't ''t

1978

VICTORIA

"PERSONAL EXPLANATION"

TO

THE PARLIAMENT OF VICTORIA

BY

D. B. JENNINGS, M.L.A. MEMBER FOR WESTERNPORT

SEPTEMBER 1978

Ordered by the Legislative Assembly to be printed, 13th September, 1978

By Authority: F. D. A TKINSON, GOVERNMENT PRINTER, MElBOURNE.

C.3-ll497 /78-PRICE $1.20

• •, •

. , ' •

••

.~ • - '

•

1

On 29th July 1978 at a Victorian State Council meeting of the Liberal Party of Australia, I was expelled for disloyalty and conduct prejudicial to the interests of the Party, arising from my failure to vote with the Government in the Legislative Assembly on 6th September, 1977.

As I am no longer a member of the political Party to which I belonged when I was elected to Parliament, and in view of the number of incorrect, purposely misleading and un­truthful statements whichhave been made, I hereby present

1.

to Parliament the following brief report of the circumstances, background information and reasons for my actions.

It has often been said that people get the type of Government they deserve. This may or may not be so but it is important that people are given the opportunity to understand the type of Government they have.

Although all Members of Parliament swear an Oath of Office, there appears to be a considerable divergence of views on what it actually means.

After I was elected to Parliament, allegations were made that membership of branches of the Liberal Party in my Electorate of Westernport had been manipulated by me and supporters of mine to ensure that I won the Liberal Party Pre-selection Convention, which was held on 28th September, 1975.

This affair became known as the Westernport stacking issue and it received wide publicity in the media including editorial comment that I could be in Parliament because of a fraud •

I demanded that the allegations be independently and publicly investigated, but my requests were refused and a behind doors inquiry was held by the liberal Party organisation.

After I was finally cleared of all allegations in November 1976, I requested that the report of the investigations be made public as promised to ensure ·my supporters and branches wars al•o cleared.

At a meeting of the Parliamentary Liberal Party on 14th December 1976, I was threatened with expulsion if I did not stop asking for the Westernport Stacking Report to be made public.

Agreement was finally reached in March 1977 on the terms under which I could obtain a copy of the report if legal proceedings were issued and it was necessary to protect myself in court .

In August this year, the terms of that agreement were broken. The Westernport Pre-selection Stacking Report was effectively buried for life by the use of a legal loophole. As yet, very few people have appreciated the significance of this incredible act of political and public stupidity.

The fact that both the President of the Liberal Party, Mrs. Joy Main, and the Vice-President, Mr. John Elliott, with the support of Mr. Hamer, should publicly break their written agreement shows quite clearly that their word, whether it be spoken or written and signed, is of no value whatsoever and that their undertakings are worthless.

If they had acted in good faith and given me the Report, in accordance with the terms on which we agreed, it would have been in the interests of the Liberal Party, as I would have been able to only use limited material from the Report to protect myself in Court.

Now, ofmurse, the public's suspicions have been aroused, and rightly so. It is essential for this whole matter to be aired, together with the reasons behind it.

Some Members of the Government in Victoria and Canberra, officials of the Party and others, must answer for their actions. The Westernport stacking issue was only a keyhole glimpse of the behaviour that has developed whereby anyone who is prepared to stand up and speak against corruption and incompetence is to be discredited in the eyes of the public.

2.

Mrs. Main, Mr. John Elliott, Mr. Hamer and the other people involved, including the previous President, Mr. Peter Hardie, have been responsible for trying to hide an era of some of the lowest behaviour possible in any political patty.

The skeletons in the cabinet are of the gravest nature and the arrogance of the leaders of the Liberal Party towards the members and public in this matter has damaged and compromised the Party.

As the detestable picture unfolds, the people who voted for my expulsion for disloyalty will become aware of how loyal I and my supporters have been in trying to r.lean out ~ certain element in the Liberal Party from within by constitutional methods.

We have now found that such things as a Constitution and common decency mean nothing to these people.

The refusal by Mrs. Main to name nine of my ten accusers at State Council and her statement the following Monday that the Liberal Party is a 'private club', is an example of a dictatorship mentality.

The one and main ingredient which will destroy a democracy is corruption. Corruption in its many forms does not start at the bottom. The people at the top in our society must set an example of which we can all be proud.

At least one would expect that you could trust your own leader's private word.

At the confidential meeting I had with Dick Hamer, Lindsay Thompson and Jim Ramsay on Monday, 12th September, 1977, which was the day before the expulsion move in the Party Room, many matters were discussed which I will cover in more detail later, but before leaving that meeting at 5.30 p.m., I said-

"I want to assure you all of one thing and that is whatever happens tomorrow and whatever the blokes decide to do, I will act as a gentleman. If they expel me I will not breach the confidentiality of these private meetings or the Party Room meetings." They all said that they appreciated this assurance.

Much to my disgust, within one week, the Premier and also Vasey Houghton started another smear campaign and made statements that Charles Francis and I were expelled for some other reason other than that which was stated, but when challenged they would not detail the reasons.

I was then shocked to hear of some of the Premier's evidence at the Privileges hearing, which breached the confidentiality of these private meetings.

•

•'

t, •

1

I •

3.

I was questioned on Channel 2 television about these meetings but I still refused to discuss these private meetings.

Later, when I read the Premier's evidence, it was so obviously distorted that I sought to make a personal explanation to Parliament on 9th May. 1978, which was refused and I was also refused permission by the Speaker to raise the matter in the Adjournment Debate, 10 May, 1978. (Refer Hansard, pages 2657 & 8, 2768 and 3030).

The Party meetings were supposed to be highly confidential but many misleading and untruthful statements have been made about these meetings.

People who have bean involved in this smear campaign, such as Barry Simon, M.H.R., Peter Hardie, the Malvern Young Liberals, Charles Hider, M.L.C., James Guest, M.L.C., Graeme Weidaman, M.L.A., and many others, leave me no alternative but to relate what really did happen. I will, therefore, document soma of the facts and the background history of this whole grubby affair.

The Westarnport stacking allegations ware the result of a conspiracy which traces back to a set of circumstances which started in August 1973, and involve falsified receipts, misappropriation of campaign funds, the land deal rackets disclosures and other deals not disclosed.

They involve a code of behaviour which is devious and corrupt from start to finish and continual and persistent attempts to cover up.

It all relates to the money that has been made by people with Parliamentary connections through questionable transactions and the blind loyalty to Members of Parliament by so many well-intentioned but misled members of the Liberal Party. They still think the integrity of the people running the Party is as it was under Menzies. The complete reverse is the case.

The reason so much emphasis has bean placed on Westernport is because, for the first time since the Hamer regime started, the Party hierarchy do not know how to handle the situation where people in the Electorate are being genuinely represented. All the smear tactics and public discrediting of me personally has only added to the well­founded suspicions of the people in the Electorate.

The Westernport Electorate Committee which represents the 13 Liberal Party Branches in my Electorate, has been a major and continual bulwark against this improper conduct.

The attacks against us welded them together and other than a small group of Alan Hunt and Barry Simon followers, we maintained a continued vote of over 80% of the Committee.

The Chairman, Mr. A.C. (Sandy) Reith, and the Committee, have been active, reliable and consistent supporters because they can understand the importance of the principles involved •

Other M.P.'s, such as Dick Long and Graeme Weideman, have told me that I am crazy to encourage the branches and the Electorate Committee to be active, as they ask too many embarrassing questions. My branches and the Westernport Electorate Committee have now proven beyond doubt of how important it is for members of the Liberal Party to be active and resolute.

The skilled manipulation of the Parliamentary Party meetings amazed me and particularly the way the older backbench members allowed it to happen. It was the old iron fist and velvet glove procedure and it did not take long to see the Premier at work.

4.

The R.J. Hamer cover-up technique is simple, basic and rotten. It revolves around the spreading of false rumours and smears and the isolation of any Party member who expresses a view which is likely to lead to an exposure of incompetence and/ or corruption.

The first direct example I experienced was in the Party Room in October 1976 when R.J. Hamer proceeded to verbally lash Charles Francis, Q.C., for his speech in Parliament on the Beach Report. He told Francis what a disgrace it was that he should express a point of view which was similar to that of the Deputy Leader of the Labor Party at that time.

I was surprised and disgusted at this planned attack on Charles Francis and I got to my feet and defended his right to say what he did, as it revolved around a professional legal matter where at the time there appeared to be a concerted attempt to cover up and Charles Francis had specialised knowledge of the matter.

R.J. Hamer's attempt to ridicule and annihilate Charles Francis politically was an eye-opener and it gave me an indication of some of the other tactics that they would try on me, which of course, came later.

·It was also noticeable that if a Member of the Party was critical of a senior Minister or administration that the criticism was usually cut off quickly by requesting the Member to talk to the Minister privately. This happened to me twice in regard to Westernport problems, following requests by both the Premier and Deputy Premier, It was a tactic that they continually used successfully.

