Wednesday, 31 August 2022

Leader of the Opposition in the Legislative Council

Mr BARTON (Eastern Metropolitan) (14:17): I move:

That:

(1) the Leader of the Opposition in the Legislative Council no longer possesses the confidence of this house, and noting that he:

(a) acted in an abusive and threatening manner towards staff at the Bright Brewery in April 2021 and therefore brought discredit to Parliament during a regional sitting trip;

(b) was intoxicated and acted inappropriately towards participants at a Victorian Multicultural Commission dinner in March 2022 and brought further discredit to Parliament;

(c) deliberately misled the house in his statements and accusations that impugned Mr Barton’s character and reputation; and

(2) this house calls on Mr Davis to resign as Leader of the Opposition in the Council for his outrageous behaviour.

This motion today is about the behaviour of the Leader of the Opposition in this place, Mr David Davis, in and outside of this house. It is one thing to embarrass yourself, it is another thing to embarrass your party, but what you have done, Mr Davis, has embarrassed the Parliament. We are going to draw a line in the sand today, and I am asking the house: is it okay to fabricate a story and abuse parliamentary privilege for political motives? People in this house must decide where the line is and have the courage to say where they stand. This is about accountability, credibility and of course honesty.

Mr Davis has a history of inappropriate behaviour. In April last year Mr Davis abused staff working at a brewery in Bright because they had run out of the meal he wanted. It was reported Mr Davis was aggressive, he was confrontational and he was so inappropriate that the staff member was so shaken he was required to take a break. The staff member was so upset—

Members interjecting.

Mr BARTON: The staff member—

Members interjecting.

Mr BARTON: Deputy President, I cannot hear.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Order!

Mr BARTON: The staff member was so upset they reported the incident to their manager the following day. When speaking to the Age, the manager, Mr Shaw, said this staff member was accustomed to difficult customers. But I say clearly nothing could prepare him for the rudeness and the entitlement of Mr Davis. This behaviour tarnishes us all. It is of course curious to most that Mr Davis has such a sense of entitlement.

In March this year it was reported, again in the media, that Mr Davis’s behaviour was so appalling he had to publicly apologise for his drunken, inappropriate behaviour at a multicultural event. His own colleagues had to put him into the back of his driver’s car after he refused to leave the event, despite being asked multiple times.

This is the behaviour of the Leader of the Opposition in the upper house. Only last week he came into this place and fabricated a story about me, outrageously hiding behind parliamentary privilege. I invite Mr Davis to repeat this fabricated allegation outside the protection of Parliament.

Last year I declared a donation for services from Trades Hall. I made this declaration on 18 October. On 26 October we saw the Public Health and Wellbeing Amendment (Pandemic Management) Bill 2021 for the first time when it was introduced in the other place. Mr Davis himself made a number of comments at the time about the secretive negotiations regarding this bill and did not once mention me, because he knows I saw the bill at the very same time he did. Mr Davis was well aware that these dates made it impossible for the allegations to be true.

Mr Davis asked what changed my mind. What changed my mind was doing my job. While Mr Davis stood out there on the steps of Parliament misleading emotional people, I was meeting with the Victorian Ombudsman, the deputy ombudsman, the president of the Centre for Public Integrity, the Human Rights Law Centre, the nurses federation, the ambulance association, the Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission and of course my crossbench colleagues. That is what I did while Mr Davis sat on the steps. Our negotiations with the government were completed I reckon at about 11 o’clock at night on 29 November—after much negotiation with the government—adding six amendments to the bill. This was after widespread consultation and changes to the bill that gained my support.

The declaration was for a number of videos that were filmed and provided to support ex-licence-holders in the taxi and hire car industry. Of course Trades Hall centres their focus around the rights of vulnerable workers, particularly those in the growing gig economy. This is a space I have advocated in since the day I came to this place. These videos were the product of a shared concern for vulnerable and disadvantaged workers. I invite anyone who is curious to see these videos to visit my Facebook page. Mr Davis was aware of all of this when he purposefully fabricated this falsehood, clearly evading the truth for his political mischief. This is an outrageous abuse of parliamentary privilege. The irony is that Mr Davis has on previous occasions abused workers in small business and now chooses to undermine the work I do to support vulnerable and disadvantaged workers in the taxi industry.

I do not know why Mr Davis has such a dislike for working people. It is not difficult to mount this case. I cannot count on two hands the number of times Mr Davis has embarrassed this Parliament. It is shocking. These are all serious matters of credibility, and Victorians have expressed this time and time again. They do not accept this kind of behaviour from their elected representatives. I call on my colleagues to show their courage and stand up against this sort of behaviour and bullying and request that Mr Davis step down as Leader of the Opposition in this place. As members of Parliament we have a responsibility to at the very least behave with honesty and integrity. This is the bare minimum—a benchmark Mr Davis has failed to reach.

