Tuesday, 18 June 2024

Questions without notice and ministers statements

John Setka

John PESUTTO (Hawthorn – Leader of the Opposition) (14:02): My question is to the Premier. Union thug and CFMEU boss John Setka is threatening the AFL with building cost blowouts unless it sacks its umpiring boss. He has published a mugshot of the umpiring boss on a ‘Wanted dead or alive’ poster. When will the Premier show leadership and call out the unacceptable behaviour of militant union thug and CFMEU boss John Setka?

The SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition, I am struggling to see how this relates to government business. Would you like to rephrase your question?

John PESUTTO: With respect, Speaker, the Premier has been asked about this matter repeatedly in recent days and has refused to address the issue. This is a government that talks a big game –

Members interjecting.

The SPEAKER: Order! The house will come to order. I invite the Leader of the Opposition to rephrase the question. If the Leader of the Opposition chooses not to rephrase the question, I will rule the question out of order.

John PESUTTO: Union thug and CFMEU boss John Setka is threatening the AFL with building cost blowouts on taxpayer-funded projects unless it sacks its umpiring boss. He has published a mugshot of the umpiring boss on a ‘Wanted dead or alive’ poster. He has posted that on a ‘Dead or alive’ poster. The poster says ‘Not wanted dead or alive. Reward’. That is what the poster says. The Premier has been asked about this matter in recent days. She has refused to address the impact of that violent behaviour and that violent language and the cost blowouts for Victorian taxpayers. She has refused as Premier, as head of government, to address that. I call on her to show leadership and say when she will call out the unacceptable behaviour of militant union thug John Setka.

Mary-Anne Thomas: On a point of order, Speaker, I ask that you uphold your original ruling in relation to this rant that we have just witnessed – deranged rant – from the Leader of the Opposition. This is question time, and I ask that you ask him to respect the conventions of the house as well as your ruling.

James Newbury: On the point of order, Speaker, the question quite clearly went to taxpayer-funded projects, and every Victorian has a right to have an answer to this question. What we are seeing now is an outrageous Labor protection racket.

The SPEAKER: Order! The Manager of Opposition Business knows that is not the way to raise a point of order. I will allow the question. It is very tenuous, the link to government business, but I will allow the question.

Jacinta ALLAN (Bendigo East – Premier) (14:06): I was indeed asked about this matter at a press conference on Sunday morning, where we were releasing details of our draft housing targets for every local government area across the state where we are focused on building more homes for more Victorians. As I said, I was indeed asked about this question. I made the observation on Sunday – and I repeat that today – that everyone deserves the right to a safe and respectful workplace. It does not matter whether you are on a construction site or whether you work at AFL House or indeed here on the floor of the Parliament. I suggest to the Leader of the Opposition, if he is focused on men’s behaviour change, that he might want to start looking at himself.

John Pesutto: I ask the Premier to withdraw that comment.

The SPEAKER: The Premier to withdraw.

Jacinta ALLAN: I withdraw.

John PESUTTO (Hawthorn – Leader of the Opposition) (14:07): Were John Setka’s comments appropriate?

Mary-Anne Thomas: On a point of order, Speaker, in an earlier ruling on the first question you ruled that the Leader of the Opposition needed to direct his questions to matters of government business, and I see no connection in the supplementary question to any matter of government business. Therefore I ask that you rule the supplementary question out of order.

James Newbury: On the point of order, Speaker, the first question related to John Setka’s comments and the supplementary asked whether or not those comments, which were referred to and ruled in order, were appropriate.

The SPEAKER: I rule on this supplementary question not on the basis that it did or did not relate to the primary question but because questions should not seek an opinion, particularly a legal opinion; ask whether press statements are correct; seek a solution to a hypothetical proposition; be trivial, vague or meaningless; raise matters sub judice; anticipate debate on an order of the day; or raise questions of policy too large to be dealt with in an answer to a question. I therefore rule the supplementary question out of order.

John Pesutto: On a point of order, Speaker, on behalf of the opposition, I just want to register that we respectfully and strongly disagree with that finding.

Members interjecting.

The SPEAKER: Order! If members have concerns about my rulings, they are welcome to come and see me after question time in my office.