On 19th January this year, John Winneke, Q.C., accused Charles Francis, Q.C. and I of acting like 'public pests'. He did this when summing up at the land inquiry on behalf of the Housing Commission and Mr. Vanes Dickie. Winneke made completely untrue statements ~11d allegations of what I was supposed to have said. His outburst was a typical Hamer style tactic which was made under Court privilege.

I stated that I welcome being branded a public pest if being a pest is the only means of exposing a public scandal involving many millions of dollars of public money.

What I said at the time, and have repeated, is that we are currently experiencing some of the biggest and most doubtful deals this country has ever seen. The people responsible are either incompetent or corrupt and either way they should go, and go quickly.

It is now apparent that the facts I obtained myself in 1975 and 1976 had been available to many others for some time but, because I was prepared to raise them in June last year, I am regarded as a pest by some people, which is understandable.

You don't have to be Mandrake to work out the tactics which Winneke employed. It was a childish, 'stay-in-line-or-else' threat to impress the other backbench Parliamentarians. It was also a clumsy attempt to divert the public's attention from tha evidence on the one hand and probably, which is more important, as to why no Parliamentarian of any Party asked any guestions in the Sering Session of Parliament about the Melton deal after it was exeosed in "The Age'' in June 1974.

The implications of this fact alone are wide and we, in Westernport, were shocked one month later when people woke up one morning and Found that their properties were virtually valueless. The State Government had frozen (designated) overnight, without warning, 14,000 acres of private property on the Mornington Peninsula for two years. The owners had no right of appeal or compensation or amendment, and it was never debated in the Party or Parliament.

•

•

The State Government used the Conservation red herring as justification, but it was the first of a number of serious actions to kill the Westernport area to try and justify the big spendups at Melton and Sunbury, and the $100 million which were being poured into the socialistic sink at Albury/Wodonga. This was confirmed by the Town and Country Planning Board themselves.

We had private enterprise prepared to spend their own money on new projects on industrial land in Westernport, but they were not allowed. Yet tens of millions of dollars of public money were being wasted on the hairbrain Albury/ Wodonga fiasco. In Westernport we had no alternative but

5 •

to take a closer look at the operations of these big spenders.

I then had the Melton land transactions legally searched in detail. From the information I obtained, it was apparent that "The Age" article on Melton was based on fact, and the lack of questions by Parliamentarians became more serious than originally thought.

The Melton deal was one of a number which were based on a similar formula. They were all big, they were made to look beautiful and they were simple. One of the main ingredients is to have a knowledge of the restrictive planning regulations and an ability to negotiate your way around them.

In Westernport, we were suffering further at the hands of the so-called planners, where property values were being destroyed. People were not being allowed to build houses or factories on their own appropriately zoned land, and they had no right of compensation and could not sell to

• anyone.

I publicly warned the State Conference of the Liberal Party ~ in November 1976 but, within a month, the current Cabinet

foisted the S400 million Mount Ridley proposition on to us, with its big rake-offs and disregard df stated planning policies. I condemned the Mt. Ridley proposal in Parliament on 13th and 18th October 1977. The Mt. Ridley bombshell was closely followed by another of the biggest deals ever, the SlOO million Pinmore Housing Commission scheme.

...

Both of these deals fitted the old formula - they were big, made to look beautiful, and the simple technique of negotiated planning was used and approved by the present Cabinet.

People in Westernport became more concerned when the Minister for Planning stated publicly in 1977 that he could give no guarantees that a Mount Ridley type negotiated planning deal would not happen on the Mornington Peninsula.

As property values in Westernport were being destroyed by the planners operating under the Government policy, and people were being misled and victimised, it became vital to jolt the Parliamentarians into a realization of what, was happening.

Instead of jolting them, we only upset them and we soon realised that the majority of Parliamentary Liberal Party Members either knew what was going on and were benefiting from it or did not want to know so they could benefit in the future.

The first indication which I had that there was something wrong in the Flinders Electorate was when the paid organiser at that time, Mr. Don Fowler, approached me in August 1973 and told me that he had a job for me to do in a couple of night's time. I said "What do you want me to do? 11 He said "I want you to become Chairman of the Flinders Electorate Finance Commi ttee 11 • I said "You' re joking. I cannot even read a balance sheet properly. 11 He said 11 That doesn't matter, it is important that you head the Finance Committee and I'll give you all the reasons later. 11

I went along to the Annual Meeting at the Tyabb Hall on 15th August, 1973, and I was duly elected Chairman, and a Mrs. Dorothy Turner was elected Secretary. Joe Davis was the Treasurer and he told me that he handled all the money and the books.

Don Fowler told me later that it was important to make sure that all the money we received was to be handled and banked by him. I told him that suited me fine.

Over the next six months or so, we organised various money-raising programmes, including a money-mailing campaign, and we raised over $7,000 prior to any election being called.

It was very difficult to get the Flinders Electorate Chairman, Peter Leaks, to agree with the ideas of money-raising and

,publicity.

In May 1974, during the Federal Election, when Bill Snedden was the Leader of the Liberal Party, Don Fowler phoned me up one day and said to me "I want you to give a direction as Chairman of the Finance Committee." I said "What?" He said "I want you to tell me should I or should I not write out receipts for money I don't get?" I said "What? 11

and he repeated the question. I said "Of course not 11 •

He said 11 That's what I wanted to hear you say, as I had to do it during the previous elections and I don't want to have to do it again." I asked him who was trying to get him to do it and he did not want to tell me. I then said to Don Fowler "Listen, I am asking you and directing you to tell me who forced you to do this during the last campaigns?" After my insistence, he eventually told me that it was Edith Seller, Phillip Lynch's Electorate Secretary, Joe Davis, the Treasurer, and Graeme Weideman, the Electorate Secretary. I said "What has been going on?" He s d 11 I cannot tell you any more at present." I said "I want to know the whole story. 11

and he said he would tell me all about it after the election. He said he would tell Edith Seller to tell Davis and Weideman that he would not write out anymore receipts for money he did not receive.

After the election I met Don Fowler at his house and he explained the system to me as follows:-

"During previous elections, I was directed by Edith Seller, Joe Davis and Graeme Weideman, with the knowledge of Phillip Lynch, to work two receipt books and threatened that if I did not do it they would have me sacked from the Liberal Party on the basis that I was too old."

When the money came in during a campaign, they would give me so much money for which I would writs out receipts and pay the money into the Party Fighting Fund. Then they would give me another list of names and amounts for which I had to write out receipts in another official book which they kept. The receipts would be sent out to the donor with my signature and the donor would naturally think the money had been paid into the Fighting Fund which, of course, never happened.

"

•

•

•

After the campaigns, the second receipt books would always disappear and Joe Davis and Graeme Weideman would dispose of the money into what I thought must have been a private account."

Don Fowler also said "I was very concerned in the 1973 state Election as Alan Hunt had received large amounts which he would not pay into the fighting Fund, and he would not give me any details. I told quite a few people at the time as it broke all our rules but no-one would do anything •

7.

soon after my instructions to Don Fowler about the receipts, the Lynch group (Davis, Weideman and Leaks) arranged for Don Fowler to be transferred out of the Electorate altogether. This upset many members of the Party and Don fowler explained to me that they, i.e. the Lynch group, did not like the close association he had built up with me and that he had to go. And yet we were told by Headquarters that they wanted Fowler in another Electorate, and Lynch also told us the same story.

At a meeting with the then General Secretary, Leo Hawkins, sometime later, Hawkins told Dorothy Turner and I that Fowler was shifted out of flinders under direct instructions from Phillip Lynch himself.

I discussed the position with my close supporters, which included the Finance Secretary, Dorothy Turner. It was then decided on a positive long term plan.

I was to push as hard as passible on the organisational side to try and gain control of the whale Electorate Committee and leave the probing for the information on the finances to Dorathy Turner, and some other trusted members of the Finance Committee. We felt this plan would cause the Lynch

t group more concern and we might be able to uncover some more direct evidence but at least we should be able to stop any further rackets.

At the same time as this financial and organisational skulduggery was going on, we had another serious problem in the Electorate.

In July 1974, {after the land deals were exposed in "The Age" in June) 14,000 acres of land on the Mornington Peninsula were designated (frozen) overnight by the Liberal Government. As there was no right of appeal or amendment or compensation and the measure had never been debated, it meant that hundreds of properties were devalued. Many people, including the Liberal Party branch members, were incensed at the indifference of the Members of Parliament in regard to these problems.

A group of Liberal Party members got together and decided that I should stand as Chairman of the flinders Electorate Committee to replace Peter Leaks and see if we could clean up the organisation, wake up the politicians and get to the bottom of the .finances as Don Fowler had explained the two receipt book system to others also on a confidential basis.

The Lynch group heard about this proposed move, and calls were made by Davis and Weideman and lynch himself to get others to stand against me and they eventually convinced Ken Cola to stand. Don fowler continued to help me with advice.

