Motion: Health Infrastructure: Government Sledge Motion

MOTION

‘HEALTH INFRASTRUCTURE: GOVERNMENT SLEDGE MOTION’.

Thursday, 19 February 2026.

Mr NEWBURY (Brighton) (16:09):

I rise to speak on the Government’s sledge Motion, and I move:

That the following words be inserted to the end of the Motion: ‘while noting the impact of $15 billion of corruption on services for Victorians’.

What we have seen is the worst instance of corruption our State has ever seen. And whilst we are having the depth of this corruption unfold, we are also seeing the biggest cover-up of that corruption. The depth of the corruption that we are seeing in Victoria is unprecedented. So much so that for the first time in this Parliament’s history, yesterday we saw the Parliament pass a Motion in relation to that corruption, seeking the Government to call a Royal Commission. That was not just a motion that was passed by one political party; that was a Motion that was supported by every single Member of this place, other than the Government. Other than the Labor Party, every single member of this Parliament voted – the bedfellows of the Government, the Greens, supported it. Every single Member of this place supported it.

You could see the reaction to that Motion. The Premier’s press conference today – that was the reaction to that motion getting passed. The train wreck of a press conference today, attacking a journalist, which, by the way, was a worse attack than the attack yesterday. The attack yesterday – that was bad. You know what, on this terrible corruption, which I speak about in my amendment, and the cover up that follows, it is not just the attacks on journalists that have occurred in press conferences. The Premier’s press office is bullying members of the press by booting them off the press chat group. Publicly, in front of all the other journalists, they are kicking members of the gallery off that the government does not like. That is what this Government is doing. The depth of corruption –

Danny Pearson interjected.

James NEWBURY: The Government Member says that person should be named publicly. There is the bullying behaviour writ large. The Minister wants to name that Member publicly.

Mathew Hilakari: On a Point of Order, Acting Speaker, it was hard to hear, but was the Member for Brighton admitting that he bullied the Member of Nepean out of this Parliament? Was that what he was doing? It was very hard to hear.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Nathan Lambert): There is no Point of Order to rule on. The Member for Brighton to continue.

James NEWBURY: I understand why we just moved from a Bill to this Motion, and for context, in terms of what just happened, the Government moved to this motion after 1 hour of procedural debate because they did not understand that they could not just do it. The Government moved to this Motion – this is ridiculous.

Katie Hall: On a Point of Order, Acting Speaker, Standing Order number 157, ‘Motion to amend’, section (2) says:

An amendment must be relevant to the question it is proposed to amend.

I would put that this is entirely irrelevant nonsense from the Member for Brighton.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Nathan Lambert): We have commenced debate, and I have effectively ruled that this Amendment is relevant, so the Member for Brighton may continue.

James NEWBURY: How disappointing. The Amendment is what we are going to be debating. What I would also say is, by the time we got to this Motion, the Minister had the chance to get up and do 30 minutes on this motion. So, we have spent an hour fighting to get to this sledge motion, and guess how long the Minister gave? Eight minutes. So, the Minister gave up over 20 minutes on a sledge opportunity, and has given me 30 – I have a full 30 minutes on my amended Motion.

It is so astonishing how poor this Government is at managing this Chamber. In fact, from failed move to failed move, it surprises me. For the Minister to come in on a sledge Motion after fighting for it to go for an hour and then speak for 8 minutes – I am going to be honest; I felt bad for the Minister because I think the Minister did not want to be put up to it. She knew that she had to speak on it because it was there. Last week we had a sledge Motion moved and then the Minister would not even speak to it. They sent out the Member for Bentleigh, and that is like being hit with a wet lettuce. Instead, they moved the Minister out today, who spoke for 8 minutes on their own sledge Motion.

Well, I am going to speak for 30. I am going to speak for every single second of that sledge Motion, and then I would be happy to support the Government moving to extend my time. I ask them to extend my time, because I will happily and gladly accept it. Their speakers do not want to use their time, so give me my time.

I have moved an Amendment to this Motion because the most important and pressing issue facing this state is the $15 billion of corruption exposed and the Government’s refusal to do anything about it, so much so that we have Members of the Government reportedly telling the executive to call a Royal Commission. Multiple news outlets are now getting phone calls from Labor MPs, which I will admit is not always normal, but it appears everybody has found the phone numbers for the journalists to call for a Royal Commission. Well, we absolutely agree with you, like every other Member of Parliament last night agreed to the call for a Royal Commission. The coalition called for a Royal Commission because it is the only way to get to the bottom of the dirty deals, the $15 billion of corruption and the criminal syndicate that is being run from Big Build sites. That is the allegation: a criminal syndicate is being run from Big Build sites. How could you not want to call a Royal Commission?

