Tuesday, 2 August 2022

Motions

Parliamentary integrity

Debate resumed.

Ms TAYLOR (Southern Metropolitan) (14:54): I do find it astounding today that the Liberal Party would have the gall to put this motion forward. I was absolutely aghast to read in the paper this morning that the Leader of the Opposition and his now former chief of staff have been doing secret dodgy deals in private emails. On the issue of integrity, I have some very important questions for the Leader of the Opposition. When did Mr Guy become aware of the contract for secret payments to Mr Catlin’s private company? And, given the correspondence to his private email is clear about a prior agreement, when did he authorise it? Who was the Liberal donor? Is it anyone linked with the infamous ‘lobster with a mobster’ dinner? What motivated the deal to describe the secret payments as ‘supporting business interests’, in parentheses? What business interests were to be supported with the secret payments to Catchy Media Marketing and Management?

Ms Lovell: On a point of order, Acting President, I have a copy of Mr Davis’s motion in front of me here that refers to Operation Watts and the Ombudsman’s investigation into the ALP. Nowhere in this motion does it refer to the Leader of the Opposition, and I struggle to find any relevance in the member’s contribution that she is making, asking questions of the opposition leader, so I would ask that you bring her back to the subject of the motion.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Mr Melhem): Thank you, Ms Lovell. I understand your point of order. Whilst I am not going to uphold the point of order, I will say that part of your point of order is that I will ask Ms Taylor to go back to the motion, but because Ms Taylor is the lead speaker on behalf of the government I think she is entitled to have some leeway to talk about similar matters that could be somehow related. But I invite Ms Taylor for the next 7½ minutes perhaps to go back to the motion as well.

Ms TAYLOR: What other secret donor deals does Catchy Media Marketing and Management have with Liberal donors? Isn’t—

Mr Davis: On a point of order, Acting President, it is a series of questions that the member is asking, nothing to do with the motion. They are to do with an entirely different matter and the member has not even tried to contextualise them. Indeed she has just launched off into a diatribe on a different matter altogether.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Mr Melhem): Mr Davis, thank you. Can I just remind members it is 10 minutes for speakers to speak. Mr Davis, I think in your contribution you were broad, and I do not uphold the point of order.

Ms TAYLOR: Yes, well, we are talking about matters of integrity. I perfectly understand why the opposition are uncomfortable with this subject matter. I do understand why—but we are on the topic of integrity here, so we are pursuing that matter. Isn’t this just a sham contract to receive illegal donations? Why was Mr Guy asked to forward the secret contract drawn up by lawyers to the Liberal donor—

Mr Davis: On a point of order, Acting President, yet again the member is just reading a set of questions about a different matter. They are not related to the motion, which is highly specific. It deals with exact paragraphs in the IBAC report. This is a matter of relevance, and she is straying very wide.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Mr Melhem): I am having a problem. Whilst I understand where you are coming from, Mr Davis, when we talk about the events Ms Taylor is talking about my understanding is they relate to matters being referred this morning to IBAC. I understand you are talking in relation to Operation Watts. Ms Taylor, perhaps, whilst I understand where you are coming from, you can confine the further contribution in relation to Watts. But as I said, I am having difficulties asking members not to talk about recent matters. It is a very broad motion. If you look at your contribution, Mr Davis, you did stray beyond Operation Watts, if I recall—I was in the chamber.

Ms TAYLOR: Heaven forbid the opposition would try to gag debate of issues being discussed here today. I mean, I think that would be against the premise and the understanding upon which we engage in important discussions and matters in the chamber, so I pray that we continue.

Did Mr Guy pressure the donor to agree to the secret payments? What was the donor expecting in return for the secret payments, especially as the payments rise to $20 833 a month for four months if the coalition wins the election? What undertakings did Mr Guy give to the Liberal donor in return for these secret payments? What leverage does the secret donor have over him? Given that Victoria’s electoral laws limit donations to $4320 over four years and this secret contract is around 30 times that amount, isn’t it the case that this donation would amount to a massive breach of the law?

Mr Davis: On a point of order, Acting President, the motion is about Operation Watts and another Ombudsman investigation. It is hyperspecific, and she is now asking questions about an entirely different matter, a set of questions that have got nothing to do with this particular motion.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Mr Melhem): Mr Davis, I accept where you are coming from, but also let me make this point to members: when members raise matters in this house, particularly in general business, in relation to other agencies and investigative agencies, I cannot force other members responding to them not to actually refer to similar areas which might be the subject of these agencies. I have got a problem gagging the debate on this issue, so again, Ms Taylor, if I can ask you to perhaps go back to Operation Watts, that would be helpful.

Ms TAYLOR: I think in light of recent matters that have occurred, it is certainly relevant in the context of the date today and where we are at. I do not think it is unreasonable to be pursuing matters which are highly relevant in the context of IBAC and integrity. I think we are well within the realm. Why won’t Mr Guy and Mr Catlin come clean and release the secret contract, full lists of emails and any other correspondence between them and donors regarding this attempt to breach Victoria’s—

Dr Bach: On a point of order, Acting President, the member is now openly flouting your remarks and your comments—indeed, your ruling. You specifically asked her to come now to Operation Watts; however, she is proceeding to read a long list of questions about a different matter. Of course we accept your broader rulings about the points of order that we raised. The member of the government, however, is directly flouting what you asked her to come back to in your recent comments.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Mr Melhem): I did not make a ruling, I just made a comment, and I also commented that the lead speaker of the government is entitled to have a wider approach.