On 12th September, 1974, we attended the Annual General Meeting of the Flinders Electorate and Phillip Lynch, Graeme Weideman, Joe Davis and Peter Leaks tried to block my nomination for three quarters of an hour on many different cooked up grounds, such as I was still Chairman of the Finance Committee, my vote was not on the roll in flinders, etc. Joe Davis, the Treasurer, left the stage and came down on to the floor to continue the criticism on the basis that I did not have the interests of the Electorate at heart.

Also, that I was trying to split the Electorate. Phillip Lynch stated to the meeting that if I was elected the State Executive may not ratify it and the Electorate would be left without a Chairman. He tried his best to make sure I was not elected.

8 •

Eventually, the matter was put to the vote and I was elected by secret ballot. Phillip Lynch immediately realised the support and jumped off the fence and said that he felt sure State Executive would ratify my election but he did not communicate with me for some six weeks after.

After being elected as Chairman of the Flinders Electorate Committee, we reorganised the Executive, set up a Campaign Committee and started the Flinders organisation mail and we expanded the money-mailing programme and brought the Finance Committee Executive under our control.

It was not long after this that Ray Ward, M.L.C., told me that the M.P.'s were worried because we were making the branches and their members too active and they were asking too many questions and causing problems.

At my first meeting with Phillip Lynch after I was elected Flinders Electorate Committee Chairman in November 1974, I told him I was concerned about the land deals as they were exposed in "The Age 11 in June, as I considered that Hunt, Leaks and Cooks were involved and that it was very suspicious that no questions had been asked in Parliament about it. He seemed quite agitated and said "That's a State matter. We don't want to get involved in that at all." I said "We may not want to but Alan Hunt and Leaks are in our Electorate. 11 He said "Well, I would not look into it any further if I were you. But, if you find out any more

•

information, let me know." •

Late in 1974, it was decided to have a full-time Liaison Officer in Flinders to replace Don Fowler who had been pushed out because of his association with me and Jim Saxe was mentioned by Phillip Lynch as being a most appropriate person, ex-policeman, anti-socialist, and had helped Phillip Lynch previously. He was duly appointed to the position after passing the required examination of approval from Headquarters, and the Flinders Electorate Committee Executive approved his appointment as he appeared to have the organisational ability, etc.

Much to my disgust and the other members of the Flinders Electorate Campaign Committee, Lynch purposely avoided meeting us for discussions and planning. He made a public statement in February 1975 which brought things to a head.

He stated publicly how delighted he was from a personal point of view that the proposed Electoral Boundary changes would make Flinders a safer seat for the Liberals,and himself.

This ridiculous statement undermined everything we were doing to galvanise the Electorate, attract financial support and gave people a'why worry'attitude. It was a typical example of how he had completely lost touch with reality in his own Electorate and upset people in adjoining Electorates while we were still in opposition.

I, therefore, wrote him an appropriate letter on 28th February 1975, which outlined the position and requested that we be given the opportunity to have an hour's chat with him at least once every four to six weeks.

..

• •

•

•

We all knew, of course, that hs was still trying to run the electorate with his two manipulators Joe Davis and Graeme Weideman, whom he was meeting regularly, and there was an attempt to isolate the properly constituted organisation.

During 1975, I obtained more information on the land deals at Melton and Sunbury and eventually had them legally checked for land transfers, titles, etc. which proved beyond doubt that a racket had been worked . I told Lynch about this and he seemed more concerned and again said it was a State matter and he didn't wish to be involved in it.

Things were still not going smoothly and at a meeting of the Flinders Electorate Committee on 14th April, 1975, concern was expressed at the continuing unsatisfactory position in regard to information from Headquarters on

g •

the finances. I will cover this matter later in this report.

On 13th May, 1975, I was asked by Robert Maclellan, M.L.A., Member for West Gippsland, to have lunch with him at Parliament House. The purpose of the lunch as he explained it was a request from him to get the endorsement of the new seat of Westernport, without a pre-selection convention, otherwise he would have to try and get Berwick. He said he did not want to take Berwick as Marshal! Baillieu would prefer to have the safe seat of Berwick in the State House rather than fight for the doubtful seat of Latrobe (where he was already the endorsed candidate) in a Federal election.

I told Maclellan that my opinion was that it wouldn't matter who tried for Westernport seat, that there would be a pre-selection convention, and that in view of this position and if he wasn't prepared for a convention he should select Berwick. I said that in view of the fact that the Conservation Plan was being introduced that afternoon and the poor performance of our local representatives in the previous year regarding the land designation, our Liberal parliamentarians were not at all popular in the area.

Maclellan asked me if I was interested in standing and I said "No way in the world do I want to get into Parliament, as there are so many other things to do." We also had a discussion about the relationship between Members of Parliament and their Electorate Committees which showed up a number of differences between us. He didn't want a Committee.

On 20th May, 1975, I wrote to Lynch as Electorate Chairman and advised him we were going no where fast at present and that it was not Jim Saxe~ job to try and extract money out of the branches. I also told him that the Conservation Plan was going to interfere with our work.

At a meeting of the Flinders Electorate Finance Committee on 9th June, 1975, the concern of the people in the Electorate in regard to finances was expressed again in resolutions which were passed specifically asking all Members of Parliament to supply details of campaign income, expenditure and personal involvement. The requests were nevercomplied with.

In July, 1975, I received a call from Beryl Beaurepaire telling me she knew Rob Maclellan would like the Westernport seat and asked me hew I felt about it. I told her of the feelings er the general population in the area about all Liberal parliamentarians who had once again turned their backs en the local population in regard to the Conservation Plan. She said she was surprised and concerned at what I had told her and said she would talk to Dick Hamer at the earliest opportunity and arrange a meeting, which took place in Julv.

10.

Those who attended were R.J. Hamer, A.J. Hunt, J.f. Bowes, K. Cola and myself. The Premier agreed to extend the period for objections to the Plan by three months and also agreed at the time to amend it, which was quite unprecedented. But as this was three years ago, the troubles are still with us - the amendments were minor indeed.

There was great discontent in the Electorate in August 1975 with the Westernport Conservation Plan and the complete disregard of our Liberal Party Platform and Policies.

It was affecting our Flinders Electorate Committee and they decided to enter into the dispute and it was on their behalf that I took a number of actions which were endorsed at a meeting of the Executive on Wednesday, 13th August, 1975.

This necessitated Roberts Dunstan putting an apologetic press statement in the news media which resulted in Ray Dorrington, his personal assistant, writ~ng me a hostile letter.

It was about this time that the master plan to discredit me in the eyes of the public was contrived, well before the Westernport Pre-selection Convention took place, so that if by some fluke I won the pre-selection, I would have already been set up.

The reason my nomination was submitted for the pre-selection was because all my supporters were concerned that they were not aware of all other candidates and they wanted to be sure that they were not left for dead by a stereotype politician once again. After considerable discussion, we decided that I should nominate and that on the Wednesday prior to the convention~ we would select one of the other candidates (if suitable) and give him our whole support and I would withdraw.

The week prior to the convention, articles appeared in local newspapers and the Melbourne"Truth'' that if I won pre-selection it would split the Party, and that at that time strategic plans were being prepared which would embarrass me and the Party considerably if I should win.

Rob Maclellan, who was reported to have already gained the pre-selection for Berwick, let it be known that he had been asked to stand against me by the Premier, to ensure I would not be elected. In view of these points, my supporters said we have now no alternative, we must stand because otherwise our whole cause would be lost.

During the Federal Election in December 1975, we had a well-organised campaign committee set up and when the election was first called, Joe Davis and Graeme Weideman tried to take over as previously organised with Lynch.

Within a few days,we had a meeting with Phillip Lynch at Treasury Place and made it clear that the Committee we set up was going to run it,which it did,and it also controlled the money, and collected the mail and cheques.

During the week after the federal election on 13th December 1975, the Executive of the flindere Electorate Committee held discussions and decided to advise headquarters that they no longer desired the services of Jim Saxe. As Chairman I undertook personally to call at Head~uartars and explain the position in the first instant, and then follow it up in an explanation to Jim Saxa personally.

I

•

•

•

•

•

• ..

•

11.

I called at Headquarters on Friday, 19th December, 1975, and explained the position to Harry Sasse and Graham Jennings. They both told me that because of Jim Saxe's"experience and abilities" that they wanted him to be retained in the Party and moved to another Electorate. Graham Jennings advised he was going overseas and would contact me in January when he returned. Harry Sasse said he would phone Jim Saxe and advise him that he would be transferred.

On Saturday, 20th December, 1975, Harry Sasse phoned Jim Saxe and informed him that he would bs transferred to another electorate.

Early in January 1976, I had a forty minute phone call, at 10.00 p.m. at Mt. Eliza, from Phillip Lynch who expressed some concern at the Electorate ramifications if the dismissal of Jim Saxe was not handled in the right way, and queried the advisability of carrying it out, I suggested to Lynch that he go back to running the country and let us run the Electorate.

