Thursday, 12 September 2024

State Civil Liability (Police Informants) Bill 2024

Council’s amendments

Debate resumed on motion of Anthony Carbines:

That the amendments be agreed to.

John PESUTTO (Hawthorn – Leader of the Opposition) (17:13): I rise to speak on a dark day in Victorian democracy. Whilst the Premier dances, democracy in Victoria suffers. This bill is about protecting a corrupt, lying, rotten government. That is what this bill is about – a dark day for democracy. Let us remember what this bill is about. This bill is about a finding that the High Court delivered saying that the conduct that Victoria Police entered into, with the knowledge of the Labor government, was reprehensible conduct. This amendment, which was moved by Mr David Limbrick in the other house – who can never, ever be heard again seriously speaking in favour of checks and balances on government and executive power, having moved this amendment – protects bad behaviour. It protects people from scrutiny who should be scrutinised.

We are talking about people, and in particular one person who spent 12 years behind bars. I am not commenting on the case necessarily in detail. But if a conviction is overturned, is it not right and fair that a person can pursue and vindicate their rights in a court of law in this state without being prevented from seeking the full measure of the compensation which is fairly due to them? Well, not anymore, because if the Allan Labor government continues to engage in corrupt and rotten behaviour, which it continues to do, how can we be certain that the government will not continue to use this device in the form of other bills and other amendments to protect itself from scrutiny? There is, under the Allan Labor government, a culture of cover-ups in this state. That is what this bill is about, and it is not just a standalone measure that the government has introduced to protect itself from scrutiny, to make sure that people who should be subject to detailed questioning about what they did, what they knew, when they did it and when they knew it. This government has a culture of it; we have seen it. Just a couple of years ago the government weakened the powers of IBAC to hold public hearings. That was a case of this rotten, corrupt government protecting itself from proper scrutiny, and we are paying the price for this as Victorians.

We know also that this corrupt, rotten, tired and exhausted government is underfunding our courts. Our courts cannot manage the case load before them. This is a government that thumbs its nose at scrutiny and accountability. How many times has the upper house, the other place, issued orders to ministers in this government to produce documents – and what does the government do? It just ignores those orders. Whether it is in relation to the Commonwealth Games or whether it is in relation to cuts to services, this government regularly defies this institution. It is now ensuring that aggrieved Victorians who have proper causes of action now face a government that is prepared to use this Parliament to protect itself from proper accountability and scrutiny.

We have a Premier who has overseen some of the biggest debacles in Victoria’s recent history. Everything this Premier has overseen or touched has turned into a disaster. It is major projects blowing out. Everybody will recall the under-over minister when it came to the Metro Tunnel project when she first became a minister in this government. She wasted two years and goodness knows how many millions of dollars on that frolic. She oversaw the Commonwealth Games; $600 million at least was wasted on the Commonwealth Games. The Premier misled this Parliament. A Premier who told the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee things that were not true misled PAEC, misled the Parliament and misled the Victorian people. Is it any surprise that this government under this Premier is prepared to bring a bill like this, which is simply covering up? This Premier, we know, refuses to appear before committees of this Parliament to provide answers. Whether it is on the Commonwealth Games or whether it is on the ambulance crisis, we have invited the Premier to do that.

The Premier, when she was confronted years ago with evidence of CFMEU corruption and misconduct, enabled it. She actually directly enabled corruption by the CFMEU. She enabled it, preferenced the CFMEU, in actions which were totally reprehensible. The Premier’s conduct in relation to the CFMEU, not only her inaction but her willingness to preference the CFMEU, was totally reprehensible. When we called for a royal commission to hold people to account, what did the Premier do? The Premier refused, stonewalled on any response to that, until she found a weasel-word way out of the mess she had created and overseen as the minister directly responsible for the CFMEU, to whom she is beholden. This Premier is beholden to the corrupt CFMEU. She has enabled that corruption. She has done nothing to confront it, because she is powerless and lacks the leadership and courage to take on the CFMEU. When confronted with that challenge, what did this Premier do? This Premier asked Mr Greg Wilson to conduct a formal inquiry, so called, with no powers to compel witnesses, no power to follow allegations of criminal conduct and no public hearings. This Premier has allowed that corruption to continue. She is a Premier who herself now stands with those corrupt people who have continued, because all of this corruption continues and it continues because we have a Premier who is not prepared to act.

Is it any surprise then that this bill has been brought before this Parliament? This Premier’s incompetence knows no bounds, nor does this Premier’s weakness in the face of corruption that she was told about years ago. This Premier was armed with knowledge of that corruption and did nothing about it. She is the worst performing Premier I think this state has ever seen, and she has not been in the job for more than a year yet. Victorians are paying the price for this inaction, this indecisiveness. Everything the Premier has overseen has turned into a disaster.