Ms CROZIER (Southern Metropolitan) (14:24): I am—

Mr Gepp interjected.

Ms CROZIER: Mr Gepp—

Mr Gepp interjected.

Ms CROZIER: Through you, Deputy President.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Ms Crozier, without assistance.

Ms CROZIER: Mr Barton’s motion today, as you well know, is a political stunt. We have just seen what has gone on here in this house, this farcical behaviour of adjourning off his motion on taxis and Uber, which he is supposed to represent—the industry that has absolutely been hounded and has suffered under the Andrews government. Yet in the second-last sitting week in this place in this session, the four years you have had in this Parliament—Uber has been around for a jolly longer time than you have been in this house—you bring on that motion and then you adjourn it off to have this political stunt take place.

Mr Barton, if you were really concerned about those constituents you represent—the taxi industry—you would have allowed this place—

Ms Pulford: On a point of order, President, it goes to the matter of relevance and our requirement to be relevant to the motion being debated. Ms Crozier is clearly debating the matter that the house just resolved, which was the procedural question around whether Mr Barton can or cannot move to his next motion.

Ms CROZIER: On the point of order, President, the motion actually goes to the point about Mr Barton’s character and reputation, and I am just talking about what he is meant to be doing in this place, which is representing transport matters.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I believe the point of order was relevant, and Ms Crozier is to go back to the motion.

Ms CROZIER: I say again it is about Mr Barton’s character and reputation. He has been in this place for four years, elected by a handful of people to represent the Transport Matters Party—the taxi industry that has been done over by the Andrews government for eight years. You have been here for four years, and you bring this motion about Uber on to get it adjourned off in a political stunt and a political hit. How pathetic.

Ms Pulford: On a point of order, President, Ms Crozier was being incredibly disrespectful of your ruling on my recent point of order and just started doing again what she did before, which was speaking to a motion that has just been determined by the house by that vote that we had a minute ago.

Mr Atkinson: On the point of order, President, there was a changeover in the chair at the time the point of order was raised, so I am not sure that you actually got the full gist of what was being said. The fact is that in regard to the point of order that has been raised I do not think that it is appropriate to be questioning the line of commentary by Ms Crozier to this point. I would agree with you—and no doubt with Ms Pulford in raising that point of order—that in fact Ms Crozier does need to return to the substance of the motion immediately before the Chair, but how we got to debating this motion right now is a relevant consideration of her debate.

Ms Pulford: On the point of order, President, just in response to Mr Atkinson, with all respect to our former President, that is a stretch.

The PRESIDENT: I agree with Mr Atkinson that I was not in the chair; I was talking to Mr Davis about all of this. But let me clarify one thing: how we got to this motion was by a motion that the house decided on, so can we move on and talk about Mr Barton’s current motion.

Ms CROZIER: I will say it again: political stunt by Mr Barton. That is okay. He has got the support of the Labor Party, and he has supported them throughout many pieces of legislation. Just go and have a look at his voting record. He is there. It is all on the record. I think all of those in the industry that he is supposed to be representing would be very disappointed to see what is going on here.

I want to go to the point about what Mr Davis has done in this Parliament around integrity. He has moved around—

Ms Shing interjected.

Ms CROZIER: Well, you may laugh, Ms Shing, but it is your government that has got, in terms of integrity and the disgraceful way that you have—

Dr Bach: You cut the feed.

Ms CROZIER: As Dr Bach just said, it is you who cut the feed. It is you who shut down parliamentary committee process.

Ms Shing: On a point of order, President, it would appear that Ms Crozier has not got anything nice to say about Mr Davis, so again on the question of relevance maybe she could come back to the motion at hand rather than looking to expand the debate onto things that actually have no bearing on this matter.

Members interjecting.

The PRESIDENT: Can we please listen to what I am going to say: no further interjections, thank you very much, because they are not helpful. Ms Crozier, relevant to the motion, please.

Ms CROZIER: Thank you, President. I was just responding to Ms Shing’s interjections. In terms of integrity, this government has a rap sheet as long as your arm about the issues that are embroiling them in integrity investigations, whether it is IBAC or any other thing.

Ms Shing interjected.

Ms CROZIER: That is what I was getting to, Ms Shing, if you would just allow me to say what Mr Davis has done around this in terms of advocating for strengthening the Ombudsman and IBAC, something that your government refuses to do. Let us talk about integrity. Let us talk about issues—

Ms Shing interjected.