Saturday, lOth January, 1976, I arranged to meet Jim Saxe in the upstairs lounge at the Sovereign Hotel, Frankston. Jim Saxe arrived half an hour late and told me he had just returned from Phillip Lynch's place as he had to deliver some reports to Phillip Lynch. I had a general discussion with him on his transfer and he queried the fact that I had handled it personally, rather than the Executive meeting. I explained that I felt it was in his own interests and that as I was Chairman I had a responsibility to the members of the Electorate and to any member of the staff, including himself, that they be treated in a manner as a person's right to self-respect, and that if he wanted me to call an executive meeting I certainly would, but I considered it to be not in his own interests. He said "Of course I will have to burn the tJesternport sheets". I said 11 \Jhat do you mean?" He said "Oh well, I will have to burn the Westernport selection sheets as we wouldn't want another Caulfield down here." I said "What do you mean?" He smiled end I said "Look, if you are indicating to me that there was something shonky with the !Jesternport pre-selection, I will be the first fellow up to Headquarters to ask for another convention, as no-one is going to elect me to anything through shonky practices." I then said "Now you level with me, was there or was there not something shonky that went on at the !Jesternport convention?" He seemed to be greatly. surprised that I took this attitude and then said "Oh I didn't mean it in that way." I said "I regard it as extremely serious." He said "Oh no, the whole convention was checked out by Headquarters so don 1 t worry any more about it." We then discussed other subjects and at the conclusion of our discussions Jim Saxe left in a huff.

Before he left, Jim Saxe advised me he was going to Sydney on holiday for about two weeks. I advised Jim Saxe that when he returned from his leave he was to report to Headquarters in South Melbourne for instructions.

On Monday, 12th January, 1976, L.E. Kilner, Executive Officer of the Flinders Electorate Committee, went to the office at 3A Wells Street, Frankston, and found all the cabinets open and files missing. He informed J.f. Bowes, Treasurer, who went to the office and inspected the place, and I was advised by phone of the position.

12.

On Tuesday, 13th January, 1976, I called at 3A Wells Street, and phon~Harry Sasse and told him that all the files had been removed and asked what right a field Officer had to do such a thing. I was informed by Harry Sasse that the files were the property of the field Officer and not the Electorate Committee. I said this was most unsatisfactory.

It was later learned that the files were removed between Saturday and Sunday by Jim Saxe with the assistance of Arthur Aankin. I also advised Harry Sasse of the conversation with Jim Saxe on the previous Saturday and asked him his opinion of what had been said in regard to the Westernport convention. Harry Sasse advised me that as far as he and Headquarters were concerned, no convention or the delegates entitlements, had been more thoroughly checked than Westernport and that I had nothing to worry about whatsoever.

I tried to phone Jim Saxe at the Crew's Nest Motor Inn, Sydney, on 02 9221199 and when he was out I left a message for him to return the call urgently. Jim Saxe did not return the call.

During the following weeks, we had discussions with Sasse and Graham Jennings from Headquarters and were surprised with the steps theywere going to to protect Saxe who had already stated he had bugged our meetings and threatened to release tapes.

We told Sasse and Graham Jennings that under no circumstances would we recommend the retention of Jim Saxe and that if they moved him to Halt or Hotham they would have to accept full responsibility.

Three weeks before the State election in March 1976, a Branch President and his wife in my Electorate, who were close friends of Rob. Maclellan, refused to attend a function because they were sitting at the same table as me. We carried out a quick investigation and found that certain groups from within our own Party were working to undermine our Electorate organisation along the eastern side of Westernport Bay. We took the necessary steps to counter this move and the results speak for themselves, and I was elected to Parliament on 20th March, 1976.

After I was elected to Parliament, I decided to just listen for the first Session and try and ascertain how the Parlia­mentary Party and the whole place worked. I was the last Member to make my maiden speech.

Unfortunately, it wasn't long before I was involved in a public dispute with two Ministers and the Director of Conservation, which directly affected my Electorate. Dr. Downs had made a ridiculous statement about Hobby farms which concerned Bill Borthwick and then the Minister of Agriculture, !an Smith, stated publicly that they would be the "rural slums of the future". I felt that this Smith statement was planned as a rebuff to me and my supporters. I strongly criticised Ian Smith for straying outside the ambit of his own portfolio as he obviously had no idea what the hobby farms were like on the Peninsula. I also accused him of repeating, parrot fashion, statements by Dr. Downs, which seemed to upset him. Ian Smith was so incensed that at the next Party meeting, he threatened me after the meeting that if I ever criticised him again publicly, he would move for my expulsion from the Party. I laughed at him and told him to stick to his own portfolio. I didn't intend to get into this sort of dispute but the big headedness of some of these Ministers was unbelievable,

I had another example of this on 5th May, 1976, in Rob. Maclellan's ministerial office when he told me about the Westernport document and said that "The Age" would ring

•

•

..

•

•

•

•

13.

him as he believed the Westernport Convention had been rigged and that he had been told he had won it by 12 votes. He also told me that he was giving me a warning that I had to get rid of some of my friends from the Flinders Electorate Committee Executive the following Monday night at the Annual meeting and if I didn't I would have my throat cut. I said "You're joking" and he said "No, I'm not joking, if you aren't prepared to accept advice you'll be sorry." As I Yalked out of the office and in front of a couple of sectetaries ha said "You make sure you coma back and tell me what you are going to do about that within two days."

I went back to my office au Parliament House and told a couple of blokes that Maclellan's head is bigger than his office.

I discussed Maclellan's standover tactics with my close supporters and we agreed he had been instructed to do it so we decided to do the opposite to what he demanded and get as many of our supporters as possible onto the Executive, which we did.

Late in May 1976, a 13 point document was left on my desk at Parliament House which was headed - Jennings -It was hi~hly critical of me and had a number of untruths and I was told that it was distributed to Members of State Executive before they endorsed me last year.

Point No. 13 stated that I had put the Government in a "no win" position by making planning an issue amongst our own supporters.

I wrote to Graham Jennings and he replied that he had no knoYledge of it.

After the Westernport stacking allegations were first announced on 28th June, 1976, my close supporters and the Executive of the Westernport Electorate Committee realized that we had been set up. During the next few weeks we received anonymous advice over the telephone that there was no doubt the Wasternport Pre-selection Convention Yas stacked, but not for me. It was stacked for Rob. Maclellan who had already told people that R.J. Hamer had asked him to stand against me even although he had been endorsed for Berwick.

At that time we were not well-known along the eastern shores of Westernport Bay, which was part of Rob. Maclellan's old Electorate of West Gippsland. Harry Sasse from Liberal Party Headquarters, who was then in charge of all Field Representatives, had been an official of the Lang Lang Branch.

We analysed the anonymous information we received and when combined with other information, including Rob. Maclellan's threat to me of 5th May, 1976, and the complete reluctance of the then State President, Peter Hardie, to assist to clean the matter up, it was quite clear to us that there had been a conspiracy. This was all confirmed later at the meeting with Roberts Dunstan.

On Friday, 2nd July, 1976, I endeavoured to get the Liberal Party President, Peter Hardie, to make a statement to clear the air. He would not even speak to me on the telephone. All I received in reply was a message from a secretary at 4.00 p.m., with instructions that I was not permitted to make any public statement without first having it approved by the Parliamentary Party and the State Executive and under no circumstances was I to request that an investigation be held.

I sent a message back that if he was not going to make a statement, I would. At 5.00 pm. I issued a statement which was broadcast that night on Channel 7 outlining the background and my request for an exhaustive and early investigation into the whole matter.

But the continual reluctance on the part of Peter Hardie to do anything made it obvious that he was encouraging the smears in the media in the hope that we would be irreparably harmed. There were many derogatory comments in the media at the time.

14.

For example, on 3AW on 23rd July, 1976, they stated that it was a crooked pre-selection and that I personally elected a handful of people to go to the pre-selection by last minute chit signing of someone else's name and that "They have had to use corruption to try and turn the tide against the conservationists in Yesternport."

On Monday, 2nd August, 1976, we were surprised to hear the Leader of the Opposition, Clyde Holding, make an unusual and low attack of the smearing kind against us. He was obviously defending the Hamer line. We were already very suspicious of his involvement in the land deals as he had failed to ask any appropriate questions in Parliament after the land deals were exposed in June 1974. It was not until some months later that we were advised of his involvement which made the whole thing more rotten and widespread than we originally anticipated.

But first things first, Clyde Holding stated on the ABC news that the allegations of branch stacking was not the major issue in the Westernport dispute. He said the major issue that affects every Victorian is the rise of the anti-planners in the Liberal Party with their vested real estate and land developing interest and the fact that in Westernport they have effected considerable changes in Government legislation.