All we are asking for and all we are defending is the idea of accountability. Even this week the government, when asked basic questions about corruption in the government, misuse of public funds in this government and mismanagement by this government, just stonewalled. Is it any wonder that as we speak we have a government protecting itself but a construction sector that still has to live with the consequences of the corruption that is occurring under the CFMEU? That corruption poses one of the most serious threats to the economic viability and fortunes of our state. The Premier says that she has a housing strategy. Well, you cannot have a housing strategy if the CFMEU you are beholden to, which is corrupt, continues to run worksites. Remember last week how disgraceful it was for the Premier of Victoria to look so powerless, indecisive and inactive when Mr John Setka turned up to the Footscray Hospital. The Premier was powerless to do anything about it. The next day, when we were told by the Premier that she had zero tolerance for corruption and zero tolerance for the actions of the CFMEU, she did nothing when Mr Setka turned up to the Metro project. The Metro project under Premier Allan is already beset with so many blowouts – not just the ones we know of but the blowouts we do not know about yet and which we know will come out eventually.

Roma Britnell interjected.

John PESUTTO: It is blowing the debt out, I say to the member for South-West Coast. When we come back to the bill, a bill about accountability, I say to you that we have a Premier who is not prepared to act in the face of corruption when it occurs at the hands of the CFMEU and who is prepared to use her numbers in this house and in the other house to protect her own government from allegations of similar behaviour. We know there is corruption in this government. We know from various stakeholders that there is corruption in this government.

Mary-Anne Thomas: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition knows full well that the use of the word ‘corrupt’ is unparliamentary because it is untrue, and I ask that you rule him out of order and ask him to come back to speaking directly on the bill.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: For the benefit of the house, an accusation that a member is corrupt is an imputation on a member if it is made directly. The word itself, if used in other ways, is not necessarily against the orders of the house. The Leader of the –

A member interjected.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: That word is unparliamentary. The Leader of the Opposition’s time has expired.

Matthew GUY (Bulleen) (17:24): From the party of social justice and the party of libertarians –

Mary-Anne Thomas: There’s no need to shout.

Matthew GUY: You are going to get a shout; just deal with it. From the party of social justice and the party of libertarians we have a bill that says, if you are found guilty and subsequently cleared, we are going to cap your compensation – from the party of social justice. No wonder the Labor Party, which is endemically filled with corrupt people – from the CFMEU to Operation Watts to Operation Richmond and to Daintree, the Labor Party in Victoria has mastered the art of corruption – now walks into this chamber and says to Victorians who have been acquitted of crimes: ‘We will determine what you can and can’t claim for compensation.’ The member for Macedon should know all about this, because she was a recipient of the red shirts. While we are talking about the term ‘corrupt’ and we are talking about the Labor Party, who paid back hundreds and thousands of taxpayers dollars – they did not do it, but they paid it all back – I wonder about all those ministers who were a part of the payback of that money to the taxpayer: Anthony Carbines, the member for Ivanhoe; the member for Eltham; the leader of the government in this house, the member for Macedon; and the Premier. They were all involved. They all knew – they were all involved – so why would we be surprised?

Members interjecting.

Matthew GUY: On your feet.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Member for Bulleen! The member for Bulleen will have some more time.

Mary-Anne Thomas: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, from the man that brought us Ventnor and Fishermans Bend –

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! What is the point of order, Leader of the House? I would appreciate it if your points of order were succinct.

Mary-Anne Thomas: The point of order is that the member on his feet is making imputations against a member of this house. He has strayed away from the bill, and I ask that you bring him back to the bill.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, Leader of the House. I understand the point of order.

Matthew GUY: On the point of order, Deputy Speaker, the member has raised a point of order in relation to factual material. It is a fact that the Labor Party repaid hundreds of thousands of dollars in relation to red shirts, and it is a fact the member for Macedon was part of it – and you are guilty of corruption on that too.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Bulleen knows that it is not the role of the Chair to determine the facts said in this house. Imputations on members are disorderly, and I would ask you to refrain from impugning members from anywhere.

Matthew GUY: The hopeless Minister for Health, who struggled to answer questions today about her own performance, blames COVID – the only state that blames COVID for the failures in its health system – yet she is cutting back health services. She said COVID is not around anymore but now blames COVID when she is found to be woeful – a person who benefited from red shirts, just like the member for Ivanhoe, just like the Premier.