Ms TAYLOR: Is breaching Victoria’s donation laws through secret payments standard practice in the Liberal and National parties? Do any other opposition staff receive secret payments from unknown donors? Finally, will Mr Guy cooperate fully with the integrity bodies to clear up even the perception of illegal activity? The Leader of the Opposition has a record of dodgy deals: lobsters with mobsters, penthouse fundraisers, overnight rezonings in Fishermans Bend—this is just another dodgy notch in his dodgy belt.

The government is taking decisive action. Recently the Premier announced sweeping integrity reforms as part of the most significant overhaul of parliamentary oversight in this country. The government will support and implement, very importantly, all 21 recommendations from the IBAC’s report on Operation Watts, relating to the integrity and ethical conduct of MPs, ministers and their respective staff. One of the most significant reforms is the establishment of a new parliamentary integrity commissioner to receive and investigate complaints—

Ms Crozier: God, you’re holier than thou.

Ms TAYLOR: Well, if only you would come on board, this should be a bipartisan action; I would suggest you welcome this. They are to receive and investigate complaints about possible misconduct from MPs. The commissioner will be armed with robust powers and resources, including the power to recommend sanctions. We will also be implementing a new cross-party parliamentary ethics committee, something that I hope Mr Davis will welcome as well. It is a real shame the Liberal Party have gone down the road of playing cheap political games with a matter that is absolutely serious, and I hope they will start to take this seriously.

Ms CROZIER (Southern Metropolitan) (15:05): I am pleased to rise to speak to Mr Davis’s motion, because it involves integrity around the Labor Party and the government and the rorting of millions of dollars of taxpayers money.

Mr Leane interjected.

Ms CROZIER: I mean, we know there is $1.348 million that should be paid back, Mr Leane, and this is what Mr Davis’s motion is about. It is about Operation Watts. That is purely around the Labor Party and the allegations that have been made about the misuse of electorate office allowances. Mr Davis’s motion, which I will not go into in detail, is very, very serious, because this involves taxpayers money, over $1 million that needs to be paid back by Daniel Andrews. If we are talking about integrity, then that is what he should do. That is exactly what you should do, because that money is not Labor Party money. It is not your colleagues’ money, Mr Leane. It is taxpayers money. On the day when this report was handed down Mr Redlich in a press release said:

… a catalogue of unethical and inappropriate behaviour ranging from the hiring of unqualified people into publicly funded roles, using those roles to support factional work, nepotism, forging signatures, bullying and attempts to interfere with the government grants process.

There was widespread misuse of public resources for political purposes. This is very serious—very, very serious. Those are the words of the commissioner himself. We know that this house referred red shirts to the Ombudsman. The lack of willingness by the government to comply with any investigations, with police investigations or any investigations into what has happened through that process—nothing from the lower house members. It is a damn disgrace what this government has got away with over the last eight years in relation to red shirts, and—

Mr Leane interjected.

Ms CROZIER: I am, Mr Leane. I am being very relevant, because red shirts started, as you know, with the rorting of taxpayers money and forging of signatures. I mean, there were dozens and dozens of time sheets that were paid where the MP had not even seen the electorate officer for whom they were signing. This government, as Mr Davis has said, has got an absolute integrity issue. The report itself says:

Many witnesses gave evidence that they engaged in branch stacking and other abuses of the ALP’s rules because it was the prevailing culture to which they were introduced when they joined the party.

The whole culture is rotten to the core, and it has permeated through the members, those MPs that sit in this house, sit in this Parliament, who have then gone on and rorted and misused taxpayers money. That is why Mr Davis has brought this important motion to this place calling for that money to be repaid. Over $110 000 was paid to a factionally appointed political staffer who carried out very little, if any, legitimate work. I mean, that should be paid back. Up to $14 000 of stamp purchases were misused for political purchases. Almost $30 000 was paid to a Labor political staffer who sent only one work email during his entire period of employment. Grants were awarded by former minister Robin Scott to Labor-linked community organisations totalling more than $1 million, and grants were awarded by former minister Marlene Kairouz to Labor-linked community organisations totalling $194 750. This is taxpayers money. None of them think there is anything wrong with it. It is taxpayers money. It is taxpayers money that has been rorted and should be paid back, yet this government thinks that they are holier than thou, that there is nothing to see here—deny, deflect and move on. ‘We can wash over this’—they do not think anything is wrong. It is in your culture. It is how you operate. It is how you think. It is how you work.

You constantly do this in every aspect of how you govern, and it comes from the top—from the Premier himself. You know what they say, Mr Leane? A fish rots from the head. It starts with the Premier and infiltrates right through to you sitting here and those sitting on the back bench—current members, former members. They are a disgrace. That money is taxpayers money, it is not your money. It should be paid back, and you should say, ‘Yes, we’ve done the wrong thing. Yes, we will comply with any investigation’. You did not do any of that—forged signatures, in this report. I cannot believe that has not been investigated further. That is a crime—forging somebody’s signature—and nobody investigated it. The police—what the hell are they doing?

Members interjecting.

Ms CROZIER: Well, none of you would comply with the police when you needed to be investigated—through you, Acting President. This government is rotten to the core. Over a million dollars needs to be paid back. You wasted another million dollars fighting the red shirts in the High Court. That is taxpayers money; you should pay that back too.

Mr Leane: You are not being relevant to the motion.