As the Member for Laverton said herself, the community is raising it. The member for Laverton said it. I agree with the Member. I am sure she got media training afterwards, but she admitted it for all to see. We all saw it headline on the news that her own community was raising corruption with her. Of course they were. The Member did the right thing by saying corruption was being raised with her, because it is being raised by the community. The community is outraged.

The point that this Government does not understand, and I have made this point repeatedly, is that Victorians work hard and pay part of their earnings in tax. Tax comes from the sweat of hardworking Victorians. They know that Governments spend too much of their money, but in this instance, they have been caught wasting $15 billion. It is not buying a few too many paperclips or a couple too many HB pencils; it is $15 billion going into the pockets of crooks. Can you believe it? Then the Premier had an opportunity to stand up and do something about it, and what happened – she attacked the people asking the questions. But to be fair to her, she followed her ministry, who had just done the same. The Minister for Police, who has the job of managing law enforcement in this State, attacked the integrity expert who blew the whistle on the quantum of corruption. How could you have a Police Minister who would attack an integrity expert who has blown the whistle? How could you be so morally bankrupt as a Government that you would attack an integrity expert? You must be so morally bankrupt.

Mathew Hilakari: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, the Member continues to reflect on the Chair, and I would ask him to desist.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Nathan Lambert): I ask the Member for Brighton to direct his comments through the Chair.

James NEWBURY: How could the Government be so morally bankrupt? I apologise to the Member, who did not feel that I was adequately making clear that he is part of the Government and part of the moral bankruptcy that would allow a Police Minister to attack an integrity expert for blowing the whistle. What I can say is that every Victorian saw it. The Government thinks it is clever, but every Victorian saw it. Like the Member for Laverton said, they are watching, they are aware of it and they know what is happening, and this one will not be covered up.

Then we saw the Attorney-General of this State, the chief law officer, firstly reported as doing exactly the same in caucus, attacking the integrity expert as reckless, and then putting out a statement using exactly the same word. How can Government Members not see how shocking a state we are in when the Police Minister, the chief law officer and the Premier are attacking integrity experts who have blown the whistle on the quantum of corruption in this State? How could it possibly be? But this is where we are, and that is why you can see how it has gone so badly. The Premier effectively crashed the car in her press conference today. You can see the pressure. You can see that they are trying to break the glass and fix this problem, and they do not know how to do it. That is why former Premier Bracks is currently in the Premier’s office. Former Premier Bracks has been brought in this afternoon –

Members interjecting.

James NEWBURY: It turns out the Government Members were not aware. That is why the Premier was not in the last division. The Premier was not in the last division because former Premier Bracks has been brought into the Premier’s office to try and help the flailing Premier.

Members interjecting.

James NEWBURY: Well, the first piece of advice I would give is: do not bully journalists. Do not kick them off group chats. The Premier’s office, the media team, was booting them off in front of all of the other journalists.

Members interjecting.

James NEWBURY: Again, the Minister says, ‘Name them’. Can you believe that we have a Minister who is saying to publicly name and attack a journalist who is being bullied by the Premier’s media team? Are you serious? This is all just part of the problem. This is absolutely part of the problem.

Anthony Cianflone: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, we can see why the Member for Brighton did not get the shadow treasury portfolio – absolutely demoted. I will bring him back on relevance here, Acting Speaker. This substantive Motion is about the pipeline of hospitals and the $11 billion in cuts. The Member has gone nowhere near the substantive Motion whatsoever, and I urge you to bring the failed Shadow Treasurer back to the substantive motion.

James Newbury interjected.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Nathan Lambert): Member for Brighton, take your seat. I need to hear the Point of Order from the member for Pascoe Vale.

James Newbury interjected.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Nathan Lambert): Member for Brighton, I have asked you to take your seat so I can hear the initial point of order from the Member for Pascoe Vale. When he has finished, you can raise on the Point of Order. Has the Member for Pascoe Vale made his Point of Order?

Anthony Cianflone: Would you like me to repeat the Point of Order?

The ACTING SPEAKER (Nathan Lambert): If you can, thank you, Member for Pascoe Vale.

James Newbury interjected.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Nathan Lambert): Member for Brighton, you spoke over the top of him and –

James Newbury interjected.

Anthony Cianflone: The Point of Order went to relevance. The substantive Motion, I put to you, Chair, is about the hospital pipeline of investment of this Labor Government and the $11 billion in cuts and closures of hospitals that the Liberal Government would do. He is not going anywhere near the substantive motion because he is the failed shadow Treasurer.

James Newbury: On the Point of Order, Acting Speaker, for those who have not been following the procedure of the House, I have moved an Amendment and I am speaking on my Amendment.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Nathan Lambert): Member for Brighton, through the Chair.