All I say on this bill is that it is a cover-up, capping people’s right to compensation. As the member for Malvern said before, how can this be the case from the social justice political party, the Labor Party, who campaigned in here in 1999 on the Auditor-General, who campaigned on integrity, who has campaigned on matters all in relation to people’s social justice rights but now says, if you are guilty and then acquitted, you are going to have your compensation capped? As the member for Malvern accurately said, what if this involved someone in a state school that involved, heaven forbid, some form of abuse? Then the state government will come in and say, ‘This cannot now be dealt with, because the maximum amount has been paid out.’ What an outrage from the party. And I might say about the upper house member, the Libertarian: what a joke. A man whose party preferenced Daniel Andrews, after he had all these rallies in the street, has been found out to be a fraud. The Libertarians are 100 per cent frauds. We knew they were frauds from the start. We said they were frauds from the start, and they have proven themselves as frauds from the start, just like the government proved themselves every day to be corrupt.

If it is not red shirts and it is not, dare I say, the former Speaker of this chamber and the former Deputy Speaker of this chamber, then it is Operation Daintree, Operation Watts, branch-stacking allegations and the United Firefighters Union. This is all within this term of office. This is not over 20 years; this is a whole decade of corruption from this mob. They are the worst government this state has seen – a mob elected on integrity who now say to Victorians their right to compensation is going to be capped because they do not want to have hearings that might find how many of them were involved. How many of them were involved from the start? Was it their chiefs of staff? Was it their advisers? Was it the ministers? As the member for Malvern said, how many other people are involved in this mess? You only pass legislation like this when you have got something to hide, because if there is nothing to fear, there is nothing to hide. When it comes to Labor, there is always a cover-up because there is always something to hide, just like there is something to hide on every Big Build building site around this state. As the Leader of the Opposition has asked in this chamber multiple times, when will ministers answer questions in relation to their dealings with the CFMEU and these Big Build sites? They will not, because yet again, if there is something to fear, they will hide it. They will cover it up, because this government is absolutely, totally and utterly corrupt.

I just want to say again: from the party of social justice, it beggars belief how Labor will go back to their branches and say, ‘We are the people who fight for individual rights when it comes to protection from the state.’ A party that says, ‘We will defend the little guy, the little person, the worker, against the state, the system’ is now using the system to cover up and frankly to screw over the little person – pardon my language – in favour of the state, because when the state gets too big, the Labor Party gets too big. When they sit in office for the best part of two decades they become entrenched, like octopuses covering a chair, taking every arm over that chair. They suck on power. They stay in power and they become totally and utterly –

Mary-Anne Thomas interjected.

Matthew GUY: Like the member for Macedon, they take advantage of the system, like they did with red shirts, like they did during COVID, throwing out compulsory competitive tendering – tens of millions of dollars for their mates – and she cannot handle it because she is guilty.

Mary-Anne Thomas: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, on relevance to the bill, the member has strayed away from the bill that is before the house, and I ask that you bring him back to making commentary on the bill.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I would argue we have all strayed a long way from the amendments that are meant to be in front of us.

Matthew GUY: We have not strayed from the central part of what we are talking about, and that is this government capping someone’s right to seek fair and just compensation when they have been acquitted of a crime they, in the eyes of the law, as the member for Malvern said, did not commit. Because they have been acquitted, the government says, ‘Well, thank you for that. We will now intervene in the legal system. We will now say, “Actually you don’t have the right to seek fair and just compensation. The government will determine what that is.”’ Why isn’t a court determining what that is? How can it be that the government walk in here and say, ‘We will remove an individual’s rights’? How can the Libertarian David Limbrick get up in the upper house and say, ‘I will support this legislation’ and say that this is what their party stands for? I will tell you what this amendment has done. It has shown all of us what the Labor Party’s true self is, but more to the point, it has told us all what the Libertarians, who preferenced the Labor Party at the last two elections, stand for. What we find is that one is a fraud and the other is corrupt.

Mary-Anne THOMAS (Macedon – Leader of the House, Minister for Health, Minister for Health Infrastructure, Minister for Ambulance Services) (17:34): I move:

That the question be now put.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I have not heard from the Nationals or the Greens, who are in the chamber. I will not put the question yet. I advise, if people want to have their chance, they do it soon.

Brad ROWSWELL (Sandringham) (17:35): I also rise to address the matter before the house today. What could be more important than the legal system and the principles of the legal system that have underpinned this state’s history for more than 100 years? What could be more important than those principles of legal responsibility that have underpinned this state’s history for more than 100 ‍years? Today in this place, thanks to the work of the Legislative Council and the dirty deal that has been done between the Labor government, the Libertarian Party, the stoners and Pauline Hanson’s One Nation party, what we have is a Victoria which is less fair, which undermines the principles of law and the legal system that have underpinned this state’s history for more than 100 years.