Ms CROZIER: I am, because it is all about rorting and money being paid back. The Operation Watts report shows that $1 348 750 of taxpayers money was misappropriated by the ALP, which is only a share of what was likely misappropriated. It identified, as I have already gone through, the stamps, the factionally appointed political staffer, the staffer who sent only one email in all of their time during the employment period, over $1 million granted to community organisations with one grant and $194 000 with another grant. This is rotten. This government is rotten, Acting President. Unfortunately I am not sure that you would agree with me, because you are part of it. It is rotten to the core.

A member interjected.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Mr Melhem): No, you do not need a point of order. Ms Crozier, I ask you to withdraw. Reflecting on the Chair is not part of—

Ms CROZIER: Sorry, I did not mean to reflect on you. I will withdraw, Acting President. I was sort of looking at you as I said that, and I was meaning not to reflect. So I do withdraw, and thank you. But I make the point: there is so much money that has been misappropriated by the ALP, and it does need to be paid back. It is taxpayers money. Do the right thing, government. For once in your term do the right thing and pay this money back, because Operation Watts showed the extent of the stench within your party. And as we heard from Mr Somyurek, it did not look at all the factional issues. Thank God—

Mr Leane interjected.

Ms CROZIER: Mr Leane, I am sort of dismayed at the extent of what has been shown, but I am very disappointed that it actually has not gone into the extent of all of the factional operatives, all of the factional operations, all of the issues, because as Mr Davis has highlighted, this is only what we know. We do not know the full extent of the money that was misappropriated, because you were not all investigated. You refused to investigate. You refused to comply with the Ombudsman. You refused to—

Members interjecting.

Ms CROZIER: Yes, none of you would be investigated by the police. You stood behind your lawyers’ defence. It is rotten to the core, this government. I will say it again: that money needs to be paid back. It is taxpayers money, and it needs to be paid back. I would urge all of you to do the right thing and support Mr Davis’s motion, because it is important for the Victorian taxpayer to have that money returned to them. That money could be put into more issues in health, mental health—a whole range of services. It needs to be paid back. Mr Leane, I am looking forward to you standing up and agreeing with me. Finally, this is a catalogue of unethical and inappropriate behaviour, ranging from the hiring of unqualified people into publicly funded roles and using those roles to support factional work to nepotism, forging signatures, bullying and attempts to interfere with the government’s grants process. They are the words of the commissioner, and I think they say it all.

Mr LEANE (Eastern Metropolitan—Minister for Commonwealth Games Legacy, Minister for Veterans) (15:15): Hearing the opposition’s contribution, but in particular centring on Mr Davis’s initial contribution when he spoke about branch stacking, well—

A member interjected.

Mr LEANE: He is talking about branch stacking. Just reading the outcomes of the preselection in the Liberal Party in the upper house—he spoke about branch stacking and he spoke about value for money for the taxpayer for certain positions. I thought after today’s revelation that the opposition’s CEO has been running a donation laundromat came out that in this debate and motion Mr Davis was going to refer the Liberal Party to IBAC. I thought this was about them referring themselves to IBAC, given that today’s revelations are just astounding. It is just astounding to find ways to subvert the donation laws. I know the opposition—I cannot remember if they even voted for or against—

A member: They opposed it.

Mr LEANE: They opposed it. Well, no wonder they opposed it. They opposed it, but to find this novel way to get around the donation laws, I will hand it to them that for a group of people that have been running around and banging on about integrity, this is spectacular. This is spectacular. Then today Mr Guy, the Leader of the Opposition, says, ‘Well, the chief of staff has resigned. He’s resigned. Nothing to see here’—let alone that this concoction to get around the donation laws was actually run past him to the point that he was the one that was asked to run it past the wealthy donor via his Hotmail—

Dr Bach: On a point of order, Acting President, Mr Leane has been making his contribution for some time now—about 2½ minutes. Previously you have made the point to the government speakers that it would be a good thing if they could confine their comments to the motion, which refers to Operation Watts, so I would humbly submit to you, Acting President, that Mr Leane is not being relevant to the motion in his contribution and that he should be brought back to that motion.

Ms Shing: On the point of order, Acting President, try as Dr Bach might, he cannot erase what his predecessor speakers have said here today, which goes beyond the scope of the Watts report and has strayed into significantly broader territory. On that basis Minister Leane is well within his rights to in fact be afforded the same courtesy as far as breadth is concerned.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Mr Melhem): As I said earlier in my comments, motions like this can start on one foot and then they can move on and have four legs. It is difficult to control the debate and the contributions from various members. It is very hard for the Chair to tell members individually how far they can go in relation to this motion. I think it is very difficult for me to control that, and that is the reason I am not upholding the point of order, but I do remind members that perhaps we can focus on the actual motion itself instead of just solely focusing on this morning’s events.

Mr LEANE: Thank you, Acting President. Getting back to my responding to the comments, there have been comments around branch stacking.

A member interjected.

Mr LEANE: I know, congratulations to a few people in here on the other side for their outcome. Good for them. Matthew Guy, when he was actually in government, had Fishermans Bend, which was just outrageous. He was sitting at a kitchen table at Ventnor until Miley Cyrus spooked him. So this is nothing new, but it is a really novel thing that the Liberal Party have found an opportunity to be corrupt in opposition. That is amazing. I mean, in government they stunk, time and time again. They were just rotten to the core in government. It was all there to see, and no wonder they only lasted one term. But this is spectacular—to be able to find a way to be this corrupt and to stink in opposition, like I said, is absolutely amazing.