James Newbury: Through the Chair, I have moved an Amendment, as everybody else in the Chamber seems to know. Acting Speaker, it seems that the Member is unaware that when you move an Amendment, it is moved in the Chamber, and you can get it from the Clerk’s table.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Nathan Lambert): Member for Brighton, I have taken your comments on the Point of Order. I now need to rule on the Point of Order. I would ask the member for Brighton to have a mind to the relevance of his own Amendment, but I rule that there is no Point of Order.

James NEWBURY: Of course. At no point have I spoken about anything other than $15 billion of corruption, which is my Amendment. That is what I have spoken about. At no point have I done otherwise, Acting Speaker, so I thank you for your ruling, which confirms that is exactly what I have done.

This week we have seen the biggest betrayal, perhaps, of Victorian taxpayer money that we have ever seen. It is not only the exposure of the worst corruption scandal and not only the exposure of the worst instance of cover-up by a Government; what we have witnessed over the last week is shameful. I am sure every Victorian feels ashamed by how their money has been funneled into the pockets of criminals. When you see a level of corruption of that nature, you would expect any good Government to immediately call for an investigation into where that money has gone, that $15 billion that I speak about in my Amendment. But we have seen the Government refuse to look into where that $15 billion of money has gone, and part of the debate over uncovering where that $15 billion of corrupted money has gone to has been a conversation about providing the chief anti-corruption agency with the powers they need to uncover where that money has gone. That is entirely relevant to the $15 billion, because you need to understand when it comes to that level of corruption where the money has gone.

Not only has the Government refused to back a Royal Commission into where that $15 billion has gone and catch the crooks that need to be caught, but the Government has refused to provide the anti-corruption agency with the powers they need to look into third-party activity and investigate where that money has gone. We have seen the Government refuse to provide IBAC with follow-the money powers they have been calling for, and I suspect that the Parliament later this day will be dealing with Amendments to do with follow-the-money powers for IBAC. The coalition, of course, has committed to providing IBAC with follow-the-money powers, but I feel very, very certain that the Government will not support it. In fact, the Government have said publicly they will not support it. They will not support providing an anti-corruption agency with the powers they have called for to chase down money that has been corrupted. It makes you ask yourself, as this amendment is directly about $15 billion of corrupted money: why wouldn’t a Government want to understand where the money has gone, chase it down, claw it back and make sure Victorians have access to that money? Why would you not want to claw it back?

At the end of the day it is their money. It is Victorians’ money. It is not Mick Gatto’s money –well, actually, part of it is right now. Part of it is in his pocket. Mick Gatto, who said yesterday the Premier was a good person – can you imagine getting a character reference from Mick Gatto positively? I tell you what, when I saw that, I thought, ‘Mick Gatto has just said the Premier is a good person.’ If Mick Gatto says anything other than ‘I hate the Member for Brighton’s guts’, I am failing in my job. I am absolutely failing in my job, because to have a person like that providing you a character reference tells you everything about what you are doing, or not doing, as a Government. Mick Gatto has spent two days –

The ACTING SPEAKER (Nathan Lambert): The Member for Tarneit, on a point of order?

Dylan Wight: Acting Speaker, I do not have a particular Point of Order, I just thought we could all use a rest.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Nathan Lambert): There is no point of order.

James NEWBURY: Acting Speaker, I am sure you will appreciate that vexatious Points of Order should be called out by the Chair.

This is a very, very important Amendment, and that is why I felt it was so important to move it and speak for the entire allocated time. Again, I note that the Government spent 1 hour of procedural time, and they certainly did not have to. We spent an hour of this Chamber’s time debating procedurally whether we would move to a sledge motion. We, of course, did not support the Government spending time on a sledge motion. When we did move to this original motion, the substantive motion that the Minister for Roads and Road Safety moved, I thought to myself as the first responder that I would be waiting half an hour, because of course if we have spent an hour of time to get to here, you would think the first speaker would want to actually put the case. You would think a mover, the person who wrote a Motion, would want to put the case. Do you know how long they spoke, Member for Berwick? You have a guess.

Brad Battin: I wasn’t here – 5 minutes.

James NEWBURY: No – 8 minutes.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Nathan Lambert): Member for Brighton, through the Chair.

James NEWBURY: Through the Chair, Acting Speaker – 8 minutes. I was concerned.

Anthony Cianflone: On a Point of Order, Acting Speaker, Standing Order 110, irrelevant material or tedious repetition, states:

The Chair may warn a Member speaking in the House for continued irrelevance or tedious repetition.

I put to you that he has been repeating himself the same way for, what, 23 minutes straight now about the same topic, the same theme. He is not talking to the substantive Motion.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Nathan Lambert): I will rule on the Point of Order. I remind the Member for Brighton he is now speaking on the Motion and his Amendment, not any previous procedural Motion. There is no Point of Order.

