Parliament of Victoria | Legislative Council | Motion by Ms Mansfield
26 August, 2026
David ETTERSHANK (Western Metropolitan Region):
I rise to make a brief contribution on the motion before the house, and I thank Dr Mansfield for bringing this question before us. In addressing this motion I am reminded of an anecdote about a former Victorian Labor Premier, the late John Cain Sr. I am told that he kept a jar of stamps in his office that he used for his personal correspondence, rather than using taxpayer-funded stamps.
This of course harks back to a time when the merest hint of ministerial impropriety could threaten to bring down a government, when the disclosure of a minister receiving gifts could lead to their resignation and political exile.
I am sure those of us who are a little more senior would recall the Paddington Bear affair or the colour TV imports that cost ministers their jobs. But that degree of personal and political rectitude seems very quaint today, certainly in this Parliament, where ministers routinely shrug off questions of transparency and integrity.
As Dr Mansfield explained, this was exemplified, I am afraid, yesterday by the Minister for Casino, Gaming and Liquor Regulation in his nonchalant response to a question posed by Ms Copsey. This acceptance of hospitality from the very sector you are charged with regulating could be reasonably perceived as a conflict of interest.
Mr Batchelor conflating ‘gambling’ with ‘gamblers’ with ‘gambling companies’ is mind-boggling. And now that the government apparently has a newfound compassion for problem gamblers, I am sure we are all dizzy with anticipation, waiting for this government to introduce legislation with some guts on gambling that would address that question. But let us not let consistency stand in the way of a good cheap shot, Mr Batchelor.
That sort of brush-off has become part of the culture of secrecy and non-disclosure that characterises this government. Week after week we witness the government’s refusal to release documents that have been ordered to be released by this Council. How utterly pathetic to receive a letter from the Attorney-General that the government has not had time to release a single document ordered by this house. It is nothing short of contempt for this chamber. It is contempt for the Victorian Parliament, it is contempt for democracy, and ipso facto it is contempt for the people of Victoria.
The ministerial code of conduct states that each minister shall provide a diary summary within 10 days of the end of each quarter. We are now approaching two months since the end of the June quarter, and where are the diaries? What is so secret? Or has the Premier’s private office had no time to release the diaries because it has been too busy refusing to release the documents ordered by this chamber? Well, we know what was in the last lot of diaries, don’t we? As the Age reported, it was Danny Pearson duchessing a dozen data centre executives at the Australian Open, followed by a private industry dinner at Government House – and a few weeks later there was a gift to the ALP of $4300 from data developer NextDC. I mean, seriously, whether it is corrupt or not, it is the perception of corruption that you need to remove from your culture.
The value of that donation is as of nothing compared to the value of having a data centre approved at Fishermans Bend in only 75 days. A community cannot get a pocket park approved in 75 days by this government. It is nothing compared to the government’s stoic resistance to releasing any meaningful information on how those plans are approved. It is nothing compared to having the then Premier Jacinta Allan, Danny Pearson and Harriet Shing out there singing the praises of that project before it has even been approved. And it is nothing –
Ryan BATCHELOR (Southern Metropolitan Region):
On a point of order, President, Mr Ettershank in his wideranging contribution appears to be straying quite a way from particular interests that have been alleged in the motion, going on to all sorts of other policy matters. I think he should be brought back to the motion.
The President:
I urge Mr Ettershank to stick to the motion.
David ETTERSHANK (Western Metropolitan Region):
President, I appreciate that. Perceptions matter, and there is a very clear perception in the community that this government has been captured by vested interests – exactly this question of gifts.
Whether it is data centres, waste-to-energy incineration, property development, the fiasco of public housing towers or the Suburban Rail Loop or gifts to ministers, this government keeps on saying, ‘There is nothing to see here,’ and then refuses every reasonable request to disclose information. For those who want to see, there is rejection, and that is utterly suspect.
Perceptions matter, and having one minister being both our first law officer as well as our Minister for Planning is glaring. Watching this government year after year reject any expansion of IBAC powers is glaring. We all welcome Premier Carroll’s commitment to addressing this issue, and I am sure we are keen to see the issues, but again, these all strike to the culture of corruption. Maybe this government are not wrong in thinking that the public just accept these weaker standards of integrity these days and that they can just ride out these incidents, these minor corruptions. If people are cynical and have lost faith in government – well, what are they going to do about it? This is the status quo. The circus will move on.
Mr Mulholland, seriously, you had the opportunity to seize the moral high ground, and yet you took an opportunity just to bash the Greens. You have become an apologist for the government. It is remarkable. Do you not get that people are looking at exactly those gifts, disclosed or not, and see politicians that are compromised? You, sir, have abandoned the moral high ground and taken a delightfully precise deep dive into a pit of sewage. It is so disappointing.
People have a right to know their representatives are actually working for them. We all need to be assured that our leaders are working in the interests of Victorians and that they cannot be bought and cannot be influenced with trinkets, with gifts, with entertainment – seriously. That needs to be demonstrated through tougher action on conflicts of interest and breaches of the ministerial code of conduct. At the heart of this matter that is exactly what we are talking about. You have set a standard, and then you have turned your back on it. Legalise Cannabis Victoria wholeheartedly supports the motion moved by Dr Mansfield and commends it to the house.
[Council divided on motion]
Voted for: Katherine Copsey, David Ettershank, Anasina Gray-Barberio, Sarah Mansfield, Rachel Payne, Aiv Puglielli, Georgie Purcell
Voted against: Ryan Batchelor, Melina Bath, John Berger, Lizzie Blandthorn, Gaelle Broad, Georgie Crozier, David Davis, Moira Deeming, Enver Erdogan, Jacinta Ermacora, Michael Galea, Renee Heath, Ann-Marie Hermans, Shaun Leane, Wendy Lovell, Trung Luu, Bev McArthur, Joe McCracken, Nick McGowan, Tom McIntosh, Evan Mulholland, Harriet Shing, Ingrid Stitt, Jaclyn Symes, Lee Tarlamis, Sonja Terpstra, Gayle Tierney, Sheena Watt, Richard Welch
[Motion defeated 29 votes to 7]