Mr Davis and Ms Crozier can rant and rave and carry on. Mr Davis was saying, ‘What about you? Did you comply with the Ombudsman and the police?’. Well, I did when it came to what is he is referring to. I spent 3½ hours with the Ombudsman freely. She asked me to come. I spent 3½ hours with her. They had great coffee. We had a great discussion. The Ombudsman’s report actually said that she thought my evidence was genuine and complete. Every couple of years the opposition go back and say, ‘The police should look into this again’. I got a phone call from a lawyer that said, ‘The police want to speak to you’, and I said, ‘There is 3½ hours of video of me with the Ombudsman. The police can look at that and then come back to me and tell me if there’s not enough’.

This myth that we all did not comply is wrong anyway. They can run their myths. They can run whatever they want. But Ventnor happened. Fishermans Bend happened. Michael O’Brien, the member for Malvern, even put out a social media post in code today about what he thinks about Mr Guy. Between the two of them, these last few years they have been playing pass the parcel, and I am not too sure which one actually wants the parcel when the music stops. But I think it is about to start again. Mr Guy cannot run the line that he did not know what his chief of staff was doing to subvert these laws. There are very serious consequences under the act for subverting these laws. Mr Guy cannot just pretend he did not know what was going on. Of course he knew what was going on. It was the same when he was sitting at that kitchen table in Ventnor talking to Liberal donors about changing the planning scheme for a windfall for those people. So as I said—

Dr Bach: On a point of order, Acting President, I understand from your previous rulings that if the government wants to seek to try to talk about other matters that they believe are directly relevant to the matters highlighted in this motion, that is one thing. However, simply a recapitulation of the government’s greatest hits from the time of the Napthine and Baillieu governments I would submit to you sits well beyond the bounds of the rulings that you previously made.

Ms Shing interjected.

Dr Bach: It is a point of order, Ms Shing. It is about relevance. Relevance under the standing orders is grounds for a point of order, so it is a point of order, Ms Shing. He is not being relevant, and he should be made to come back to the motion.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Mr Melhem): I repeat exactly what I said earlier: I cannot confine members. It is within the broad framework of corruption and alleged corruption and talking about current investigations and old investigations. Whilst the motion itself may be mentioning one particular report or investigation, I cannot stop members, from time to time, going and talking about other matters. Also, I remind members, particularly members of the government: can you confine the bulk of your contribution to Operation Watts and not stray too much into other areas. I underline that: do not stray too much towards them and focus back on the motion at hand.

Dr CUMMING (Western Metropolitan) (15:25): I rise today to speak on the report of the Ombudsman, the Operation Watts report. What I have heard from the community since this report has been published is that they wish for the full transcript of Mr Andrews to be given to the community for everyone to read. They want to know every single word that the Premier actually said within this inquiry. They want a full copy of the transcript so they know what their Premier actually had to say behind closed doors during this inquiry. It would be great if as part of this motion today the government would just automatically provide that—say, ‘Absolutely’. Mr Andrews was happy to go to the press conference and say that he supports all the recommendations that Ms Glass has put. Well, in the same way the community would love Mr Andrews to say that he is happy—more than happy—for his full contribution to that inquiry to be made public, for the full transcript to be provided to the community and to this Parliament for all of us to see. As the government were saying just earlier, they are all about transparency. So, please, be transparent, Premier. We would love to see every single word that was said at IBAC. My community want justice. They always want justice. They want people to be held to account. If there is any wrongdoing, all they want to see is people being held to account.

For me, I came into this place and put down a little piece of legislation that this government actually said they would take further and do more work on, which was the Members of Parliament (Standards) Amendment Bill 2021. I have requested numerous updates on that piece of legislation, and I have heard nothing back. This actually goes hand in glove with the Operation Watts report, because this would actually improve the standards of our members of Parliament by making sure that everything is transparent in the way of employment. For me, when I penned this bill, the Members of Parliament (Standards) Amendment Bill 2021, I penned it in such a way that it was a replica of what is expected of people in local government in the way of employment of staff and employment of family. So I put this last year. I was told by this government that they would look at it and that they would probably improve it and make it something that this government would actually put forward, seeing that we knew that this report was coming to us from Ms Glass and that there would be a whole lot of recommendations. I would hope that this government would put in as one of the recommendations a members of Parliament standards amendment bill. It would seem that our current parliamentary standards act for members of Parliament was written in the 1970s. It is so paper thin that it could be improved. It could have more put into it—more modern-day conditions that any kind of workplace would expect and especially members of Parliament would expect in the way of their standards in the view of the public.

It is a very lengthy report. Everybody enjoyed the public submissions last year. It was a wonderful thing that everybody got to watch during lockdown all of the public submissions, but I would say that the community would really like the Premier’s contribution, because it was not obviously a public contribution. It would have probably got high ratings if Mr Andrews actually went before the committee publicly last year, like Mr Somyurek. It would have got full ratings from the community. They would have loved to hear what Mr Andrews had to say. It would have been a wonderful balance of the left of the ALP and the right of the ALP in understanding the full spectrum, the holistic spectrum, of the ALP—both wings of the ALP, the left side and the right side and how they both did things together. Unfortunately we only got to hear from the right, and it would have been really great to hear from the left. It would seem that Ms Glass got to hear from the left and got to see a lot of contributions from the left, but the public did not actually get to see how the left runs itself as part of the ALP in a branch and how they actually gain memberships.