He went on to say that there's a lot of evidence to show that they are now directing tactics and threats to Members of Parliament, threats of pre-selection procedures, all sorts of threats and intimidations towards wrecking responsible planning procedures in order that these powerful vested money interests can proceed to do what they like in terms of land development. He continued that there is an organised move within the Liberal State Government against conservation and planning,and we've had members of the Liberal Party who are Members of Parliament in the Frankston area say that they've been subjected to all sorts of threats and intimidations.

This statement of untruths by Clyde Holding added fuel to the fire and I and my supporters were made to look like a bunch of the lowest type of political manipulators, and, at the same time, he, as Leader of the Opposition, was defending and praising the Government's planning policies which we already knew were not genuine.

"The Herald" editorial of 23rd July summed up the situation when they stated that I could be in Parliament because of a fraud.

Eventually, it was only because of the press exposure that an inquiry was held at all.

There are many reasons why the so-called Westernport Sta~ ing report was buried because, in addition to what it discloses, there is considerable doubt as to its authenticity and as to who actually wrote it, and J.D. Elliott's control of the ta~s.

Even though I paid Mr. P.A. Liddell, Q.C., in good faith some $9,000 in fees alone, he still will not supply me with a copy of the legal opinion which he spent some days preparing after the Westernport Stacking inquiry had finished.

This was in spite of the fact that I was induced to agree to a behind doors inquiry on the basis that the report would be made public. That agreement was broken like many others.

•

•

,.

•

•

•

•

•

The Liberal Party hierarchy know how to use the judicial system in a way to suit their own ends. Most Queen's Counsels appreciate the position that the Liberal leaders appoint Judges and they don't want to be left out in the cold. That is why all future inquiries into Government must ha~ a jury of at least six in addition to a Judge.

Inquiries must be seen to be genuine and not a fix.

l.5.

Some politicians might think it is smart to use cheap legal loopholes and tricks to their own ends but the man in the street is usually a wake up. It is unfortunate that the man in the street has not had much of an opportunity to do anything about it. The ballot box is his only answer at present.

But, getting back to the Westernport Stacking conspiracy, the articles in the local press and even ''The Truth" before the Westernport Pre-selection, were spot on. For example, "The Truth" stated that strategic plans had been prepared which would seriously embarrass the Liberal Party if I won the pre-selection.

The details of this conspiracy and those involved we~e confirmed on 23rd May, 1977, during a long private meeting I had with one of the people involved, Mr. Roberts Dunstan, who was then a State Cabinet Minister.

This meeting came about because in May 1977, articles appeared in the press that Roberts Dunstan was going to retire and would not be re-standing for pre-selection. These articles prompted a rather hostile response from Roberts on the basis that they had been initiated from a Parliamentarian in his area. I was concerned that he thought it was me.

After discussion with some of my close supporters, I elected to see if I could have a private discussion with Roberts as he was the only Member of Cabinet whom I could talk to quite frankly and the meeting was arranged to be at his home.

During the course of this meeting, Roberts Dunstan phoned Lindsay Thompson at home and told him of some of my problems in Westernport and asked Lindsay Thompson to have a meeting with me.

This phone call to L.S. Thompson was one of the main reasons for Roberts Dunstan's outburst and retirement a few weeks ago as I gave a preliminary comment in the Supreme Court on this meeting and obviously, the ramifications were appreciated by Lindsay Thompson and others and they did not want Dunstan on the front bench where he could be questioned.

I thought, therefore, that it was rather crazy for Roberts Ounstan to breach the confidentiality of his private meeting with me by going to the Mornington Branch of the Liberal Party with Alan Hunt and Graeme Weideman the week before I was expelled (on 29th July 78) to tell the branch members how important it was for me to be expelled for disloyalty, etc. and what a shocking Liberal member I had been .

At the meeting at Roberts Dunstan's home on 23rd May, 1977, I was there from 6.30 p.m. to 10.00 p.m. and Joanna, his wife, although at home, was not present at our discussions.

I said "Look, Roberts, I want you to know that I hadn't been spreading any rumours about you retiring as yours the only bloke in Cabinet I can really talk to. He said "I know that. It's Alan Hunt, he'll never change. Roberts said "I went to apologize to you for being involved in the whole mess." He said "It stinks from start to finish. I have been trying to tell Alan Hunt for twenty years to wake up but you can't get through to him."

16.

He said "The main people who wanted to get rid of you were Lynch, Hamer and Hunt and they made most of the bullets and I helped them fire them by organising Ray Dorrington to work with Jim Saxe. They decided you would be a danger as a Member of Parliament because of your support in the Flinders Electorate and your persistence with the accusations that the land deals were corrupt and that the people responsible should be exposed and that there was something wrong with the finances in the Liberal Party."

Dunstan told me that Phillip Lynch was particularly concerned with me and my position as Flinders Electorate Chairman. Because of the way I had reorganised the Electorate and activated the branches, I had achieved considerable support in the area and he, Lynch, realized that I was aware of the land deals and other close associates of mine, including Dorothy Turner, who was still Secretary of the Finance Committee, were persisting with their efforts to get to the bottom of the shady Liberal Party finances.

Lynch, Davis and Weideman were worried that if we were able to prove Lynch's involvement in the misappropriation of Liberal Party funds, that I would try to push him out and take his seat of Flinders. Lynch wanted me out of the job of his Electorate Chairman, and he thought the State Electorate would be a good diversion and that they would all set up the appropriate plan to discredit and smear me in the eyes of the public.

(At that time, I did not know of Lynch's involvement with Peter Leaks in the Stumpy Gully deal and it was only later in November 1977 when this was exposed at the Land Deals Inquiry, that we fully appreciated his reactions and why he was involved so early in the conspiracy. I don't know if Roberts Dunstan knew at that time but he certainly did not mention it to me.)

Hamer and Hunt were concerned that I may be elected and they knew of Robert Maclellan's ambitions to become a Cabinet Minister and decided that they could exploit the situation where Maclellan was well-known in half the new Electorate of Westernport as he previously represented West Gippsland.

They decided they could manipulate the situation to advantage which they set about doing.

Dunstan said that asfar as I am concerned, Hamer is a "double-crossing bastard - look what he did to Alan Scanlan and also Geoff Hayes on Kilsyth and me - you can't trust him, but the trouble with you is you think you are dealing with people you can trust and you are trying to do too many things too quickly."

I said "Is that why you blew your tap to the press last year and accused me of acting like a wild horse?" He said "Yes, and you said I was foolish and intemperate, which was pretty right." "Yes, and Dick and Lindsay did not even mention it."

Roberts continued that Bill Barthwick was very depressed about the situation as he was hoping to take aver from Dick Hamer and Dick was supposed to resign within a couple of months, but I think Dick's misleading them all on purpose to keep Lindsay and Bill at each other's throat.

I said "Ray Dorrington seemed to be pretty concerned about my position and wrote me a pretty threatening letter." He said "Yes, I know he got pretty upset and that's why he readily agreed to get involved with Saxe to set you up. Ray was upset after you got me to put that retraction in the press in August 1975 about the Rural Landholders."

•

•

•

•

..

•

17.

He said "Why is Dorothy Turner out for Joe Davis?" I said "Dottie's not out for Joe but she wants to get the finance position cleaned up." Roberts said "It is a mistake to try and get rid of Joe." I said "Well, if he wont provide the information, surely they should be upset." He said "You have got to realize there are only a few people who control the finances." I said "But, surely the Finance Committee should know what's going on?" He said "Look, just a few people have always controlled the finances and that's the way it will always be." I said "Well, I think that's wrong." He said "There you go again, you won't conform to the establishment and what they have always done." I said "Well, I don't particularly agree with it."

I said "Roberts, tell me this. Why is it that Clyde Holding did not ask any questions in the House in 1974 after "The Age" published the details of the Melton deals?" He said "I told you, Melton stinks." I said "Yes, I know that, but why didn't Clyde Holding ask any questions?" He said "I told you it stinks. There are 30,000 reasons why he didn't." I said "Do you mean he was paid off?" He said "Of course he was paid off. Any fool would realize that." I said "It is certainly rotten when the Opposition Leader is shut up by money." He said "I know that but the Members of the Party and the people in the electorate keep voting us in so why shouldn't we?" I said "That's b •.•. unbelievable." He said "I know, but it is happening." He said "You know the slogan- Hamer Makes It Happen - and that's what he's doing." He said "Well, I told you it stinks, and the whole set up is corrupt and what else could you expect with a bloke like Hamer at the top, but if you don't wake up to it and try and fit in you will be finished." I said "Well, Robei:'tl;l, asfar as I am concerned, I think the whole thing is disgusting. He said "I do too but he said you will have to wake up to the fact that it will take you some time to fix things up. I said "Well, Roberts, I only intended to be in Parliament for three years." He said "You will have to be in a lot longer than that. I reckon you know what most people think." I said "Well all I know Roberts, if they paid off Clyde Holding and Leaks, Cooks and Lynch are involved with Hunt, the whole thing is absolutely rotten.