The PRESIDENT: Order! Ms Shing, please!

Ms CROZIER: You cannot help yourself. You cut the feed on a very important public official and a committee process so, Ms Shing, I do not know that you have got too much to stand on. But this motion that Doctor—Mr Barton, I should say; I have just elevated you to ‘Doctor’—that Mr Barton has brought into the house is a nonsense. It is a complete nonsense. He has a personal issue with Mr Davis; that is clear. It is very evident. It is very evident that there is a personality clash here. There is a personal issue going on. There is a tit for tat. It is 2 minutes before an election, and he is throwing this nonsense into the house. We are wasting time when he should be debating the very important issue that he was elected to this house for—representing those constituents in the taxi industry, taxi licence holders, that he said had been done over. Their properties have been lost, and we should have been debating that important issue rather than this ridiculous motion that is before the house—

Mr Gepp: You don’t want to talk about his boorish drunken behaviour. You don’t want to talk about that. Talk about his boorish drunken behaviour.

Ms CROZIER: Well, how about yours, Mr Gepp?

The PRESIDENT: Members, please!

Ms CROZIER: Through you, President, I think that you and others can see what this motion is. You can see it for what it is. It is a political stunt by Mr Barton, who has obviously the support of the government and the left Labor-voting independents. They have voted with the government throughout the whole four years. It is very obvious where their views sit. Absolutely their voting record is very clear.

I say again: Mr Barton might have a personality issue with Mr Davis. That is not for the house to understand or decide. It is very clear there is no love lost there, but nevertheless this is a ridiculous motion that should be struck out, and I—

Ms Shing interjected.

Ms CROZIER: Well, Ms Shing, you have nothing to say on integrity, when you shut down very important parliamentary processes.

The PRESIDENT: Order! This has got nothing to do with the motion. Please, back to the motion.

Ms CROZIER: I am just responding to her interjection. Through you, President, when Ms Shing continually interjects, I will hit back and say she shut down the feed on parliamentary committee processes. This is a nonsense motion. It should be thrown out. The Victorian Electoral Commission has recorded the donations on the record of what Mr Barton has been provided by the Victorian Trades Hall Council. If he took offence at that, it is all there.

The PRESIDENT: Members, before I call the next speaker, you are not helping me, you are not helping yourselves. So I am just warning you, members.

Mr GEPP (Northern Victoria) (14:34): President, I will try to bring some civility back to the debate. I am not surprised that Ms Crozier made no attempt, made absolutely no attempt, to defend Mr Davis’s behaviour, because it is indefensible. What Mr Davis did in Bright and what Mr Davis did at the multicultural gala dinner was reprehensible. He took on board far too much alcohol and behaved completely and utterly inappropriately towards workers and other patrons who were at those events. These are not allegations. These are facts. They are things that Mr Davis has publicly acknowledged. He has copped to it. He has copped to it in the public arena, but now suddenly we have to have a debate about ‘How did we get here?’. Well, I will tell you how we got here. We got here because of Mr Davis’s behaviour, the way that Mr Davis conducts himself in this place.

I will use a farming analogy. He treats this place a little bit like a cattle yard—walks in, grabs the biggest, freshest pile of cow patty that he can, throws it at the barn door and sees how much of it can stick. That is what he does. That has been his modus operandi ever since he got into this place. He never bases his contributions on facts or figures; he just makes it up. He just puts an assertion before the house and suggests that there might be something untoward.

That is what he has done with Mr Barton—and there is this pathetic defence from the opposition that somehow Mr Barton has not represented his constituents until very recently. You are kidding, aren’t you? You have got to be kidding. I tell you what, there might be many things that you might be able to level against Mr Barton, but to suggest that Mr Barton has not since day one when he walked into this place represented his constituency and the people who put him here is just an absolutely ridiculous statement to make. It is absolutely ridiculous. In fact I do not think there would have been a week gone by in this place when Mr Barton has not talked about the transport industry, the taxi industry, Uber drivers or the gig economy. He has gone on and on and on about it on every single occasion, and he is entitled to do so.

I am not going to defend Mr Barton. He is big enough to defend himself. You know, I would much rather have Mr Barton’s record of credibility and integrity in this place than that of the Leader of the Opposition in this place, who just walks in here and says whatever he wants to say regardless of the facts—throws mud, slings mud. In fact I wonder if there is a new cocktail that we could make in one of the bars that you frequent, Mr Davis, maybe a ‘mudslinger’. We would name it after you, because that is what you do. You just walk into this place and without any fact, without any figures, without any rhyme and without any reason except to suit your own political games you just sling mud. And you do not care. You have no regard for the impact that it has on this place or the individuals involved. You have no regard.