For me, having just recently gone through the process of putting up a political party and getting members, I would say that my process has been extremely transparent and that the members that I have attracted are all very transparent. It would be great for the ALP to actually do things not dissimilarly to a lot of these minor parties that are here, making sure that their member base is real people—real members of the community.

One of the things that I have also heard, which actually upset me, within the last week or two was that the ALP is recruiting by forcing people to become members via their workforce. So I would hope that that is not the case—that you have to be a member of a political party to actually get a job. That would be a horrible state of affairs here in Victoria if the only way you actually get a job, or a government job, is if you are a member of a particular political party. I would hate to see that be the case. It is not the first time in the last couple of weeks that people have actually come to me saying that they have been receiving pressure in their workforce to actually join a particular political party, otherwise they might not actually keep hold of their job. I have heard of such pressure in the way of unions—if you are not part of a union, ‘This is a union site, you won’t have a job here’. But it is interesting to hear that now political parties are doing it within—

Ms Terpstra: On a point of order, Acting President, I just think the member is straying quite broadly from the point of this motion. Talking about union membership is not remotely connected to Operation Watts and the context of the motion. I understand we are broadly talking about corruption in the context of this motion, but the last points that were made were just completely outside the scope of this motion.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Mr Melhem): We have only got 1 minute to go, Dr Cumming, so I think I will repeat what I said earlier. We can start these motions, but we cannot control where people go—and it goes both ways. It is a double-edged sword. So, Dr Cumming, you have got 1 minute and 20 seconds to continue.

Dr CUMMING: I am actually in shock that the government would actually say the words ‘union’ and ‘corruption’ in the same sentence. It is actually quite shocking for me, because I obviously did not actually say anything to that effect. I only said that I felt that it is not the right thing to do to enforce that a person has to be a member of a political party to actually hold a job here in Victoria. That is all I said. I had not said anything about unions or corruption, but this government obviously said ‘unions’ and ‘corruption’, which I am absolutely in shock at.

For me, I do not believe that you should be a member of a political party to actually hold your job here in Victoria. It would seem a certain political party, maybe the government, is pressuring people to actually hold a membership with their party to hold a job. It would seem that there is a report coming out at the moment to check how much political influence is within the public service. I am pretty sure they were holding submissions and were closing submissions at the end of last week to have such an inquiry. So I look forward to the next inquiry that Ms Glass holds.

Ms TERPSTRA (Eastern Metropolitan) (15:35): It gives me pleasure to rise to speak on Mr Davis’s motion, which I will go to. In talking about this motion, I have listened to the contributions of Dr Cumming and others in this chamber today, and one of the things that disturbs me about debates, particularly on this motion, is that I take my duties as a parliamentarian pretty seriously when I come in here to debate motions. When I do stand up and am on my feet, I make sure that I am well informed about the content of what I am speaking about, and I take every step to ensure that I do not mislead the house or make comments that are completely extraneous or ridiculous.

It is disappointing that people like to get on their feet and actually say anything. I think that is disrespectful to the chamber and to members in this place, but also it is really taking extreme licence with our standing orders. I think that each of us in this place when we do come to debate things should make sure that we do not just come in here and say whatever we like. It might make a very nice sound bite on a Facebook post or on a tweet or whatever, but honestly some of the things that have just been talked about on this motion are fiction and completely made up. It is all designed to continue it as a political stunt, just continuing to bang the drum. It is not going to turn a hair on anyone’s head, nor is it actually going to turn some votes for particular constituencies that crossbenchers might want to court.

We should make sure as parliamentarians that we are actually sticking to the motion, are relevant to the motion and are well versed in what we are talking about, because clearly that has not been happening today. And in terms of this motion, okay, it talks about IBAC, corruption, Operation Watts, the report, the Ombudsman’s report and all of those things. As the Acting President did say earlier, there are times when we will get on our feet and make points of order and the like about relevance, and there is some licence in being able to talk around the edges about some things that may be slightly off centre to the motion or might be loosely related, and that is all fine. But honestly, the things that we have just heard are completely ridiculous.

Again, it is being used as a political pointscoring exercise, an exercise in smear. I really struggle to see that there would be any evidence of anything that Dr Cumming has just said about making people join a political party. I mean, honestly, those sorts of things are completely offensive, and for people to come in here and just make that stuff up, I think, reflects poorly on parliamentarians, all of us in here, that those things are said. Yes, okay, you have got parliamentary privilege. You think you can come in here and say anything. Honestly, our standards should be better than that and parliamentarians in this place should take things a little bit more seriously than that, because that is just completely offensive.

But I will return to this motion. We have heard a lot today from those opposite about integrity and why we need to have strong integrity agencies, and we do. Our government has no doubt read the reports that have come out of Operation Watts and the joint investigation between the Ombudsman and IBAC. Our government is committed to implementing the reforms that were recommended in those reports. As I said, the Premier and this government are committed to implementing all of the recommendations from Operation Watts in full, and we will go further by establishing legislation to better protect the integrity of political parties and ensure adherence to the rules.

People might want to come in here and point the finger, but I can talk about my own experience of being on, say, a polling booth. If you want to talk about staffers who might be on the public purse, well, I think those opposite should be pretty careful, because I can reflect on standing at polling booths and seeing political staffers of a different persuasion handing out during work time. So if we want to go there, then let us go there, because it is all very well for those opposite to point fingers at us. I have stood at polling booths with volunteers. In fact I might just reflect on a story from the recent federal election where I was standing at a polling booth on a weekend with Labor volunteers who were handing out how-to-votes for our Labor candidate in Menzies, and I am pretty sure there were people who were Liberal staffers handing out. In fact I was abused by one person who was handing out for the Liberal Party, and I have got that on video too, by the way. I felt threatened. I felt personally attacked for no reason and physically intimidated by these actions.