What the member for Bulleen said quite eloquently, and the member for Malvern before him said more eloquently, is simply this: this circumstance has actually removed the rights for individuals who have been impacted by this circumstance to fight for fair compensation. At the moment there are four cases afoot that may be impacted by this situation. The High Court itself has called this conduct ‘reprehensible conduct’. There is the story of Faruk Orman, who had spent 12 years in jail, whose sentence was quashed by the Court of Appeal because Nicola Gobbo, Lawyer X herself, was found to have ratted on him. What could be more important than the opportunity for Victorians who have had harm done to them by the legal system, by the undermining of our legal system, to get the fair compensation that they deserve?

I agree with the member for Bulleen wholeheartedly: this is a debate about principles, and those principles are being undermined. The principles of the Libertarian Party say that there should be no place or very little place for the state to interfere in these matters, and yet it is the Libertarian Party in this state that is seeking to undermine and restrict the freedoms of individuals, the freedom of Victorians to go to court, to have their say and to have their day and to receive fair compensation where the legal system has done them wrong and has done them harm. What could be greater than the opportunity for those Victorians who have been victims of the undermining of the legal system to have their day in court to get fair compensation when wrong has been done to them? Again, in cahoots with the Libertarians, in cahoots with the stoners, in cahoots with Pauline Hanson’s One Nation party, this government has sought to undermine those legal principles. The member for Bulleen is absolutely right.

The Labor Party says that it cares about people. Well, this is a Labor Party who has been in government now for 10 years in this state, and Victorians need to ask themselves the question: do they feel any better off after the last 10 years of Labor? Do they feel like they are getting a fairer go after 10 years of Labor? Do they feel like life is getting easier, like their kids are getting a better education, like they are getting better health services, better police and emergency services or better transport and public transport services after 10 years of Labor? The answer loud and clear is absolutely not.

Then we come to the justice system, where there is currently a backlog of more than 80,000 cases in the Magistrates’ Court alone. Now, this is not a problem of Victoria Police – far from it. Those Victoria Police members who even in the last two days have been putting themselves on the line to uphold the right, to defend justice, to defend freedom, to defend our way of life here in Victoria – this is not their problem. They are very good people. They are doing everything that they can to protect Victorians, but they are being undermined by a government who frankly does not give a stuff. The justice system in this state is failing Victorians, and the motion moved in this place by the government after the dirty deal done in the other place by the government together with the stoners, with the Libertarians and with Pauline Hanson’s One Nation party undermines the basic principles of justice that have underpinned this state for more than a century, and that is just not right.

What we need to be doing in this state is upholding the law and upholding the right – upholding those principles of law that this state has relied upon for more than a century. What we do today is a real stain on our state’s history. It changes the law in this state forever and a day. It will take a coalition government in 2026, following the election in November 2026, to look at this and to consider unwinding the circumstance which has been put upon the Victorian people by this Labor government after the dirty deals that they have done in the upper house today. It is unfair. It is unjust. I ask the Labor Party, I ask the Labor government, after 10 years to do better.

As the member for Bulleen said, the Labor Party say that they care. They claim to be the social justice party, the people who put the lowly and the people who need a greater start in life or a hand up ahead of everything else. If justice has not been served to Victorians, they have a right to take that to court to seek appropriate compensation for the wrong that has been done to them, but this bill removes that right, and that is not a good thing.

The other concern I have with this amendment this afternoon is the principle which follows. What this government is doing by its actions today is saying that in this circumstance it is okay for the Labor Party – in cahoots with some of the kooks and crossies across the way, in cahoots with them and having done a dirty deal with them – to undermine the principles of our legal system. Where does this lead us in the future? This says to every Victorian that if wrong has been done to you, it only takes an act of this Parliament for you to not get the justice that you deserve, for you to not get the compensation that you deserve. That is the principle that is being undermined here today. Members of the Labor Party – who claim to be the party of social justice, who claim to be the party of the lowly and of those people who need a hand up in this state – are the people who are actually undermining these principles.

It is a shocking day. Let this day be remembered: Thursday 12 September 2024, the day that basic principles of justice have been undermined and been undercut by the Labor government, who say they care but who just really do not, in cahoots with others. I have deep concerns with those four cases currently afoot in this jurisdiction in other courts that may be impacted by this. Who knows the circumstances of those cases, and who knows what fair compensation looks like for those potential victims of crime and victims of government failure in those particular cases? I contend that no matter the circumstance those people have the absolute, innate right to have their fair day in court – for their case to be heard and for this state, which has potentially done them wrong, to fairly compensate them.