Isn’t it shameful that the opposition get to their feet on a motion like this, where the first half of the motion is directly talking about the Leader of the Opposition and appalling behaviour? I challenge the house to answer me this. Riddle me this, Batman. Where in any other industry in any other workplace, if somebody behaved this way in a recidivist fashion—they did it again and again and they copped to it—would they still be in their workplace? I do not know anywhere. I do not know any workplace and I do not know any industry where you could get away with it. And his own side then seeks to defend it. It was two members of his own party that had to take him out of the multicultural awards dinner, the gala dinner, and put him in his car and ferry him off because his behaviour was so inappropriate. So it is not as if—

Ms Crozier: On a point of order, President, Mr Gepp is now making things up, and I would ask you, if he is going to speak to the motion—

A member interjected.

Ms Crozier: You have just been talking about facts. Why don’t you stick to the facts and stop—

Members interjecting.

Ms Crozier: You are coming in here claiming things that are actually not true, so I would ask you to withdraw.

Members interjecting.

The PRESIDENT: Order! The problem is I do not know what is going on today. She has the right to raise a point of order, and then you can raise another point of order—but let me make the decision, please. Ms Crozier, I do not believe you have a point of order. I do not uphold your point of order, so I ask Mr Gepp to continue.

Mr GEPP: Thank you, President. None of these facts has been disputed. Mr Davis acted completely and utterly inappropriately at that dinner. He was intoxicated, according to the reports, and he has not denied it. He has not denied the reports that he had to be escorted out of the dinner and placed in his car. Maybe it was not two people; maybe it was three or four—he is a bit of a big bloke, isn’t he, so perhaps it was more than two. But the reality is that these facts have not been contested. They have not been contested for a very long time. And what is worse is that the Leader of the Opposition in the other place, Matt Guy, knows about this behaviour and he has done absolutely nothing about it. Shame on him.

We have seen in the public domain in the last couple of years public campaign after public campaign about the treatment of workers in their workplaces, and I am proud of the record of the Andrews Labor government. We stand up for workers in the workplace. We stand up for workplace safety. We have anti-bullying and anti-harassment laws in place, and for a very, very good reason. And whether you like it or not, we in this place and in the other place have a responsibility to show the leadership that we require of the rest of the community when they are out in public and conducting themselves. Mr Davis has failed the test. He has failed that test miserably. Indeed he is hoisted on his own petard, isn’t he, because he walks in here and he just slings allegations, slings mud and hopes that it sticks.

Ms Crozier: Just like you. Just like you’ve done. You have misled the house.

Mr GEPP: No, not just like me, Ms Crozier, because you had the opportunity to denounce his behaviour, to denounce the man that sits next to you in this chamber and who, when he is out in public and is on the turps, cannot control himself. You had the opportunity to denounce it. He has not denied these allegations himself; in fact he has apologised. And what has his leader said in the other place? ‘I’ve warned him. I’ve told him that’s unacceptable’.

I would challenge the house to just respond to this question, and that is: if Mr Davis walked in tomorrow with a set of allegations that proved to be fact that the Premier had gone out in rapid succession to two different events, got himself full of ink and behaved inappropriately to the workers in those establishments and to other people who were attending those functions, what would be the outcry from those opposite? I could tell you what the outcry would be: ‘Get rid of him. Move him on’, and quite rightly so, because that sort of behaviour in any circumstance is completely and utterly unacceptable.

We are leaders of our communities. We are sent here with a responsibility, and we are sent here with an expectation that we will conduct ourselves in an appropriate way. Mr Davis has fallen at that hurdle, not once but twice that we know of and probably more. Mr Davis, you should do the honourable thing, Sir, you should resign and leave the Parliament and allow people with greater integrity to occupy that seat.

Ms MAXWELL (Northern Victoria) (14:44): If I was not giving a short speech in relation to Mr Barton’s motion, I would not even bother to be sitting in here listening to this debate. Derryn Hinch’s Justice Party will not be voting on this motion today, either for it or against it. Neither will we vote on Mr Davis’s motion relating to Mr Barton if that comes to a vote. We have always prided ourselves on never abstaining from a vote, but today is different. The reason is that we feel that this schoolyard tit for tat on the public purse is an absolute waste of parliamentary time and public money. As Mr Gepp said, we are leaders of our community, and can I say it is absolutely no wonder that the general public has such a low opinion of politicians.

Whilst a personal attack on an MP has been made here in this place, Derryn Hinch’s Justice Party in no way—

Mr Barton interjected.