So for this motion to focus on us, on Labor—I always like to think that if you are going to ask for equity to do its work, you want to make sure you have got clean hands, because we have seen today what has been pointed out, and before someone jumps up and bangs on with a point of order, this debate has been very broad ranging. We have seen what has been said in the media today about the opposition leader and what has been revealed about this alleged secret deal of $100 000, and it has been alleged that this was to subvert our donation law reforms. Those opposite were against those reforms, and we acted and we moved to implement those reforms, which are critically important because we want to make sure that there is transparency in election processes. We do not want to have foreign interference or other undue influences in our electoral processes. The government have acted, and we have referred these matters to Victoria Police, the Victorian Electoral Commission, the Victorian Ombudsman and the Australian Federal Police. What has been clearly articulated today in the media is that there was an email exchange—here we go.

Dr Bach: On a point of order, Acting President, not 10 minutes ago Ms Terpstra made a point of order when Dr Cumming was speaking, on relevance, and specifically what Ms Terpstra said was that Dr Cumming was ‘straying’ from discussion of Operation Watts. Word for word that is what Ms Terpstra said. That was a very good point of order. I would raise the same point of order here. She is not discussing this motion in any way, shape or form. She should be brought back to discussion of this motion.

Ms TERPSTRA: I am getting to a point that is relevant to this motion. What I am doing is pointing to elements of what has happened today to bring them back to the motion, and there have been other contributors in this chamber today—Acting President, I am not sure if you are necessarily privy to or aware of the previous Acting President’s ruling on this, but this is the same point of order that Dr Bach has raised all throughout this debate—

Dr Bach: You raised it. It’s your point of order.

Ms TERPSTRA: No, you just raised a point of order. So I am getting back to the point, but I am using this to illustrate my point. I would like to continue.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Mr Bourman): Give me a moment. I would just like to phone a friend. I am going to let Ms Terpstra continue, but I was not here for the earlier ruling. I will make a general plea: keep at least in the ballpark of what we are talking about.

Ms TERPSTRA: I certainly am, because I will come back to the point that I was making, which is about what has been in the media today and how this feeds into the general context of what this motion is about. It is about alleged corruption and how various workings uncovered by Operation Watts into political operatives were seen, so again this is the same flavour as what we are talking about in the media today, which is that there was an email exchange between the opposition leader and his chief of staff about how this donation was going to be taken in and used. So we return to the point of the motion, which goes to corruption, and that is why—

Dr Cumming: On a point of order, Acting President, is the member actually talking about this motion, which is on Operation Watts, or is she talking about where the Victorian Ombudsman has requested submissions for its investigation into the politicisation of the public service?

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Mr Bourman): Thank you, Dr Cumming. But if you could go on, Ms Terpstra, you have only got a few seconds left.

Ms TERPSTRA: This is a ridiculous motion that deserves to be roundly rejected, and it should be.

Mr FINN (Western Metropolitan) (15:45): I rise to speak on this particular motion today, and I want to put out an appeal to members of all sides of this house on behalf of the people of Victoria, because the great mass of people in the suburbs and in regional Victoria see us in here and think we are all crooks.

A member: Just you.

Mr FINN: No, no, they think we are all shysters. That is exactly what they think we are. Do you reckon today has helped that at all? Does anybody think that the front page of today’s Age helped dismiss that perception? Does anybody think that the way that the Andrews government has bent the rules, broken the rules and rorted vast sums of money changes the perception that Victorians have about their political leaders in this house and in the other house? Does anybody think that what we have seen from the Andrews government and today even from the Guy opposition has helped our perception in the general community? Not a hope; not a chance. It has just confirmed what the overwhelming majority of people think. I want to make an appeal today to members of this house. We have to get our act together. We have to stop carrying on like this.

I could not believe it when I read this morning what was going on in the Leader of the Opposition’s office, where the opposition leader was actually aware of what was going on and came out and said, ‘There’s nothing to see here. There’s absolutely nothing wrong here, but I’ve accepted his resignation anyway’. That is pretty odd. I mean, if nothing has gone wrong, if nothing is odd, if nothing is out of place, (a) why would somebody offer their resignation and (b) why would it be accepted? It is very strange.

But of course it is minuscule by comparison with what the Andrews government has done in terms of corruption over the past eight years. This is undoubtedly the most corrupt government that this state has ever seen and one of the most corrupt governments this nation, Australia wide, has ever seen. This is a government that stinks. It stinks to high heaven, and we do not know—and we will not know until perhaps a royal commission is held when this government is finally turfed out—exactly how many hands were in how many pockets and how many bags of money were passed around to the beneficiaries of that cash. We will not know that probably until this government is well gone. My view is that the sooner that happens the better, but unfortunately today has not helped the cause, because now, as a result of what has happened in Mr Guy’s office, as a result of what Mr Guy has allowed to happen in his office and in fact was acutely aware happened in his office, we have a situation here where the Labor Party are let off the hook. They are let off the hook for all their corruption, all their shysterism—red shirts and rorts and all the numerous cases of corruption that we can talk about. They have been let off the hook, because now the people of Victoria are saying, ‘You lot are all the same’. That is a tragedy for Victoria, and that is something that every one of us I suppose has to have some degree of responsibility for.