This amendment will cap that compensation at a million bucks. The question that needs to be asked is this: if you have spent 12 years in His Majesty’s service in prison here in Victoria, is $1 million fair compensation for you being held in custody, in jail, for 12 years that you will never, ever get back? That is the point. It is this case today, but the principle that has been set by this amendment that has been agreed to in cahoots with the stoners, with Pauline Hanson’s One Nation Party, with the Libertarians – the name of that party should be taken to the ACCC. It fair dinkum should be. They are not libertarians. They are seeking to restrict freedoms. It would be fair game for the name of that party to be at least investigated by the Victorian Electoral Commission, and it should be investigated by the Victorian Electoral Commission because it is false and it is misleading. The Libertarians are, frankly, not libertarians. As proven today, they are in cahoots with the government of the day, the Labor Party, who say they care about people but who just really do not.

The principles of our legal system must not be undermined. The principles of our legal system should not be undermined. The Labor Party today, Thursday 12 September 2024, has done that, and every Victorian who has potentially had harm done to them by this government or by its legal system today or might in the future should be on notice that this government is not on your side.

Brad BATTIN (Berwick) (17:45): What a very dark day it is when a government uses this place to solely protect themselves. This is about protecting information from getting out that could be damaging to them. We have heard people on this side talking about the what-ifs: who could end up in a position and what the compensation is. Those opposite are saying $1 million compensation is fair compensation for someone who has spent 12 years in the prison system, whether it was just or unjust. If we look at some of the things from history, imagine if these were in Victoria. Lindy Chamberlain served three years in prison. In 1992 she was granted at that time $1.3 million. So she was granted 30 ‍per cent more for just three years in the prison system because it was proven at the time that she did not commit that offence and she was released. Imagine if it was Kathleen Folbigg, who was in jail from the ages of 37 to 57. She spent 20 years in jail for an accusation of child homicide on four separate occasions and has now been released because the evidence has come out saying that she did not do it. Would $1 million be fair compensation for Kathleen serving 20 years in the justice system? It would have to change. What we have here is a government that is saying that would be okay – $1 million for both of them in today’s terms would be okay.

They are only doing it for one reason, and that is to protect themselves. The Lawyer X scandal will go down in history as one of the darkest moments here in our state. We already know from reading the reports there are people within that who should be held accountable. There are other parts of this, though. We need to know how deep that goes, and that is what this is designed to protect. As the member for Bulleen said before, who on the Labor Party side was aware of this corruption happening here in this state? Did it go up to the level of a minister? Was a minister briefed, or did they, during the freedom-of-information exercise, hide those briefings under executive privilege so they could get away with what they were doing here in this state? Was it a chief of staff who was hiding it from the minister? Was a chief of staff involved in this, and was that corruption was within the Victorian Labor Party?

As we know, the Victorian Labor Party has a very recent history of corruption here in this state. We already know it starts as what some would call ‘grey corruption’. Grey corruption is the small things, like maybe putting your dogs in a car and using a chauffeur-driven car to get them driven up to the north part of Victoria and you are wasting taxpayers money on that. How many stamps were used on that side during the red shirts rorts to ensure that their members could be protected? I have to admit one of my favourites of all time – for one of my stunts for it – is the caravan. When you go back, you see a Deputy Speaker in here signing his own documents to steal money from the Victorian people.

Mary-Anne Thomas: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, the member on his feet is straying from the bill, which is the focus of this debate. I would ask that you bring him back to addressing the bill that is before the house.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: As I said before, we have all gone a little bit further than the amendments. The member to continue, preferably on the amendments.

Brad BATTIN: In relation to the amendments, I was talking about the Deputy Speaker who was signing his own documents to get money from this Parliament – the Victorian people – saying he was residing in a second residence, which was a caravan in Ocean Grove. On the day that the party opposite named me for standing up for what was right at the time, I went for a little trip down there. Do you know the one thing we found? No-one at the caravan park actually knew him. They had not actually seen him. Not only was he claiming over $100,000 in this place from people and stealing it, he did not even go to the place that he said he was supposed to be at. What a disgrace. That was a Deputy Speaker of this Parliament, and that is the problem with the corruption here in this place. Then it got worse. Then the Speaker was doing the same; the Speaker was claiming a second residence allowance that he was not entitled to, taking nearly $40,000.

