being given by people at the hearings of the Commonwealth Games inquiry that there are some issues that need to be answered by the Andrews government, now by the Allan government, and particularly by the Premier in her role as the former minister for the Commonwealth Games and particularly about when the government was aware and particularly when the minister was aware that there was an increased cost to run the Commonwealth Games. The minister has continually said in this house that, as it evolved, she became aware of it sometime in early July. As the evidence in the upper house has proven, the now Premier was aware of the cost blowout sometime in February or March.

There are questions to be answered in the upper house parliamentary inquiry so the people of Victoria know how a promise before the election of the Commonwealth Games at $2.6 billion and of showcasing regional Victoria to the world could all of a sudden turn into such a financial disaster for the state. The Premier has questions to answer around when she actually knew about the cost increases and when she knew about what was going to happen, with lawyers being brought in to give advice about cancelling the games, because with the answers that we have had in this Parliament, although she may have been relevant to the question, I do not believe she has been factual to the question, and that is why there is an opportunity to get things on the record in the upper house inquiry.

No-one, including a Premier, should be above the right of a Parliament to call people to give evidence. That is what the Parliament is about. The executive government and the Premier, as the head of the executive government, are responsible to the Parliament. They are not responsible to themselves. The Labor Party thinks somehow government is their own plaything. It is a privilege to be in government, and the government is accountable to the Parliament, whichever house of the Parliament it may be. There is a precedent in this place where the Labor Party has actually supported a minister being called to the upper house. As I understand it, Minister Robinson was called to appear before an upper house inquiry in 2007, and the Labor Party at that particular time agreed to have him appear before an upper house inquiry. The Labor Party has done this before. I understand it was in his role as Minister for Consumer Affairs. If the Premier wants to reset the clock as a new Premier about being open, transparent and consulting with people around how the government runs in Victoria rather than having the centralised model, the dictatorial model under the previous Premier, I would urge those on the other side of the house to seriously look at actually voting against the government’s motion so that the Premier can appear before the upper house committee.

There is so much information that needs to be learned. Victoria has something north of a $200 billion debt. The costs of cancelling the Commonwealth Games are going to increase that debt by somewhere between $600 million and $1 billion, because we do not know how much it is actually costing to get out of the Commonwealth Games. The fact that lawyers were hired without anyone’s knowledge, the fact that senior bureaucrats were dispatched to London without anyone’s knowledge to cancel the games means that there are questions to answer around these issues.

When it comes to the issue of legacy projects and what was promised to regional Victoria, I know regional Victoria is very, very concerned that what is supposedly now going to be done, even though there are no Commonwealth Games, will never, ever happen. If you look at the issue that was raised today around Ballarat, as I understand it there was never any serious intent to actually build a village on the old saleyard site, because of the cost of cleaning it up. That community was misled, as was the community of Shepparton, around the projects that were going to be built there, as was the Latrobe Valley. There is a particularly desperate need for housing in the Latrobe Valley. There will not be a legacy village down there for the future. The gun club down there was very keen to have a new shooting range. That will no longer be built, because there will be no Commonwealth Games, so there are some significant issues around that.

The issue of housing – we know how important housing is to all of Victoria but particularly how important new housing is to regional Victoria. Out of the change from athletics villages that will become public housing, there is now a program right across regional Victoria for housing. There are a lot of promises, a lot of quotes about the dollars that are being poured in the top end of this particular project, but not a lot of facts around how many houses are actually going to be built and how many people will be taken off the public housing waiting list. I think one of the cruellest comments around this announcement of housing is the fact that there are supposedly going to be 17 new homes built in Rochester. Rochester is a town that still has literally hundreds of families living in caravans because their existing homes have not been repaired since the floods. I know the Premier was there on Friday. I was there at their community function on Saturday. As you walk around talking to the people in Rochester, there are about 10 homes a week coming back on stream for people to move back in, but that community is still traumatised by the flood, still really concerned about the fact that there is not enough housing there, so to say that 17 new homes in Rochester is going to solve housing issues is a furphy. It is about how the government works with the community to get people back into existing housing, not about how you build 17 new houses in Rochester. That equally applies in other flood-affected areas.

