Wednesday, 31 July 2024

Construction, Forestry and Maritime Employees Union

Michael O’BRIEN (Malvern) (14:39): My question is to the Premier. Yesterday in question time the Premier stated that correspondence sent to her from an Indigenous labour hire firm in 2022 complaining of CFMEU misconduct ‘did not contain allegations of criminal behaviour’. In fact that letter includes a transcript of a CFMEU delegate threatening the director of the Indigenous labour hire firm, saying, and I quote, ‘I’ll rip your effing head off.’ Making a threat to kill is an indictable offence under the Crimes Act, so why has the Premier misled the house and the Victorian people?

Jacinta ALLAN (Bendigo East – Premier) (14:40): I went to this matter yesterday, as the member for Malvern has indicated. Those allegations were referred to the relevant agencies for their action and response.

James Newbury: On a point of order, Speaker, the Premier was just asked why she may have misled the house, and the Premier has not yet responded as to why she may have misled the house.

Mary-Anne Thomas: On the point of order, Speaker, there is no point of order. The Premier was directly responsive to the question. She outlined that she has already answered this question. I ask that you rule it out of order.

The SPEAKER: Allegations of misleading the house need to be raised by substantive motion. The Premier has concluded her answer.

Michael O’Brien: On a point of order, Speaker, I put it to you that allegations of misleading the house do not need to be put by substantive motion. Deliberately misleading the house is disorderly, but that was not the suggestion in the question.

The SPEAKER: The Premier has concluded her answer.

James Newbury: On a point of order, Speaker, the Premier has refused to answer every single question in question time except from the disgraced Labor member for South Barwon. What is the point of question time if no question will be addressed?

The SPEAKER: There is no point of order. That is not a point of order.

Michael O’BRIEN (Malvern) (14:42): According to the same letter, the CFMEU delegate also threatened the Indigenous labour hire firm director with the words, and again I quote, ‘I’ll effing end you’ – expletive – ‘and you know it, don’t eff with me I’ll effing take your soul and I’ll rip your effing head off.’ Threat to inflict serious injury and use threatening words are both criminal offences under the Crimes Act and the Summary Offences Act respectively. Why did the Premier fail to refer these serious criminal allegations to Victoria Police in 2022 when she became aware of them?

Jacinta ALLAN (Bendigo East – Premier) (14:42): I went through the timeline of my response to this correspondence yesterday. In terms of when allegations have been raised with me, those allegations have been referred to the relevant agency for their action and response.

James Newbury: On a point of order, Speaker, I would put to you that the Premier is responding generally rather than to the specifics of the question again. These are, again, very serious allegations that run in sharp contrast to words that the Premier uttered in this house yesterday. The letter which has now been revealed explicitly states that criminal allegations were put. The Premier stated in this house that there were no criminal allegations put to her, and I would ask you why the Premier has not been asked to respond directly to those extremely serious allegations.

The SPEAKER: I remind members that a point of order is not an opportunity to repeat the question. I have the question in front of me, and the Premier was relevant to the question that was asked. The Premier has concluded her answer.

John Pesutto: On a point of order, Speaker, with respect, how can it be relevant when the Premier has not addressed the fact that yesterday in relation to the same letter the Premier said there were no allegations of criminal misconduct and today we have cited excerpts from the letter the Premier was referring to. She has not addressed any of those issues as to why she has a different answer today. How can that be relevant under the sessional order?

The SPEAKER: The Premier was relevant to the question that was asked.

Michael O’Brien: On a further point of order, Speaker, I make the letter available to the house so that members can see for themselves whether the Premier is actually being accurate or not.

James Newbury: On a further point of order, Speaker, I would put to you that question time is unworkable if we have a circumstance where no substance to a question will be addressed, and I would put to you that no substance to any question that was put to the executive today was answered. Obviously, that reflects on the government, clearly. My point of order is in terms of the running of the house. How can we run this house? How can we run question time when no question will be answered?

The SPEAKER: The Manager of Opposition Business, as I did yesterday, is invited to meet with me in my office after question time. I note that there was no meeting yesterday, but I invite you today.

Members interjecting.

The SPEAKER: Order! The house will come to order. If there are issues that you wish to raise in relation to rulings from the Chair, I ask that you come and visit me in my office after question time.

James Newbury: On a point of order, Speaker, without embarrassing you, at quarter to 2 I came to your office, and you were detained. I understand that. But I did come to your office today and seek an opportunity to speak.

The SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

John Pesutto: On a point of order, Speaker, to your comment before and on a number of occasions previously, in question time as an opposition we believe, with respect, we are entitled to raise any issue by way of objection. It is perfectly in order for you to invite us to your chambers, and we are happy to do that. But, with respect, we will not desist from raising issues before the people when issues relating to transparency and scrutiny are at stake. We are entitled to raise these issues, and, with respect, it is not acceptable to us as an opposition that we be told, when clearly the Premier is being protected, that we cannot ask questions about basic matters.

The SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition, that is not a point of order.