Ms MAXWELL: This is what I am saying, Mr Barton. A personal attack has been made on you, and we in no way, shape or form in Derryn Hinch’s Justice Party condone that. Yesterday, before this motion was read in, Mr Grimley stood at the doors with victims who are seeking redress for abuse. After the motion was read in I met with a victim of crime who feels completely discarded by the justice system because her son was killed in a car accident and the person responsible was never held to account. Her son is dead, and we are sitting in here having these ridiculous conversations and debates that are simply a waste of time. I honestly think our Parliament has more important issues to debate, and on behalf of Victorians I want to say we need to get on with this instead of these schoolyard spats.

Dr BACH (Eastern Metropolitan) (14:46): I also want to make a brief contribution on motion 841 in Mr Barton’s name. In my view this is such a distasteful and mean motion. I agree with a very large amount of what Ms Maxwell had to say. Today there are any number of deeply important matters that we could be debating. There have been some matters this week that we have found much agreement on across the aisle and around this chamber, and yet this afternoon we descend into farce in an effort to defame the Leader of the Opposition.

I am happy to pick up on one or two of the elements of Mr Barton’s initial contribution and then focus my remarks upon point (c) regarding, as Mr Barton says in his motion, accusations about Mr Davis’s character and reputation. Mr Barton again spoke in his initial remarks about accountability and honesty. Those opposite have challenged those on this side of the house to defend Mr Davis’s behaviour, and I will to the hilt. On accountability and honesty Mr Davis has been a lion in this place, always opposed by those opposite. On accountability and honesty Mr Davis and others on this side of the house have asked a whole series of relevant and pertinent questions about processes at the time of the pandemic legislation. Before that time—and I am speaking directly to point (c) of this motion, as I understand it from Mr Barton’s initial contribution—Mr Barton’s voting record in this place was mixed; he would oftentimes vote with the opposition and he would oftentimes vote with the government. However, through the period of the discussions that he outlined in his contribution on his motion things changed, and since then he has become an almost exclusively Labor-voting independent.

It is reasonable to ask questions and to query how that came to pass. It is reasonable to talk about what role the government played. It is especially reasonable to ask such questions, talking about accountability and honesty, as Mr Barton did, given the complete lack of those traits in those opposite. We have talked at length in this house about ongoing investigations into those opposite carried out by the Ombudsman and by IBAC, and so in that context of known corruption in Victoria Mr Davis and other members of the opposition would be derelict in their duties if they did not ask pertinent questions about that process, where there was such a marked shift, looking at Mr Barton’s voting record—a marked shift.

So on point (c), what Mr Davis did, which angered Mr Barton—I understand it angered Mr Barton, and there is so much animosity now from Mr Barton directed at Mr Davis; I understand that—was right and proper. He was acting as a good Leader of the Opposition should. So I am very happy to come in here any day of the week and talk about the behaviour of my leader. When it comes to accountability and honesty it has been quite exemplary.

Ms SHING (Eastern Victoria—Minister for Water, Minister for Regional Development, Minister for Equality) (14:50): What we have just heard from Dr Bach is an example of how to conduct yourself in the Parliament. Dr Bach is, notwithstanding the fact that I find many of his politics completely intolerable, actually rather a decent type when it comes to contributions here in the chamber and when it comes to representing the constituents who have put him into this place.

In stark contrast to this we see in Mr Davis a person who comes to this chamber with the highest and mightiest set of self-convinced, self-indulgent monologues about others in order to make whatever point suits him at any time of the day. And what we see is this oscillation from Mr Davis between either being completely arrogant or indeed completely dismissive, and the way in which he is bouncing from extreme to extreme does him no favours. But what I do want to focus on today is the fact that those opposite have completely missed the point about what it means to come to this place and to advocate for various positions, issues and perspectives that bring you here in the first instance. Here is a clue for those listening along at home: the Transport Matters Party is here because transport matters. It matters in the way that Mr Barton has outlined extensively ever since he came to this place, and it matters in the context of the work that he has done to advocate for the subject matter that literally brought him here in the first place.

When I think about Mr Barton’s behaviour, what comes to mind for me is not a sloppy, incoherent, handsy, disgusting drunk; what comes to mind when I think about Mr Barton is the fact that he is here to do his work as an elected representative in a way that is uncomfortable for those opposite. It is uncomfortable because he is not agreeing with you on the things that you would like to advance. It is uncomfortable for you because he does not stand and vote with you on every occasion that you would like, and the bottom line is when it comes to examples of handsy, incoherent, slurring, disgusting, disreputable behaviour, Mr Barton is not somebody who has demonstrated any of that.