The problem with this Labor Party, like they have done with these amendments, is it is about protecting them. It is not about protecting the community, it is not about protecting what is right; it is about protecting them. At the time they said, ‘We’re going to bring in our new tough laws and our tough rules on members of Parliament on how they can handle their allowances. We’re going to bring them in; we’re just not going to backdate them. So what we’re going to do is the Deputy Speaker and Speaker, oh, look, we make them pay back about half of it, and then we can set them up in the corner and they can collect their wages, they can collect their pensions and off they go into the sunset.’ The reality is that was not the best outcome for what we needed here – exactly the same as these amendments. These amendments are going to restrict the rights of people who have gone through the justice system and ended up in prison, fairly or unfairly. It does not matter who it is. If they go through, get convicted and do jail time of 12 years prison here in Victoria and then that is overturned because of corruption from government or corruption within Victoria Police, they should be compensated. It is as simple as that. There are no ifs; there are no buts; there are no maybes. For any government to turn around and say that they should be compensated based on what the government says, not on what a court says, is fair, that is when we start to have more issues here in this state.

We have spoken about the Libertarians on this, and I can only concur with what has been said on this side. When we start to talk about the Libertarians and what their values are, they have absolutely and utterly torn up the values book, put it through the shredder and walked outside. They do not care about libertarian values. I have to ask the question of Mr Limbrick in the other place. I have met him plenty of times talking about policies, and I do not ever believe a policy was raised about capping how much a person can get in compensation, unless maybe a deal has been done between the government and him. It will be interesting to see if Mr Limbrick all of a sudden gets something that goes in his favour, that sorts out something that maybe he wants in the future that the government was not that keen on. Do you know what I would call that? I would call it corruption. I would say that if a government wants to go and make deals in relation to getting trade-offs for what they want in a piece of legislation to suit them, including in these amendments, that should be investigated in itself, and Mr Limbrick should be held to account if he has done that in the upper house.

All of those people in the upper house who have decided to think it is a good idea to vote this way have gone against everything they are here for in protecting Victorians. As I have said before and so many have said on this side, it does not matter who it was that went into the jail system. If the corruption came from government and Victoria Police, that person should be treated exactly fairly before the law. Every person in our state should be treated fairly before the law.

I will go back to where I started: I think it is so important that when we are talking about real-life stories and we are talking about Lindy Chamberlain, who got $1.3 million in 1992 – I am not that good at maths to work out what that would be today, but I am sure that would be well and truly a few million dollars compensation for three years in prison. To have your life taken away and sit inside a prison cell when you are wrongfully convicted here in this state and then be told that you cannot get just rewards when you get out is a sign of a government that have failed in every aspect of what they should be standing in here for. They have gone against every part of democracy here in our state to rush through legislation which, do not forget, was urgent legislation that had to go through four weeks ago, and we are still here debating it after the adjournment time on a Thursday three or four weeks later with a change in it that has just suited them. We need to make sure here in Victoria that the legislation that we get to see is scrutinised, goes through and is fair. On this side of the house we know that this legislation is simply not fair.

We know on this side of the house what we have seen from this government when it comes to hiding things, with the red shirts, the speakers and deputy speakers, and the stamps. The list just goes on and on of things that have been covered up on this side. The difference with those ones is they were covering up issues within the Victorian Labor Party using regulations. Now they are putting in place legislation to protect themselves – legislation to protect the Victorian Labor Party from being held to account – and that is a super dangerous precedent that every person in Victoria should be concerned about. Bringing in a law to protect a party from being questioned, from being held to account within the community, is something that every single person in Victoria should be worried about. We on this side know this is bad legislation. We know it is designed to protect those on the other side that they have been working to protect, and we want to make sure that we stamp out any corruption here in our state. That will be our goal. This legislation should not have got to the stage that it is at today, let alone get through this house.

Peter WALSH (Murray Plains) (17:55): One of the fundamental tenets of Westminster law is that everyone is equal before the law. This legislation says there will be another class of people that cannot actually claim compensation if they are wrongly jailed. What this legislation does is protect corruption in this state. It effectively protects decades of corruption. It goes back to Operation Purana and the taskforce that was set up to actually stop the gangland murders in Melbourne where the end justified the means. It was about stamping it out no matter what laws were broken. It took a long time to come to the surface, but it did come to the surface because eventually everything comes to the surface. And what that has done is show that at that time the police and whoever in government that may or may not have known about it decided that they would actually break the law, go outside the recognised court system in this state and make sure they punished people irrespective of whether they were guilty or not. That is why we are where we are today, because that actually corrupted the system of law. By having Lawyer X, by actually breaking that fundamental tenet of client privilege, we are now on the path we are on with this legislation to limit rights for people who were unfairly jailed. Someone spent more than a decade in jail because of wrongdoing in this state, and what this legislation is saying is that person, and others, cannot get compensation for those 10 years. If I was that person, I would feel absolutely wronged by what has happened with this legislation.