I said "Roberts, what's the position with this Pinmore deal and Melton?" He said "It was b ••.. well fixed." I said "Surely some Members of Cabinet must be waking up?" He said "Look if they wake up it pays them to shut up because they have the Cabinet perks, so why should they rock the boat so they just go along with Dick." I said "The more I hear about it the more it stinks." He said "That's what I told you in the first place."

I said "Well, how did they work the Westernport stacking?" He said "Well, I told you that Lynch wanted you out of his Electorate, Hunt and Hamer did not want you in Parliament and Maclellan wanted the seat of Westernport, so Lynch, Hunt and I decided that the best way to do it and discredit you was to implicate some of your best supporters such as Dorothy Turner, and others, by using Jim Saxe and Ray Dorrington, who was only too willing to have a hand in setting you up. I said "I am not surprised at Dorrington, going by the letter he sent me." He said "Yes, Ray was really upset for a while. Anyway, they decided they would give Saxe so much money to give to various Branch secretaries say $150 in cash, to a person like Dorothy Turner and Saxe was to tell her that he had received the money from say ten different people who wished to become members of the Liberal Party. He would give Dorothy Turner the names and ask her to write out the appropriate receipts and tell her he would deliver those receipts to the people concerned and welcome them to the Liberal Party.

:t a •

By doing it this way, none of the Branch officials would be suspicious but at a later time it would be exposed that the people whose names appeared on the receipts were actually people who did not know they were members of the Liberal Party as the names and addresses would be taken out of the telephone book and when these receipts were exposed, it would not be difficult to make allegations that you, personally, had arranged for your friends to increase the membership of certain branches so that they could have increased delegates at the pre-selection convention to support you and this is the way the plan was organised, which was • basically to discredit you. 11

"In regard to the other side of the Electorate, on the eastern side of Westernport Bay, I believe a lot of manipulation went on over there to increase the delegates but I don't know the details.

Anyway, Ray Dorrington and Jim Saxe got together and set the proposition up which was eventually disclosed publicly by Dan Webb."

I said to Roberts, "Well, Saxe threatened me back in January 1976, after I dismissed him on behalf of the Flinders Electorate Committee and he seemed surprised when I immediately took the matter up with Headquarters and both Harry Sasse and Graham Jennings berit over backwards to assure me that everything at the Westernport pre-selection was above board. I said "No wonder they did not want the Westernport pre-selection report made public."

He said "I don't think it would have been a proper report anyway, because who would have put that story down in writing? As I understand it, they left Saxe to take all the blame and infer that he did it to members of the Party and pay • him off in some way."

He said "It was also their intention to spread other rumours that you were actually involved but to protect the Liberal Party, they were not going to accuse you publicly." I said "What a great bunch". He said "Surely, you have an idea of the type of people you are dealing with now?"

I said to Roberts "Phillip Lynch seemed particularly concerned about Saxe's position as he phone me during the Christmas holidays early in 1976 for t hour and told me how careful I had to be in handling Saxe. I eventually suggested to him that he go back to running the country and let us run the Electorate."

Dunstan said ''I don't know what Saxe had on Lynch but I know Lynch was very scared of him."

Roberts said again before I left "I really am sorry that I was one of those responsible for setting you up and trying to blacken your name. Hunt and Lynch really made the bullets and I just fired them. 11

Roberts said "I know it is rotten but I am in it and am going to stay in it as I am certainly not going to get out of Dromana to suit Alan Hunt." He said "It is Alan Hunt who has been spreading the rumours that I am going to retire so he thinks he can come down from the Upper House in the next election and take my seat of Dromana, as he has got big-headed ideas about becoming Premier." I said "Heaven forbid".

He said "I told you before, I have been trying to get through to Alan for twenty years but no-one can tell him anything and you cannot trust one word he says. 11

I said 11 lJell, I appreciate the discussion, Roberts, as you are the only man in Cabinet I can talk to quite frankly. 11

I left Roberts' place at about 10.00 p.m., and I then phoned

•

•

•

•

19.

and went over to Bob and Oorothy Turner's home for a meal.

After my policy of going quiet for the first session of Parliament, we decided that it would be best if I did not make any speeches on planning until after the Mornington Peninsula Conservation Plan was released for public scrutiny.

My first speech on the subject was to the Annual Meeting of the Victorian Chapter of the Royal Australian Institute of Architects in October 1976. A number of members of the Parliamentary Party condemned me so I promptly sent them all a transcript of my speech which was all based on fact, most of it unpalatable.

This distribution and later circulation of documents to the Members of the Parliamentary Party make their claims that I never gave them any facts just so much eyewash.

After I addressed the Architects, the next issue of their Journal in November 1976 carried a front page article which stated "Liberal Backbench red-neck Ooug Jennings is right - Planning is in chaos. 11

What upset some members of the Parliamentary Party was that as the Mornington Peninsula Conservation Plan was not Government Policy as it had never been debated as such in either the Party Room or Parliament, they could not legitimately silence me.

On 8th September 1976, we had a Special Party Meeting on planning and I prepared a summary of the discussion in the Party Room for the next Planning Committee Meeting and marked all the copies confidential.

On 26th October, 1976, Jim Plowman who had been giving the appearance to me that he was genuinely trying to do something to correct the planning fiasco, showed up his true colours. He got to his feet in the Party Room and stated how shocking it was that I had the audacity to take notes of what Members had said in regard to planning at the Special Meeting and distributed them to the Planning Committee on a confidential basis for consideration. (The notes showed up quite clearly the general concern with the planning mess and its bad effects.)

Plowman wasclosely followed by others, including a most indignant and pompous Bill Borthwick, who referred to the notes I had distributed, which stated in part that he said ''I am politically vulnerable through planning in my Electorate." Bill Borthwick soid "I am vulnerable to no-one" plus a lot of other pomposity.

Following this organised denigration of me in the Party Room after I had genuinely tried to help, I began to realize more and more that there were very few men in the Party who were genuine and most were boot-lickers of the Premier.

The current Cabinet appear to be all tarred with the one brush and tainted with one exception, and that is Tom Austin, who has just been appointed and should not have to bear the responsibility for the past conniving .

After we were banned from taking any notes, and in view of the complete denial of some statements made by Ministers on planning, I decided to make notes after every meeting thereafter which I did, whenever possible.

Those notes have been invaluable in view of the complete lack of reliance on the value of the spoken word from Ministers.

On the Thursday, 5th May, 1977, which was the last day of the Autumn Session of Parliament, Rob. Maclellan walked into my office at 5.00 p.m. and dropped a late "Herald" onto my desk and said, "What do you think of that? 11 The paper was opened on Page 3, and it gave details of the SlOO million Housing Commission deal at Sunbury, which had been let to Peter Stirling's company. I said to Rob Maclellan, "what the hell is going on?" He replied 11 That's what I would like to know." I said "Didn't you approve that in Cabinet?" He said 11 I did not know any­thing about it." I said "What's going to happen about it?" He said "I'm blowed if I know" and he then left the office. I thought to myself that, obviously, he was hoping that I would blow the thing up and he would pick up the pieces or he was expressing concern.quite genuinely.

A little later, I went over to a Division in the House and a lot of our Members were in the passage talking about the Pinmore Housing Commission deal and how shocking it was.

I sat next to Welter Jona and he also was upset about it and Neville Hudson was furious, so too was Jeanette Patrick.

After the Division, Neville Hudson, Phillip Gude, Peter McArthur and I went down to the end room for a drink and discussion, and all expressed concern about the Pinmore deal and the poorocganisation in the House. We also discussed the disclosures of corruption in the Housing Commission regarding the renting and buying of homes.

After Parliament rose, Welter Jona came in to my office at 1.00 a.m. Friday morning which I thought was unusual. We listened to Ken Stone's statement on the radio from the Trades Hall about the Newport decision.

I asked Welter Jona what was going to happen and if they were going to have a Cabinet meeting in the morning? He said "No, as a matter of fact I hung around to see if I would be invited to one." I asked when the Premier was going overseas. He said at 11.00 a.m. I said "He should cancel the trip." Welter Jona got a nail file out and said I am inclined to agree, what with Newport and the Pinmore deal it certainly doesn't look good.

I said "What's this Pinmore deal all about?" and he replied

20.

"I didn't know about it until I read it in 11 The Herald" tonight." I said "That's shocking - what is going on?" Welter Jona seemed a bit embarrassed and said "I'd better get going'' and left.

I thought that at least the Pinmore deal was so bad that it was good in the sense that it woke everyone up (so I thought). As it followed so closely on the Mount Ridley stunt and the current Cabinet were involved, I may be able to get some action to clean things up at long last.

The backbench Members were already giving the appearance of the jitters and the Cabinet were showing themselves up as Hamer's cover-up men, so I decided that I would let fly with a burst in the Party Room about the land deals at the special meeting of the Party to discuss planning on 7th June, 1977.