James NEWBURY: Of course, we all would understand that providing context on the substantive Motion is entirely relevant to the substantive Motion too – of course it is. And I was providing context to that substantive Motion, because we do not just speak on the Amendment, we also have the right to speak on the substantive Motion, which I was doing. It is entirely within my remit to respond to the mover of the Motion and what they have drafted, which is exactly what I was just doing. I can understand why the Government would not want me to, but I think we should all be reminded that it is important when we take Points of Order to try and have some level of intellect to them, though I am not sure that is always the case.

There was a substantive Motion moved. I will repeat again because the House interrupted me. I want to make the point again, and I am entitled to make the point again. The mover of this Motion spoke for 8 minutes after we spent 1 hour getting there. And of course I will respond for my entire time. We will have spent, I would say, nearly 1 hour and 40 minutes of this Chamber’s time, I would argue, was mostly wasted, in my view, other than the contributions that related to the need for a Royal Commission and the $15 billion of corruption. That, to me, was an essential part of the debate in this Chamber this week, and it is actually the only time this week that this Parliament has spoken about the need for a Royal Commission in substance in Government business time. Can you believe we are seeing the worst instance of corruption our State has ever seen, and in the Parliamentary week the Government has afforded no time in Government business to consider it? Every Victorian I think is now saying, ‘$15 billion of our money going to crooks!’ – at a cost of $5,000 to every household.

The Member for Laverton said – this was not just us saying it – that it was being raised with her. It was absolutely being raised with her, and I believe her, because it is being raised with every Member of Parliament, which is why every Member of Parliament, other than the Labor Party, last night called on the Government through a Motion in the Legislative Council to call a royal commission. The fact that we are not seeing this Government considering a Royal Commission, frankly, should scare every Victorian. I can understand why Members of Parliament from the Government benches then are reported to have been talking to the media about the need to call a Royal Commission. Government Ministers and Government backbenchers are saying to the media, ‘Call a Royal Commission.’ I can understand that; I agree with them. We agree with them.

There is a big difference of course between a Government Member secretly calling a journalist and then voting against it in the Chamber when they were called to vote on it in the Council last night, and any Member who voted against the Royal Commission Motion –

Anthony Cianflone: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, the failed Shadow Treasurer probably deserves a breather, but Section 110 again – irrelevant material, tedious repetition. I draw to you that he is repeating himself time and time again with the same talking points. It is totally repetitious. I ask you to sit him down, please.

Peter Walsh: I move:

That the member no longer be heard.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Nathan Lambert): Member for Murray Plains, you cannot move that at this point. I need to rule on the Member for Pascoe Vale’s Point of Order. There is no Point of Order.

James NEWBURY: I can understand why the Member for Murray Plains was feeling so terribly aggrieved, because in this place, as a Member as learned as he would know, it is actually quite painful when people who do not know what they are doing try to do something. It is actually quite painful. You are actually measured by what you contribute in this Chamber. The Premier and I have spoken about that very thing, and it is one thing that I agree on. The Chamber respects people naturally for what they are able to contribute to this Chamber, and I would respectfully remind new Members of that.

This Amendment is so very critical. It is the first time to reinforce, because we are getting to the end of my short contribution, and the first time this Chamber in Government business has had the capacity to talk about the issue that is not just on the minds of every Victorian but on the minds I think of most Australians. I said recently this is certainly the worst instance of corruption this State has ever seen. This may well be the worst instance of corruption that Australia has ever seen. So, it is no wonder that Australians more broadly would be looking on and saying frankly, ‘What the hell is going on in Victoria?’ I think most of us feel like that: what the hell is going on in Victoria? Because we are seeing allegations of $15 billion of corruption that is going into the pockets of crooks and a  Government that is saying, ‘I don’t want to do anything about it. Let’s tough it out. Let’s try and paint any call for a Royal Commission as some kind of weird attack on workers.’ What an indefensible argument, and that is why, by the end of the week, you have seen the Premier yesterday, but worse today, fall over effectively in a press conference. The footage today of attacking a journalist I think says, when it comes to what has occurred, what is being uncovered, that the Premier knows she has made the wrong call.

I would say to the Premier: the Prime Minister was able to admit that he got it wrong and called a Royal Commission after saying that he would not. He stood up, and I will give him credit. He was wrong, and then he admitted he was wrong and he called the Royal Commission. So, I would say to the Premier: stand up. Admit you have got it wrong. We need to clean up Victoria, because if you do not, we will say to Victorians that if they vote for us, we will clean up Victoria, and Jess Wilson and our Coalition team are going to do just that. We are going to fix Victoria.