Those who sit on the other side of the house here and those in the upper house who supported this change to the legislation are doing a disservice to all those people now and in the future who may be wronged by the justice system here in Victoria. As has already been said, to have the Libertarian Party, the party that was there to protect the liberties of Victorians, join forces with this mob on that side to actually take away people’s rights and suggest an amendment to the legislation to get it through is just incomprehensible. The Libertarian Party and David Limbrick can never hold their heads high in Victoria ever again and say they are there for the people or they are there for the liberties of Victorians. They are not there for the liberties of Victorians; they are there to do their own special deal, whatever it is, to actually trade away someone’s rights. For the person that has spent more than a decade in jail, David Limbrick and the Labor Party and the crossbenchers in the upper house that supported it have actually sold out that person’s rights to justice. That is an absolute disgrace.

Once you start that downward spiral of actually doing deals to cover up corruption, to protect yourself, where does it end? How much longer will it be till we are actually in Putin’s Russia, where people will be killed to cover things up? That is what happens when you get dictators. When people lose sight of the law, people get punished. It is no different to the intimidation on building sites. We have seen that being covered up with the CFMEU. People will not make complaints, people will not come forward, because they know it will be injurious to their personal health. They know they will be taken for a walk and their health will be affected by that walk because somewhere along the line they will be roughed up. That is why people do not make complaints on building sites. The government should actually be standing up for law, standing up for justice, rather than covering it up. It has gone on for too long. Ultimately, power corrupts, and that is why we have corruption here, because we have had a government for basically two decades that believe they can do no wrong. They believe the ethos of the Labor Party: ‘We’ll protect our own at all costs. We won’t lift the lid on what’s going wrong. We’ll protect our own. We’ll cover it up. We’ll do whatever we have to do.’ We saw that, as other people have said, with the red shirts and with the other examples of corruption that have gone on in this state over the last two decades.

When you keep the lid on it and you will not lift it up, you are as corrupt as the people who are corrupt, and that is what we are seeing with this piece of legislation. It is legislation to limit people’s rights. But more importantly – and this is something most people have not touched on – this is about not going to court. This is about making sure there are no court cases. This is about making sure that senior police who may have been called to give evidence under oath in the Supreme Court of Victoria will not have to appear. Which senior police officers had knowledge of Operation Purana and the fact that the end justified the means? Did they really want to appear in court under oath and risk perjury by not saying something or actually tell the truth, which would have lifted the lid on the corruption that went on here in Victoria?

We have a senior police officer who was the former Premier’s chief of staff. When he was opposition leader, he was also his chief of staff – someone that went from the police force to the political system and back to a senior police role. Would that person have really wanted to be called under oath in the Supreme Court about what went on with this issue? I think not. Which ministers would have been called into the Supreme Court to give, under oath, what they knew about what went on with Operation Purana and what they knew about what went on with Lawyer X? Ministers did not want to be called to the Supreme Court under oath. It is one thing for a corrupt government to have their own pet inquiry with their own pet person overseeing it that never, ever asks the hard questions and never, ever really gets to the bottom of anything but sets up this whole smoke and mirrors: ‘We’ve had an inquiry and we have a report that says nothing.’ We have seen that with the Wilson inquiry into the CFMEU. We saw that with the Coate inquiry into hotel quarantine. I sat there in my office watching the Coate inquiry. I am not a barrister – I do not pretend to be – but there would be two or three questions and I would think, ‘The question has got to be this.’ But, no, they would change direction and they would go somewhere else. They never, ever asked the hard questions, particularly of the former Premier, as to what went on during hotel quarantine.

Members interjecting.

Peter WALSH: Twenty-seven times ‘I don’t recall’, as someone interjects. I know it is unruly to pick up interjections, but it is the Sergeant Schultz defence, isn’t it, for those that watched Hogan’s Heroes: ‘I know nothing.’ That is the whole issue. This is not only about restricting people’s rights to compensation if they are unfairly jailed; this is also about protecting all those in the system – in the Labor Party machine – that do not want to give evidence under oath in the Supreme Court, because they know that they would have to answer the questions, which would be very, very difficult questions.