What we do know from the public comments and from indeed Mr Davis’s own acknowledgement of wrongdoing and inappropriate behaviour is that Mr Davis by his own character and conduct brings this place into disrepute and further damages the already dinted reputation of politicians here. And I do not doubt that the vast majority of people who are elected to this Parliament and indeed to other parliaments have good intentions. The difficulty is that when we see the conduct of certain individuals drag this place into the depths of mistrust that validates all of the criticism that the public has about the fact that we sit here in an out-of-touch fashion and do not connect with basic standards around workplace health and safety, around the treatment of women and around the way in which we are supposed to be exemplars of public behaviour, what I see is that we have an opportunity and indeed an obligation to be better.

I look around this place and I see many people who demonstrate in their conduct the fact that integrity and good, appropriate engagement with others matters. When I look around this place I see people with different issues, different views, different platforms and different priorities in the best of the sense of things coming together in order to work to make sure that their priorities and the issues that have brought them here are at the front of mind for the purposes of the work that they do. When I sit here I do not see in the vast, vast, vast majority of matters handsy, incoherent, rambling drunks. When I sit here I think about how it is that we can and indeed should be better as a Parliament than to allow this sort of behaviour to go unchecked, and when I sit here in this place I take guidance from those who in fact do do the right thing, and there are many of us. But in a shame and in a disgrace to this Parliament we see that a handful of people pay lip-service to the obligations that we have here. We would never in any other workplace expect to tolerate handsy, incoherent, drunken rambling. We would never allow that to occur, because there are basic standards that apply that we have worked really hard to apply across the board to make sure that people are treated with respect and treated with dignity. We have worked hard to make sure that in workplaces handsy, drunken, incoherent rambling is not acceptable, and nor should it be acceptable here.

To anybody who wants to stand up and talk about how in fact Mr Davis brings a measure of integrity to this place, what I would encourage you to think about is the fact that Mr Davis is very good at opposition. He is very good at opposition because it does not require accountability, and accountability is something that is a very uncomfortable proposition for Mr Davis. No wonder the opposition opposed the introduction of serious misconduct in public office legislation. No wonder there has been a succession of oppositions to progressive reform around integrity and accountability. No wonder we are here having this debate today after a protracted procedural matter and a debate which has sought to stall or indeed push off this particular debate. It is because it is uncomfortable, and it is because it is uncomfortable that we will continue to need to have these conversations until people who are handsy, incoherent and rambling drunks realise that their behaviour has to improve.

No wonder those opposite have a problem in relation to the representation of women in their ranks—no wonder—when the sort of role modelling that we get from those opposite is either complicity or indeed wilful ignorance. Where is the Leader of the Opposition in calling this behaviour out and in fact calling for Mr Davis to stand down? He was all too happy to have conversations with the nearly former member for Kew because it suited the political narrative. Well, walk the talk in relation to sloppy, handsy, incoherent, rambling, drunken behaviour and fix it. Be better. If you want to be a viable alternative government, if you want to actually present an opportunity to sit on government benches with the honour and the privilege that comes with representing all of Victoria, then be better. Call out the behaviour of the current Leader of the Opposition. Acknowledge the contrast that exists between people like Mr Davis and people like Dr Bach, acknowledge the fact that the vast majority of people are here to do the right thing and are here to act with integrity and acknowledge the fact that dead weight like Mr Davis is in fact holding you back.

Here is a gratuity for the Liberal-National coalition. You have an opportunity here to call this behaviour out, to be better, to walk the talk on what it means to provide safe and dignified workplaces, not just for people here in the parliamentary precinct but for people in places like Bright. Make sure you are modelling the sort of behaviour that drags the reputations of parliaments and of politicians out of the mud, because they have been dragged down there by conduct like Mr Davis’s.

Those opposite need to actually have a serious conversation in public terms. I know and we know that there are members within your ranks that are all too happy to criticise Mr Davis’s conduct and to talk about the damage that it has done to you and to your coalition behind closed doors. You are very happy to have conversations with us about how Mr Davis is dragging you down, and yet when it comes to actually closing ranks, when it comes to bringing the cavalry over the hill and standing in Mr Davis’s defence, where are you? You are nowhere to be seen, because to call this behaviour out is an uncomfortable truth that would invite you to actually conclude that perhaps your leadership, perhaps your selection of who is of good character and standing, has been a little flawed.

