02 March 2011
Mr MORRIS (Mornington) — This morning I grieve for the people of Victoria, because the people of Victoria have been poorly served and greatly misused by ALP governments in this state for the last 11 years,
I grieve for the people of Victoria because they continue to be poorly served and greatly misused by the Greens‑dominated Gillard government in Canberra.
I grieve for those generations of Victorians for whom the opportunity to share in the success of this nation has been so cruelly proscribed by the actions of both the former state government of Victoria and the current federal government.
I grieve for the generations growing up, those yet unborn, who will be called upon to shoulder the burden of the waste, incompetence and profligacy of the former state government and the current federal government.
We knew for many years that the former government was addicted to spin. We knew it would say anything and do anything to win — whatever it took, in the infamous words of a former federal Labor senator, Graham Richardson - with no conception of the public interest.
The former Victorian government was addicted to winning the battle of the day or the week; it had absolutely no idea, conception or interest in working for the long term or working for the community of this state.
It was a government in which spin was triumphant, a government for which substance was completely and absolutely non‑existent and a government for which reality, facts and often the truth became completely irrelevant. It was a government for which the only concern was retaining access to the trappings of office and the power and influence that go with it, and that had been evident since the former government’s assumption of power in 1999.
At no time has this been more evident than in the sitting days we have had so far in this 57th Parliament. Last night the opposition seemed to be interested in nothing more than the next day’s headline and even that strategy seems to have failed.
The opposition was certainly not interested in a proper consideration of the legislation before the house. A review of Hansard suggests that much of the debate was not only repetitive it was of marginal if, indeed, it was of any relevance to the bill under consideration.
The inadequacies of the opposition’s efforts in that debate were summed up effectively by the Deputy Premier at the conclusion. I certainly will not revisit his summary of the debate or of the performance of members, except to say that I think his remarks demonstrate very clearly how much the former government relied on its staff, the departments and support structures of government to carry it through its task.
Last night the base inadequacies of the former government were laid bare, because left to their own resources they proved completely unequal to the task of adding any value at all to the legislation under consideration. We had a debate that ran for 71⁄2 hours…
Debate interrupted
The ACTING SPEAKER (Dr Sykes) — Order! I will briefly interrupt the member for Mornington. We have in the gallery a member of the Lebanese Parliament, Dr Khaled Zahraman. I welcome him to the house.
Debateresumed.
Mr MORRIS (Mornington) — If last night’s debate of nearly 71⁄2 hours proved anything, it proved that the opposition has, sadly for a once‑great party, become entirely irrelevant to public debate in this state.
One group I certainly do not grieve for is the government members in this house, because even though we were sitting here a little bit longer than may have been good in terms of maintaining family friendly hours, it became very clear to us that as long as the opposition keeps up the sort of performance it put on last night it will become less and less relevant.
Through the Acting Speaker all I can say to the other side is, ‘Keep it up and you will be sitting on that side for a very long time to come’, and that can only be a good thing as far as I am concerned.
It seems that for years now every day we have had in the newspapers a new story, a new scam or a new scandal. These stories began with a trickle, they quickly became a torrent and over the last couple of years there have been too many to mention. We have had one Ombudsman’s report after another, each one worse than its predecessor, and the failures of the former government have been made manifest.
We have had failures to administer the laws of the state appropriately, failures to observe appropriate standards, failures of process, far too many failures of probity and we have had one report after another that has revealed the shortcomings of the former Labor Party’s administration of this state.
To refresh people’s memories on some of those reports, the report that probably started the ball rolling was the one tabled in May 2009 that outlined the carryings‑on at the Brimbank City Council. That Ombudsman’s report revealed a council that was controlled almost entirely by the Australian Labor Party. I believe there was one Greens councillor, but apart from that all the members of the council were members of the Labor Party.
The report revealed a dysfunctional council — these are the Ombudsman’s words — a council that was influenced by unelected persons, a council with conflicts of interest, a council and councillors making improper use of powers, a council where bullying and intimidation was prevalent, a council where misuse of funds and misuse of equipment became routine and where there was an inappropriate release of information.
We know that while there are no national security secrets in most municipal councils, the inappropriate use of information can lead to very large monetary rewards through speculative activities, and we need to guard against that diligently.