As I said, the end justifies the means, and that is just not the way our system works. We become Russia. We become North Korea. We become Iran. We become a dictatorship where life is expendable for the good of those in power and they do not care about it. As others have said, it is a dark day for the Victorian justice system. It is a dark day for the Westminster system of government here in Victoria when a government believes they can use their numbers and they can buy off crossbenchers – buy off the so-called Libertarian in the other house – to get this legislation through.

We have seen a lot of things happen in this Parliament over the generations, but this is probably one of the worst things that has ever been done to undermine confidence in the justice system here in Victoria. For most people, they will not really understand it. They probably will not care. They will say, ‘Well, that’s a lot of money’ or ‘These people were allegedly criminals anyhow.’ But everyone has a right to be deemed innocent until proven guilty, and being proven guilty because of corruption in the police force – and most likely in the executive government – undermines that whole confidence in the legal system here in Victoria. I think everyone that votes for this legislation both in this house and in the other house should stand condemned for what they have done to the justice system – or the lack-of-justice system, which it is here in Victoria – particularly for those who have been jailed unfairly because of the system being corrupted. They stand condemned and condemned and condemned forever for what they have done to the system here in Victoria.

Mary-Anne THOMAS (Macedon – Leader of the House, Minister for Health, Minister for Health Infrastructure, Minister for Ambulance Services) (18:05): I move:

That the question be now put.

Assembly divided on Mary-Anne Thomas’s motion:

Ayes (47): Juliana Addison, Jacinta Allan, Colin Brooks, Josh Bull, Anthony Carbines, Ben Carroll, Anthony Cianflone, Sarah Connolly, Chris Couzens, Jordan Crugnale, Lily D’Ambrosio, Daniela De Martino, Steve Dimopoulos, Paul Edbrooke, Matt Fregon, Ella George, Luba Grigorovitch, Bronwyn Halfpenny, Katie Hall, Paul Hamer, Mathew Hilakari, Natalie Hutchins, Lauren Kathage, Sonya Kilkenny, Nathan Lambert, Kathleen Matthews-Ward, Steve McGhie, Paul Mercurio, John Mullahy, Tim Pallas, Danny Pearson, Pauline Richards, Tim Richardson, Michaela Settle, Ros Spence, Nick Staikos, Natalie Suleyman, Meng Heang Tak, Jackson Taylor, Nina Taylor, Kat Theophanous, Mary-Anne Thomas, Emma Vulin, Iwan Walters, Vicki Ward, Dylan Wight, Belinda Wilson

Noes (26): Brad Battin, Roma Britnell, Tim Bull, Martin Cameron, Chris Crewther, Gabrielle de Vietri, Wayne Farnham, Sam Groth, Matthew Guy, Sam Hibbins, David Hodgett, Emma Kealy, Tim McCurdy, Cindy McLeish, James Newbury, Danny O’Brien, Michael O’Brien, John Pesutto, Tim Read, Richard Riordan, Brad Rowswell, Ellen Sandell, David Southwick, Bridget Vallence, Peter Walsh, Nicole Werner

Motion agreed to.

Assembly divided on motion:

Ayes (47): Juliana Addison, Jacinta Allan, Colin Brooks, Josh Bull, Anthony Carbines, Ben Carroll, Anthony Cianflone, Sarah Connolly, Chris Couzens, Jordan Crugnale, Lily D’Ambrosio, Daniela De Martino, Steve Dimopoulos, Paul Edbrooke, Matt Fregon, Ella George, Luba Grigorovitch, Bronwyn Halfpenny, Katie Hall, Paul Hamer, Mathew Hilakari, Natalie Hutchins, Lauren Kathage, Sonya Kilkenny, Nathan Lambert, Kathleen Matthews-Ward, Steve McGhie, Paul Mercurio, John Mullahy, Tim Pallas, Danny Pearson, Pauline Richards, Tim Richardson, Michaela Settle, Ros Spence, Nick Staikos, Natalie Suleyman, Meng Heang Tak, Jackson Taylor, Nina Taylor, Kat Theophanous, Mary-Anne Thomas, Emma Vulin, Iwan Walters, Vicki Ward, Dylan Wight, Belinda Wilson

Noes (26): Brad Battin, Roma Britnell, Tim Bull, Martin Cameron, Chris Crewther, Gabrielle de Vietri, Wayne Farnham, Sam Groth, Matthew Guy, Sam Hibbins, David Hodgett, Emma Kealy, Tim McCurdy, Cindy McLeish, James Newbury, Danny O’Brien, Michael O’Brien, John Pesutto, Tim Read, Richard Riordan, Brad Rowswell, Ellen Sandell, David Southwick, Bridget Vallence, Peter Walsh, Nicole Werner

Motion agreed to.

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