As I said earlier, we have to get fair dinkum about how we do our jobs here. The overwhelming majority of people come in here and we do work hard, we do care about our constituents, we do care about our electorates and we do care about these issues that we have come in here to fight for. But there are some who are dodgy, to say the least, and they give us all a bad name. They are on both sides of the fence. There is no need to try and point the finger either way, because they are on both sides, and that is something that perhaps the people across Victoria have to realise. We are not all like that at all. In fact it is a very small group who are playing games, who are rorting the system and who are taking us all for a ride. I mean, members here are being taken for a ride as much as the taxpayer in Gladstone Park or in Geelong. Members come in here in good faith, and when we see our leaders carrying on the way they are carrying on, we are tempted to feel the same way as the great mass of Victorians. We are tempted to have very little faith in them. If we as members of Parliament cannot have faith in our leadership, how are the people of Victoria supposed to feel? How are they supposed to throw their support behind political leaders? How, indeed.

I think it is a very, very sad day when we get to this point, and it need not have happened. Mr Guy, I have to say, has a fair bit to answer for on this occasion—not as much as Mr Andrews, not by a stretch, but certainly Mr Guy has a number of questions that he needs to answer. He needs to look into the barrel of the camera and he needs to answer, because until he does the great mass of people out there and indeed the great mass of people in here will not be able to have the confidence in him that he requires to become Premier of this state. He has not got long. The election is not far away. So I would urge him to do that, to take that on now—to answer those questions, to try and reclaim the faith of Victorians before it is too late.

I would like to think that one day we would have a government and an opposition that would not participate in the sort of shysterism that we have seen. I would like to think, I would like to hope, I would almost like to pray—I prayed once and got thrown out of the Liberal Party for that, so I will not do it again—that we will one day have political leadership in this state that we can have faith in, that we will know is doing the right thing by us and by everyone else. I would like to think, to hope and to pray that we will have a Premier and an opposition leader who are there for the right reasons. We do not at the moment. That is the truth of the matter: we do not at the moment. We know that Daniel Andrews and Matthew Guy are both there for the same reason: because they both want to be Premier. They have got huge egos, both of them. You could not fit them in the same room, I would not have thought. But they are there for exactly the same reasons, and unfortunately those reasons include themselves. That is a very sad fact, a fact that I think the people of Victoria worked out some time ago.

So I would hope that one day soon the people of Victoria would once again be able to have faith in their elected leaders, the sort of faith that they had in Bolte, the sort of faith that they had in John Cain—senior, perhaps junior to a degree. I would like to think that the people of Victoria would be able to actually look forward to an election knowing that their leaders are there for the right reason. I would like to think that that will happen. I would like to think it will happen soon. I do not have a great deal of faith that it will, given the political leadership that both sides have put up prior to this election. I support this motion, but I ask the house to take into consideration the words that I have uttered this afternoon.

Ms MAXWELL (Northern Victoria) (15:55): I rise to speak on this motion with a real sense of disappointment. In the main the Operation Watts report goes to the heart of the integrity and ethical conduct of members of Parliament, ministers and their respective staff. I would like to read, if I may, a paragraph from the foreword of the Ombudsman and commissioner’s report. It says:

This report illustrates a catalogue of unethical and inappropriate behaviour and concerning practices, and the environment in which such behaviour was able to flourish. They range from bullying to the hiring of unqualified people into publicly funded roles, using those roles to undertake factional work, rampant nepotism, forging signatures, and attempts to interfere with government grants to favour factionally aligned community organisations—who, in some cases, failed to use the funds as intended.

It goes on to say:

It is discouraging that so little parliamentary time—across parties and houses of parliament—has been devoted to finding a solution to this problem.

On 8 June in this very place I put forward a motion that was related to that type of conduct as it relates to bullying and harassment and to examine what support and oversight was in place. At the time I reflected that Parliament and its members should be exemplars of best practice. My motion was amended by the government to exclude the Legislative Assembly, even though the call to Parliament was to include all members, employees and other staff within the Parliament. It now sits with the equal opportunity commissioner for further consideration.

Reading the Operation Watts report further affirms my view that this review of the Parliament as a workplace is essential. I have hope that my motion will lead to installing the proper oversight that is clearly required in this place and providing for an external independent body to consider complaints, the appropriate right of reply and a robust but fair resolution process. The heads of the highest integrity bodies in our state say that Victoria is now a laggard rather than a leader in parliamentary integrity and that there is no framework in which breaches of ethical standards by MPs are investigated in a manner that is consistent or credible, and that is shameful.

I am bewildered that the Premier of this state can say he takes full responsibility for the conduct outlined in the report and that he supports the 21 recommendations from the report but then say that repaying taxpayers money, which was clearly identified in the inquiry, is not required, because it was not a recommendation. It is completely hypocritical to say that your response is going beyond the recommendations when it does not include repaying public money that was blatantly misused. Surely our Premier made a faux pas and meant to say that his moral and ethical duty was to ensure that taxpayers money would be repaid as his first priority and that he does not require a recommendation in a report to make that decision. So I say to the Premier: pay back the money. You said yourself that you need to do more than just offer words. It has to be about action. Be true to that statement and pay the money back.

Sitting suspended 3.59 pm until 4.21 pm.