What I would encourage you to do as a consequence of this motion is to look at the variety of views that come to this chamber, that come to this Parliament, and to acknowledge that they are here in order to do the work of those particular views, platforms and perspectives. What I would encourage you to do is in fact to look at why it is that Mr Barton holds the views that he does and why it is that he is here as a representative of the Transport Matters Party and what it is that he has done in the time that he has been here. What I would encourage you to do is to acknowledge that at no point in time, as far as I am aware, has Mr Barton ever approached that in a drunk, handsy, incoherent or rambling way. Mr Barton—

Dr Bach: On a point of order, President, under standing order 12.16, ‘tedious repetition’, the fact that what the member has now said on 16 occasions is factually incorrect I understand is neither here nor there under the standing orders, but surely the simple number of occasions that she has used that extended expression would meet the definition of ‘tedious repetition’ under our standing orders.

The PRESIDENT: There is no point of order.

Ms SHING: Drunk, handsy, incoherent, rambling—that is what we see from the Leader of the Opposition. He needs to resign now.

Mr MEDDICK (Western Victoria) (15:00): It gives me no joy to have to be here to speak on this.

A member interjected.

Mr MEDDICK: No, it does not; it does not at all. Those of you that know me well know that I am a political devotee. Yes, my politics are from the left, but over the years and decades of watching politics, of listening to great speakers, I have had admiration for great leaders from the Liberal Party. I have watched some of the great speeches, and from the left that means I am a great admirer of the Hawke and Keating speeches. One that holds a great place in my heart is the famous misogyny speech from Julia Gillard.

I have watched some fantastic members of the Liberal Party in this chamber. I have great admiration for Mary Wooldridge and likewise Mr O’Donohue. I continue to have an admiration for Mr Rich-Phillips, and I expressed this to him only a few weeks ago. I have admiration for the way that he goes about his business—the way that he speaks, his research and his knowledge. I consider it a great privilege to have been in this house for such a short period of time with Mr Atkinson, someone who I believe has held up the great principles of the moderate Liberal Party and done so with honour. I was never a fan of John Howard, but he did one thing that I greatly admire. When he brought in the gun laws in the wake of Port Arthur, I thought that was one of the most courageous things I had ever seen in the political sphere, but backed up by his colleague Mr Fischer, who had to go out and sell those laws to a constituency that never wanted to give up those guns or those rights. That took guts, and I admire them greatly. And it might surprise some, not just in this chamber but outside, that I also hold a rather begrudging respect for my colleague Mrs McArthur. Our politics are vastly different and we are sparring partners on many occasions, but I do hold that respect for her.

I cannot speak on any of the events that have been reported on or were spoken about after the Victorian Multicultural Commission dinner. I was not there; I cannot say. We only have the news reports and other things to go by, so I am not going to comment on that at all. I was, however, at the Bright Brewery. I was within a metre of Mr Davis when the exchange happened with the bar staff. I was able to hear every single word. Every single word was spoken with such anger, such vitriol and with such a demeaning tone and language that that worker was in a terrible place afterwards. Not only that, I then had the bar manager of the night say to me that he felt like throwing us all out, because how dare we as members of Parliament come up to a place like Bright, let alone anywhere, go into an establishment and speak in such a way to the staff—how disrespectful. He felt we had no place there and no place anywhere.

I was ashamed. I took it upon myself, even though I had no authority to do so, to apologise to the staff member on behalf of the Parliament. I am a representative of a minor party here. I am not one of the clerks. I am not a minister. I am not an Acting President, Deputy President or President. I am none of those things, but I was so ashamed of the behaviour I thought it was my duty to do so. I learned my gutter politics, if you like, on the shop floor. I have seen the effect that abuse in the workplace can have on a worker. I have known people who have taken their own lives because of it, because they cannot take any more, and it is for that reason once again in this chamber today I am going to stand here and I am going to defend that worker who had every right to go to work, do their job and not be abused and to go home feeling safe and feeling like they were worth something. That is what I am going to do again today. I will be supporting Mr Barton’s motion because I am going to support that bar worker.

Mr RICH-PHILLIPS (South Eastern Metropolitan) (15:06): I rise to oppose this motion moved by Mr Barton this afternoon. I have to say that with the timing of this motion you know there is an election coming, because the issues which are canvassed in this motion—the references to the Bright Brewery and the references to the Victorian Multicultural Commission dinner—are not new information. This is not something that has suddenly been revealed and is an urgent matter for the Parliament to address. This is a matter which has been on the public record for more than six months. This is a matter which Mr Davis is on the public record as apologising for. Yet suddenly, in the second-last sitting week, it is a matter of great urgency for those on the other side to bring forward a motion, with Mr Barton, to condemn this behaviour. You have to ask why—why is this suddenly, when we are in the second-last sitting week before an election, of interest to those opposite? Why is it suddenly being brought on? Why are we suddenly seeing these speeches with great conviction about how this behaviour is terrible when these matters have been on the public record and an apology was given six months ago? You have to wonder about the motivation.