At that time, I even thought that I might get some support in the Party Room from Ministers, such as Maclellan and Jona but it didn't take long to realize that they were in on the deals up to their necks and in the Liberal Party it is not what is right that matters, but what Hamer wants and condones that counts, irrespective of principle and both Maclellan and Jona had purposely mislead me.

•

"

•

•

•

•

Since being in Parliament, I regard 7th June, 1977, as being the most important day.

The Premier was still away overseas on one of his many "Oil out of coal" trips and the Party meeting was chaired by Lindsay Thompson.

At the start of the meeting, we received an introduction of the usual trumped up and distorted planning verbiage from the Minister, Mr. Geoff Hayes •

I received the call fairly early in the meeting and proceeded to deliver a brief speech which I had carefully prepared. As many incorrect statements have been made by the Parliamentary Liberal Party Members to the effect that I very seldom spoke in the Party Room, and I never gave them any facts, I am repeating that speech on 7th June from my handwritten notes which I still hold:

"Mr. Acting Premier, I regret that I cannot praise what we are doing in regard to planning. We have had three sessions of Parliament and

21.

are half way through the life of this Parliament and it is important to assess now what our position is.

Last year we had two special meetings on planning when genuine concern was expressed by many Members of the Party about the malaise and uncertainty of our planning policies and the discontent of the people affected.

After the Election in March 1976, great emphasis was plaLed in this Party Room on the Committee system of the Party and how its Committees would vet proposals before they were submitted to this Party as a whole. In this regard, particular emphasis was placed by the Premier and the Deputy Premier on the Planning Committee to the extent that it was instructed to prepare a new policy. Unfortunately, the deliberations of that Committee have proven to be nothing more than a good act.

This meeting today, where we are supposed to be considering planning policy, must also be considered in the same light, based on the recent performance of our Party on planning.

Over the last few years, we have experienced a series of unusual planning and land purchase decisions, but the most recent, when added to all the others, are causing grave concern out in the Electorate. A number of members of this Party have expressed their personal concern to me. More recently the concern out in the Electorate has turned to disquiet and straight out inference about improper conduct of the whole Party. Some people learn by mistakes and some people learn by experience.

The code of behaviour recently, in regard to planning, indicates that some people have certainly learned by experience. They have learned how to make big money quickly. I have been asked a lot of questions which I cannot answer satisfactorily and cannot defend. I am being asked because so many people's assets are being destroyed by the most vicious regulations ever introduced into this country

under the guise of planning.

People in my Electorate ere genuinely frightened about the future, while people outside my Electorate are frightened to buy into the area. The people in Westernport are being kicked to death by a planning policy which has emanated from in here. They have no confidence left at all in our oft professed policy of privata enterprise and the importance of property ownership and, rightly so, because of the propositions of an extremely doubtful nature and ethics which are being pushed through one after the other without any reference to this Party at all.

It is not my intention to go into great detail but I will relate a few simple facts and the course of events.

Late on the last day of the last session of Parliament we read in the final edition of the Herald of the largest contract ever let by the Housing Commission - SlDD million, which had been let to a company, the senior partner of which was a former President of the Young Liberals and a former Secretary to the Premier.

The general opinion in the industry is that the proposition was a fix and that it was finalized before the tenders were ever called publicly. In other words, it was simply not genuine. This proposition was advertised in an advertisement in "The Financial Review" dated 18th February,

22.

1977, and submissions had to be in by 28th February. It was just plain ludicrous - ten days for submissions for the largest Housing Commission contract ever. Is it any wonder that people outside are doubting our integrity and beginning to think we are a bunch of crooks.

This Housing Commission deal alone should have caused some concern on its own but it is not on its own.

We find that.the T. & G. Mt. Ridley proposition was foisted on to us just prior to Christmas and this was another one of the biggest deals ever, an estimated value of $400 million, and it also was not considered by this Party or the Planning Committee.

The Secretary of the Town & Country Planning Board was instructed by the Minister to place it on public exhibition for one month over Christmas. This is a deal where Lensworth Finance stand to make $9.2 million cash profit immediately the rural land is rezoned and this has already been agreed by the Cabinet.

When I said, some people learn by experience, it is rather interesting to note that back in 1974, the former Chairman of the Westsrnport Regional Planning Authority, and my predecessor as Flinders Electorate Chairman, Peter Leaks, was involved in the deals out at Melton and Sunbury, where they made $2.5 million cash profit in a few weeks, after which the whole area was designated, in other words, frozen.

..

•

..

..

•

•

•

•

This transaction was detailed in "The Age" in June 1974, and still there was not one question asked in Parliament about it from either side or any corner of the House. The big question is why?

All the way through these and other similar transactions there appears to be one simple common denominator - Lensworth finance. To justify all this we, as a Party, have now come up with the greatest and simplest planning policy ever dreamed up, not this document which is being considered by us today - that is part of a charade to mislead people outside. The new policy as outlined by the Minister is two words "negotiated planning". The main requirement, quite obviously, is to have a large source of money and to be completely and utterly unscrupulous and operate on the simple principle that planning controls are for the law-abiding citizens, the innocents and the fools.

Negotiated planning enables special consideration to be given to ensure enormous cash rakeoffs for special people. An example of this is the $9 million rakeoff to Lensworth finance for the Mt. Ridley deal.

The T. & G. have no compunction in admitting in their handout material on Mt. Ridley that

1. After the Government declared the area Non-urban in 1974, they went in and bought up the land at rural prices with the specific objective of development. "No-one would normally do this but T. & G. obviously had inside information that they would get away with it."

2. They are in a special position to negotiate the planning of the new town.

"This is a self admission by T. & G. that they were receiving special consideration."

3. All the relevant authorities consider the plan technically acceptable, even although Rural.

11 While we and everyone else thought it was Rural in accordance with Government policy, the Governmental Departments were approving its development."

The T. & G. even claim in their literature that development at Mt. Ridley will encourage growth in line with stated Government policy. I would certairuy like to know what policy they are talking about, unless it is a new policy of special deals for special people .

The majority of us in this Party have been taken for an incredible ride. We have been misled as never before. The people responsible for the current happenings are one of two things - they are either corrupt or incompetent and in either

23 •

case they must go, and go quickly. Enough is enough. Elections are won by the swinging seats.

If the current and pa~ behaviour is not checked immediately, it will blow up and there will not be many, if any, swingers left.

Recent history has shown that in a democracy, when the people realize the Government is corrupt they vote them out. For example, in Is~ael it has had the one Government for 30 years but once corruption charges were levelled at senior members of the Government, they were voted out 51 - 32.

Similarly, the Lockheed scandal in Japan.

The future of this Party revolves around three simple things:-

Good organisation

Political activity that reflects what the majority of people want

Money

If we don't clean up ourselves in theeyes of the public quickly, the electors will do it for us.

I fear one thing and one thing only - communism. Not because they are made by their own strength but that they are made by the weakness of their opposition, and they know how to exploit the

24.

greatest weakness in a democracy, which is corruption.

Ye have reached the stage where certain leading members of our Party organise their own public relations handouts and when the statements are printed about themselves, they are now falling for the old trap of reading their own releases and believing them.

Our whole system of Government is based on integrity. I, therefore, leave the position of the next course of action in the hands of this Parliamentary Party. I emphasize again the seriousness of the position and each individuals responsibility in the matter.

Many of you have expressed concern to me about what is happening in Yesternport. Yhat is happening in Yesternport is a never-ending volcano and each eruption is getting bigger and bigger because we, in the Party, will not take the trouble to face the facts and listen. The noise is getting louder and louder but we don't hear it. The writing is up on the wall in black and white for us all to read, but we won't read it.

Planning is serious as it affects so many people. The way it is going, it will be the downfall of this Party. Although current planning is bad, and is designed by the planners to suit the planners, the problems so created will be minor once the people out in the Electorate realize that it is not planning

•

at all but wheeling and dealing. , •

I also want to take this opportunity to advise the Party that on Friday next, lOth June, I will be appearing at the Balnarring Hall as a landowner before the panel which is currently hearing objections to the Mornington Peninsula Conservation Plan."

..

•

..

•

After I sat down, the reactions of some members of the Party were quite incredible. I received so many hostile attacks from so many people that I thought to myself, maybe I didn't present the case too well. It was not until later that we were able to assess the reasons why each of the various people attacked with such vehemence •

25.

The first person who hit his feet and gave a burst for about fifteen minutes was Mr. Vanes Dickie. This surprised me as I did not at that time appreciate the extent of his detailed involvement.

Vanes Dickie expressed disgust at what I had said and stated that today was the saddest day in his 20 years in Parliament.

He confirmed that Lensworth were in the land deals and he outlined in great detail the purchases at Melton. He said "Before we purchased any land, I asked all Members of the Cabinet, and also senior members of the Department, if they knew anyone connected with the deals so that there could be no reflection or doubt caused or that any corruption was involved."

He said that Inspector Crowley had investigated the deals after "The Age" article and had cleared them.

He also told the Party meeting that he got the police in to throw an Age reporter out of his office.