Mr GEPP (Northern Victoria) (16:21): I rise to speak on Mr Davis’s motion before the chamber this afternoon. I must say at the outset that Mr Finn talked about the reputation of politicians being probably lower than shark droppings, and I suspect that that is probably true. I suspect partly the reason why it is true is that we seem to spend an inordinate amount of time talking about each other rather than the issues that are confronting the people of Victoria. When the people of Victoria are struggling with things such as the cost of living, housing affordability, education or healthcare issues, as indeed people across all parts of this great country are, they are the problems that they expect their parliaments are dealing with and that their politicians are talking about, not inwardly looking at what we are doing and talking about each other and amongst ourselves but focused on the issues that are affecting all of our constituents. I know that people in my electorate would urge everybody in this place to focus on the issues that matter to Victorians: that is, the bread-and-butter issues they are confronting as they go about their day-to-day lives.

I know that time is brief and there has got to be a bit of time for summing up, so I will not go through all of the material that has been covered off by so many people in this debate today, but I do want to talk about what the Ombudsman herself recommended in her report and some of the things that she said in her report. In effect the motion that we are dealing with today is saying, ‘Well, that wasn’t good enough’—that the report of the Ombudsman, who conducted the investigation, is not good enough. It is not good enough, it does not go far enough, according to Mr Davis—it has to go further. It has got to go further, despite the fact that the Ombudsman herself conducted the investigation and has written a report. Mr Davis has said, ‘Well, that’s not good enough; that hasn’t gone far enough’. We know that she did not recommend these things, certainly in terms of the points that are made under particularly item (3) of Mr Davis’s motion, (a) to (e), about the repayment of money et cetera and the assertions about where that money was spent. Despite the fact that the Ombudsman herself did not recommend that particular course of action, that is not good enough for Mr Davis.

I think it is important that we go back and we look at some of the things that the Ombudsman did say in her report, and of course we know that she has identified 21 recommendations and the government has already committed to accepting all of those recommendations. Indeed the government has said, ‘We will go further than that’. We will go above and beyond the 21, but the 21 as a minimum will be endorsed and implemented by the government. The report actually says, for example, that the investigation—and there is a reference in number (3) of Mr Davis’s motion about awarding of grants—did not receive or establish any evidence that grants were awarded improperly.

There is no evidence that grants were used to facilitate branch stacking.

It then went on to say that:

… the investigation did not find or receive evidence that any ministers overrode departmental advice on grants or sought to improperly influence departmental advice or decisions.

But that is not good enough for Mr Davis. Despite the fact that the independent Ombudsman has found this way, Mr Davis says, ‘No, that’s not good enough. I demand that that money be repaid, despite the fact that the independent Ombudsman has said to the contrary’. The report then goes on to say:

The investigation received little evidence relevant to whether ministers who were—

moderate Labor—

… faction leaders, or their advisers, interfered in public funding processes to favour community organisations that had connections to the faction through some of their executive members.

Again, not accepted by Mr Davis—he rejects the report of the independent Ombudsman and brings in here a motion that is not dealing with any of the day-to-day issues that all of our constituents are confronting out there in our electorates. It does not deal with any of that. What it deals with is Mr Davis’s rejection of the independent Ombudsman’s report into this matter and indeed her very, very pointed recommendations.

What has she said in relation to the 21 recommendations? Well, what she has said in response to the government’s commitment to implementing those recommendations is:

I welcome the government’s commitment to implementing the recommendations in Operation Watts …

She goes further to say:

I look forward to real reform in this area, and to a commitment across the political spectrum to achieving this reform.

So we have a report that has been handed down by the independent Ombudsman. She has made very careful and very deliberate and very considered recommendations. She has put those recommendations in the public domain, and the government has said, ‘We will accept all of those things’, and yet it is not good enough for Mr Davis. He says, ‘I want to reject all of that. I reject the Ombudsman’s findings. I reject the Ombudsman’s recommendations. I reject her statements that there was little or no evidence presented that there was any criminality involved, because if there were, it would have been referred to the relevant authorities, and that is the appropriate place for it to be’. If Mr Davis has knowledge of some form of criminality, then he should come clean. He should go to the authorities and he should give them that evidence and get out of the way and let them do their job. But the reality is that he has got none and that he rejects out of hand the recommendations of the only person who has conducted a full and thorough investigation into these matters. He rejects out of hand her findings. He rejects out of hand her statements that completely refute the propositions that Mr Davis has brought before the Parliament today.

I urge members that what we should not do is come in here and continue to talk about each other, to continue to talk about ourselves. We have real issues that constituents in my electorate are confronting on a daily basis. They want us to be talking about health care. They want us to be talking about education. They want us to be talking about roads and rail. They want us to be talking about the cost of housing. They want us to be talking about the cost of living. And they want to hear the answers and the propositions that we come up with to deal with those things. What they do not expect us to do is come in here and take the time to reject the independent reports of the Ombudsman in this state, who has thoroughly investigated these matters, has put forward her recommendations and has congratulated the government on accepting those recommendations and indeed moving forward. She has done the investigation. There is no point having these bodies if we are just going to reject their recommendations. We should accept what she has put forward. Her report is her report, even if Mr Davis does not like what has been written. Therefore I urge this chamber to reject the motion.

Mr DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan—Leader of the Opposition) (16:29): In reply, this is a very simple motion. The Labor Party did not do the right thing here. It is very clear that money was misused, and it simply should be repaid. In the same way as it was with the red shirts, it should be repaid. That is what this motion calls for, and I ask for the chamber’s support.

House divided on motion:

Motion negatived.