Mr Barton stood in this place yesterday, I think it was, and said his priority was the taxi industry. Minister Shing in her contribution said Mr Barton always stands up for the taxi industry. He is a member of the Transport Matters Party, and that is what he focuses on. So why are we in a situation where one speaker into a motion about the taxi industry suddenly it is Mr Barton’s priority to adjourn that off to talk about this matter which is not new, is not contemporary and has been on the public record for six months? It is not a priority. I would have thought in the second-last sitting week a crossbench member who apparently has a particular interest in a particular industry would want to raise that issue and prosecute that issue instead of going on to issues which might be of more interest to the government from a political perspective in being able to attack a political opponent. Yet we have Mr Barton effectively aiding and abetting that for the government to attack their political opponent rather than dealing with the issue he says is his priority. He says the issue of priority is the taxi industry, but he was very, very happy to adjourn that off to get on to this attack on Mr Davis because it is politically convenient for those opposite. So I think—

Members interjecting.

The PRESIDENT: Order! Members, please stop interjecting, and if you cannot control yourself, go for a walk and come back.

Mr RICH-PHILLIPS: Thank you, President. Well, the confected outrage on the other side speaks volumes, because, as I said, this is not new material. This is not something that has suddenly been disclosed. It has been on the public record for more than six months. Mr Davis’s apology has been on the public record for more than six months. This will be seen for what it is: a stunt. It is a political stunt by those opposite to have a go at Mr Davis because he is their political opponent, aided and abetted by Mr Barton in adjourning off his motion. The reason he is here is taxis, but he was happy to adjourn that off after 10 minutes to spend an hour and a half talking about Mr Davis. You have to wonder what the priority is and why that is the case.

Mr Barton in his motion at (1)(c) refers to accusations that impugned his character and reputation. Frankly Mr Barton, by seeking to adjourn off his core reason for being here—taxis—to talk about Mr Davis, does more to reflect on his intentions than anything Mr Davis has ever said. This motion is purely a grubby little political attack on Mr Davis, and the timing highlights that. There is nothing new in this motion. There is nothing new in the issues that are being raised. Mr Davis is on the public record as having apologised for those events six months ago. The fact that it is being brought on now highlights this is nothing more than a stunt, and it should be rejected as such.

Dr CUMMING (Western Metropolitan) (15:11): I rise today to speak to this motion. On 7 April this year I gave notice of a motion:

That this House—

(1) understands the important role the Victorian Parliament plays as an exemplar of best practice in workplaces;

(2) recognises that the Victorian Parliament is a workplace for Members of Parliament, electorate officers, parliamentary advisers, ministerial staff, parliamentary officers, precinct employees and contractors;

(3) acknowledges that everyone has a duty to take reasonable care for their own health and safety, as well as for the health and safety of others in the workplace;

(4) directs the Presiding Officers to jointly establish consistent, proportionate, transparent and objective processes and requirements for addressing the health and safety risks associated with people affected by drugs and alcohol in the Victorian Parliament, including—

(a) that illegal drugs are not to be consumed, possessed, distributed or sold within the workplace at any time;

(b) the right to conduct random drug and alcohol testing for Members of Parliament and other employees within the Parliamentary precinct;

(c) establishing an acceptable blood alcohol concentration which is below that prescribed by the law for driving; and

(5) requires the Presiding Officers to provide the processes and requirements to both Houses of Parliament by 30 July 2022 …

Today is 31 August. This government did not want to debate that, nor did others. It sat on the notice paper, and it has fallen off. I also in this place put in a private members bill for members of Parliament standards. This morning Dr Ratnam also put in a private members bill for anti-corruption and higher parliamentary standards, the Anti-corruption and Higher Parliamentary Standards (Strengthening Integrity) Bill 2022. Both were private members bills that this government has chosen to ignore.

I have sat here and listened to the hypocrisy of this government—the hypocrisy. People in glass houses should not throw stones. I have been bullied in this place. I have had to put up with other drunks. But when I requested that we actually do something about it—‘No, no, no’. Here we are today. I was not at those two events, but there were actual practices in those private members bills that could have been law for the rest of the Parliament to look after all the staff in here. But this is just grandstanding; this is ridiculous. Like others have said in this chamber, we should be spending our time looking after Victorians rather than arguing amongst ourselves. This government is a bunch of hypocrites; it is like ‘hypocrites unite’ today. I will not sit here and listen to these personal attacks when we have got Victorians who are homeless, who are vulnerable. The cost of living—and this is what we are going to spend our time on in Parliament. This is why the community cannot trust this government.

House divided on motion:

Motion agreed to.