In conclusion, the Premier should appear. The upper house voted strongly to make sure that the Premier appears before that committee. It is a total lack of respect for the parliamentary process, a lack of respect for the upper house and I think, most importantly, a lack of respect for Victorians. As other contributors from our side have said, it is not the Labor Party’s money that is being wasted on this issue, it is taxpayers money that is being spent on this. We have had $600 million, heading towards a billion dollars, wasted on these games. They were going to promote regional Victoria. One of the senior people from the government stood up and said the fact we cancelled the games will promote Victoria more than running the games. I just shake my head and wonder. That someone on the other side thinks everything is about a Utopia moment and somehow you can spin your way out of these things is just beyond belief. I urge those on the other side to vote against the government’s motion and allow the Premier to attend the upper house inquiry and answer the questions that Victorians want asked. The member for Frankston said no-one in Victoria cares about this, but they do care about it. Regional Victorians particularly care about it, and they want the Premier to appear and answer the questions.

Mary-Anne THOMAS (Macedon – Leader of the House, Minister for Health, Minister for Health Infrastructure, Minister for Ambulance Services) (18:51): I move:

That the question be now put.

Members interjecting.

The SPEAKER: Order! I have heard from all parties. The Leader of the Nationals knows better. The question is:

That the question now be put.

Assembly divided on Mary-Anne Thomas’s motion:

Ayes (53): Juliana Addison, Jacinta Allan, Colin Brooks, Anthony Carbines, Ben Carroll, Darren Cheeseman, Anthony Cianflone, Sarah Connolly, Chris Couzens, Jordan Crugnale, Lily D’Ambrosio, Gabrielle de Vietri, Steve Dimopoulos, Paul Edbrooke, Matt Fregon, Ella George, Luba Grigorovitch, Bronwyn Halfpenny, Katie Hall, Paul Hamer, Martha Haylett, Sam Hibbins, Mathew Hilakari, Melissa Horne, Natalie Hutchins, Lauren Kathage, Sonya Kilkenny, Nathan Lambert, Gary Maas, Alison Marchant, Kathleen Matthews-Ward, Steve McGhie, Paul Mercurio, John Mullahy, Tim Pallas, Danny Pearson, Tim Read, Pauline Richards, Ellen Sandell, Michaela Settle, Ros Spence, Nick Staikos, Natalie Suleyman, Meng Heang Tak, Nina Taylor, Kat Theophanous, Mary-Anne Thomas, Emma Vulin, Iwan Walters, Vicki Ward, Dylan Wight, Gabrielle Williams, Belinda Wilson

Noes (25): Jade Benham, Roma Britnell, Tim Bull, Martin Cameron, Annabelle Cleeland, Chris Crewther, Sam Groth, David Hodgett, Emma Kealy, Tim McCurdy, Cindy McLeish, James Newbury, Danny O’Brien, Michael O’Brien, Kim O’Keeffe, John Pesutto, Richard Riordan, Brad Rowswell, David Southwick, Bill Tilley, Bridget Vallence, Peter Walsh, Kim Wells, Nicole Werner, Jess Wilson

Motion agreed to.

Assembly divided on motion:

Ayes (49): Juliana Addison, Jacinta Allan, Colin Brooks, Anthony Carbines, Ben Carroll, Darren Cheeseman, Anthony Cianflone, Sarah Connolly, Chris Couzens, Jordan Crugnale, Lily D’Ambrosio, Steve Dimopoulos, Paul Edbrooke, Matt Fregon, Ella George, Luba Grigorovitch, Bronwyn Halfpenny, Katie Hall, Paul Hamer, Martha Haylett, Mathew Hilakari, Melissa Horne, Natalie Hutchins, Lauren Kathage, Sonya Kilkenny, Nathan Lambert, Gary Maas, Alison Marchant, Kathleen Matthews-Ward, Steve McGhie, Paul Mercurio, John Mullahy, Tim Pallas, Danny Pearson, Pauline Richards, Michaela Settle, Ros Spence, Nick Staikos, Natalie Suleyman, Meng Heang Tak, Nina Taylor, Kat Theophanous, Mary-Anne Thomas, Emma Vulin, Iwan Walters, Vicki Ward, Dylan Wight, Gabrielle Williams, Belinda Wilson

Noes (29): Jade Benham, Roma Britnell, Tim Bull, Martin Cameron, Annabelle Cleeland, Chris Crewther, Gabrielle de Vietri, Sam Groth, Sam Hibbins, David Hodgett, Emma Kealy, Tim McCurdy, Cindy McLeish, James Newbury, Danny O’Brien, Michael O’Brien, Kim O’Keeffe, John Pesutto, Tim Read, Richard Riordan, Brad Rowswell, Ellen Sandell, David Southwick, Bill Tilley, Bridget Vallence, Peter Walsh, Kim Wells, Nicole Werner, Jess Wilson

Motion agreed to.

The SPEAKER: A message will now be sent to the Legislative Council informing them of the house’s decision.

Business interrupted under sessional orders.