There was also the improper use of electoral information. Certainly from my personal perspective that was one of the biggest sins of the lot. I know the electoral commissioner reviewed the allegations, as he was requested to do by the Ombudsman — it is all in the Commissioner’s report — and found that the actions complied with the act. I do not for a moment question Mr Tully’s findings in that regard, but I do suggest that we need to have a look at that whole process, because clearly while the actions may not have contravened the words of the act they certainly contravened the spirit of the act.
That Ombudsman’s report was just the start. Soon after that we had the report into the City of Port Phillip, which is another council that is largely controlled by the Australian Labor Party.
The Ombudsman found there were ongoing poor procurement and contract management practices, a failure of governance, conflicts of interest again — that seems to be an ongoing problem with Labor‑dominated councils — and unfortunately in this case that there was staff misconduct.
The last finding is of course an issue for the administration rather than the council. I will not try to draw that bow too long; I simply make the point that when those at the top of the pile are not observing the sorts of standards the community thinks are appropriate, it does not set a good example for the staff.
Shortly after that came the report into the Brookland Greens estate. I recall that the former Premier tried very hard at the time to suggest that it was all about the activities of the City of Casey, that it was all about the administration of council officers I thought that was an interesting approach, given there were then — and I believe still are — a number of councillors of that city affiliated with the Australian Labor Party.
In that sense it was perhaps a typical and rather desperate attempt to sheet the blame home somewhere else. The intent was to sheet it home to almost anywhere other than to the then Victorian government.
Certainly the Ombudsman found that the city had some issues to deal with. However, the main findings did not relate to the administration of the city but solely to state instrumentalities. It was about a failure by the Environment Protection Authority to properly process and assess the application for works approval. It was about conflict of interest — there is that phrase again, which underlines perhaps more than any other the need for an independent, broad-based anticorruption commission in this state.
There was poor contract management, a lack of accountability, a poor performance of statutory duties, a failure to take enforcement action and delays in process. There were management issues and there were planning issues — and certainly the way the issue was handled at the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal was a problem.
Most damning of all, though, was the failure to appreciate the risk to residents. There was a complete failure to appreciate the risk to residents or to consider a risk assessment. Even after the emergency had been dealt with — and I must say, as is always the case with our emergency services, it was dealt with very effectively; there is no criticism there — there was again a failure of process with the failure to conduct a review of the emergency response.
Of course in the last sitting week we had three more damning reports. We have had a scandal surrounding the management of sex offenders, we have had allegations of improper conduct by a Hume councillor — I understand they are contested, so I do not intend to speak about that any further — and of course we have had the long‑awaited investigation into probity in the Windsor Hotel redevelopment deal and the minister’s infamous media plan.
In the interests of full disclosure I should indicate that I do stay at the Windsor when I am attending Parliament, but that is the only connection I have with that business.
The report makes interesting reading. Above all I think it reveals the culture that drove that office — the say anything, do anything attitude. If a development looked unpopular, the attitude was that the staff should find a way to deal with it. The approach was to say, ‘Damn the process, don’t worry about the details, just get it fixed! If it’s a political problem, get it fixed’.
The report also contains the infamous appendix 6 with the immortal line that in my view sums up the attitude of the Brumby government. Acting Speaker, this is perhaps not particularly parliamentary language but it is a direct quote:
Who do I need to root to get free tix to the grand prix?
That is an unbelievable attitude.
Unfortunately time does not permit me to go beyond what I have identified in terms of failures of governance and failures of probity. I have not even started on the policy failures, the white elephants, the gross cost overruns and the whole management style that became characteristic of ALP administration in this state.
They include myki; the smart meters; the regional rail link costings, which seem to have been understated by almost $900 million; the desalination plant, which will cost $19.3 billion if we do not take water and $24 billion if we do take water.
All I can say to members of the former government is: they saw you coming on that one, and they took the maximum available.
We will not let the public forget who was responsible for that fiasco. Finally, of course we have seen the revelations in today’s Age about the loss of another half a billion dollars on the ALP’s watch.
Waste, incompetence and profligacy are the burden the former government has placed on the shoulders of Victorians for generations to come. Its members should hang their heads in shame.
Legislative Assembly 2 March 2011
Printer Friendly Version...