Alan Hunt got up and expressed concern that there should be any reflection cast on any Cabinet Ministers and the allegations I made were typical of the rumours and innuendo around his Electorate. He said that "I have never criticised Doug Jennings in public but I have held out the hand of friendship." He continued that he did not like doing it, but he had to breach a Cabinet confidence to the Party and he turned to Pat Dickie and said "Remember prior to the Melton contract being signed, in which Peter Leaks was involved, that I told you of this?" He also stated that in regard to the Mt. Ridley deal, after the Premier zoned the land in 1974, the T. & G. made urgent representations to them and told them what they had in mind.

Geoff Hayes got up and said that 90% of what I said was straight out bulls .••• and that he had not requested that the Mt. Ridley project be placed on exhibition for one month.

I then produced the copy of the letter which Geoff Hayes had signed which stated in part that he was recommending to the Governor-in-Council the rezoning of approximately 7,500 acres of land in the Merri corridor from Rural to Reserve Living. This proved that Hayes was purposely misleading the Party. (At a later meeting, he stated that this letter was never sent.)

Other people who were critical of what I said were Charles Hider, who had been taking notes whilst I had been talking (which is contrary to the rules they laid down for us) and said I had made a number of serious accusations regarding the Cabinet system of the Party and the impropriety of the Members.

He was quite vehement in his criticism and it was not until /~ugust 6th in a Herald article ti1E1t we found out that at tha very same time that he wos criticising me in the Party Room, he wss also a Director of Devu.loprnGnt Unrlon,!riting? who were finalizing the sale of $5~233;.460 ~.tJOrth ot' land to the Housing Commission for cash which was to be finalised three weeks later on 30th June~ 1977.

Although the Herald article referred to Gardenia Park at Thomastown, we did not know at the time of the $5 million sale which was Mossgiel Park, Heatherton Road, Endeavour Hills. The price at which the sale was made to the Housing Commission was more than $1000 per block higher than similar land alongside for single blocks

,, . • {0.

while for a bulk purchase like this, the Housing Commission probably paid at least $2000 to $3000 more per block than they needed to, and, of course, the enormous cash sale to the Housing Commission bailed Development Underwriting out of a financial crisis. I regard this transaction as a scandal on its own and typical of the "last of the big • spenders" mentality which abounded in the Cabinet when they were dealing with special people.

Geoff Hayes admitted that Peter Stirling and his partner in Pinmore made a submission to the Housing Commission in November 1976, which was subject to a further submission in December 1976. He, Geoff Hayes, was so impressed with the $100 million submission that they decided to call tenders to see if there were any better submissions so he said they advertised in the "Financial Review" on 18th February and, although they received 65 so-called tenders in the ten days allowed, none of them came up to Peter Stirling's, that is according to Geoff Hayes. His explanation of this deal was misleading drivel and confirmed that the deal was a fix, as no-one else had an opportunity to tender on anything. All the other 65 companies did, basically, was to register their names, capabilities and interest in the project.

Vern Hauser also was very critical of me and said that Lensworth was a most respectable company and so were the T. & G. (which reminded me of the statements they used to make about Raid Murrays and Paynes Properties Sunbury Estate deal back in the late 1950's before they went bust for some $20 million, and thousands of people lost their money with no right of redress. It was not until later that Hauser told me that he was involved with Tamer Holdings in a substantial sale to the Urban Land Council.

The Speaker, Sir Kenneth Wheeler, also was highly critical and at this time we had no idea of his son's involvement in Albury/Wodonga where his son had sold his 200 acre property for over $150,000 cash to the Albury Wodonga Development Corporation in April 1975. This was although it was some 15 miles out and would not be built on for another hundred years, if ever. Locals state that the price was at least double its value at the time and yet Wheeler leases it back at only $650 per year plus rates.

(It should not be forgotten that there are still many property owners in and around Wodonga who have had their land frozen for years by the A.W.D.C. and they cannot get paid or sell out to anyone else. Quick cash sales such as Wheeler's have created considerable bitterness and disgust in the area, which is understandable.)

..

Sam Loxton got up and surprised me. He said it was one • of the most interesting days we have heard in the Party Room since he had been the Parliamentary Whip for twenty years, which was longer than anyone else in the Commonwealth.

He said "Mr. Acting Premier, as the Whip, I hear a lot of things about what a lot of Members of the Party think and the general feeling and attitude in regard to our actions on the last night of the last session of Parliament. We did pick up "The Herald'' and were surprised to read that the Housing Commission had let that huge contract to a company in which Peter Stirling was involved.

•

..

•

•

We all know Peter Stirling and, Mr. Acting Premier, I want to make it quite clear he was too close to us as a Party for a contract of this sort and it put us in a vulnerable position.

27.

A few years ago, if there was a debate in this Party Room you were right if you had the numbers and you were wrong if you did not. The man who sat in this chair and saw that this was carried out was Henry Bolts .

Sam Loxton's burst gave me a glimmer of hope and I later thanked him for what he said.

Bill Fry was most indignant and said "Is Doug Jennings saying the Commission and the Government is corrupt? "I have never heard anything like it since I have been in Parliament." He took great exception to the use of the word "charade".

It wasn't until later that I realized that some of these people who became prickled had as their main reason -fear of uncovering a code of behaviour which revolved around money and personal gain.

These, and many other politicians who ignore principles for personal gain, I regard as despicable as they are using the Liberal Party Platform and the decent, innocent Liberal Party members to keep them in that position. This country would ba a lot better off without them in Parliament.

After the meeting, Maurie Williams followed me out onto the terrace and said "I know that what you said up there was lOO% right and it is only the tip of the iceberg." I said "That's right Maurie, but the other blokes are too stupid to see it." He said "They are not stupid they are frightened about what you are going to expose."

Charles Francis told me on thephone that he~ought the reaction of the Party was bad and many were shocked. He said Pat Dickie's reliance on a report by Crowley looked suspicious because if Pat Dickie had been genuine at the time, he would have got someone in from the fraud squad to investigate it, not Crowley as Crowley was one of the people in the police force they normally used when they wanted something covered up.

/.28

On Sunday, 26th June, 1977, an article appeared in the "National Times" which described the Party meeting of 7/6/77.

At 7.30 a.m. on 27th June, I phoned Jim Ramsay and told him that I wanted to make it clear to him as Cabinet Secretary that no-one from the "National Times" had been in touch with me or my office or vice-versa and that the photograph was one that was taken by "The Herald" some time ago.

Jim Ramsay said "It's going to be difficult to convince people that you did not organize the article." I said Well, that maybe so but in fact I would be stupid if I had done it. He said "The headline looks shocking -we are crooks. 11

He said "If you think you have been misrepresented, maybe you should make a statement to that effect." I said "I think that would be worse as there are a lot of things in the article that are lOO% correct. I was told by a couple of journalists that a lot of the information emanated from the Windsor Bar after the 7th June Party meeting when some of our M.P.'s were being vocal about how they were going to kick me out of the Party. The press naturally asked why.

Ramsay said "The position is serious and asked if I would have a discussion with Dick Hamer direct."

At 9.40 a.m. Jeff Kennett phoned and I returned his call at 11.00 a.m. He said "I hope you have all your facts ready for tomorrow, as you are going in behind the eight ball and the blokes expect you to make specific charges

28.

and accusations." I replied that asfar as I was concerned, I had made sufficient charges and it was up to the Ministers to respond to them or to produce the files.

Jeff Kennett said "The Party won't learn from its mistakes. The facts have got to be put into the Party Room and if they get out that's just too bad." He said he has heard a number of statements made in regard to the "National Times" article and it appears that one of the Ministers could be setting me up."

3.15 p.m.

Jim Ramsay phoned and said that he told the Premier about the discussion this morning and ha would like to sea me at 9.00 a.m. in the morning.

On Tuesday, 28th June, 1977, at 9.00 a.m., I saw the Premier and Lindsay Thompson. They asked about the "National Times'' article and I explained the position as I explained it to Jim Ramsay.

I told them I had been contacted by a number of reporters on the morning of 15th after Norm Lacy phoned me as they had been informed that I was to be expelled from the Party.

I said there was tight security after the Party meeting on 7th but after some M.P.'s let off steam at the Windsor Bar, the press apparently soon got the story.

Lindsay Thompson asked me if I had my speech prepared which could have been copied. I told him that I prepared my notes myself in my own handwriting and retained them in my mind and had not finalized in detail what I wanted to say until the morning of the meeting of 7th June.

Dick Hamer said "We are not a corrupt Government, although we make mistakes." I then told them that I thought both Mt. Ridley and Pinmore woru substantial mistakes and that

•

•

29.

Peter Stirling's comment had embarrassed us all. Lindsay Thompson commented that "He certainly did not help."

At the Party meeting which had been put off until after Dick Hamer returned, a number of Members were obviously incensed and questioned me. One of the most amusing was Murray Hamilton who got up out the front and pointed at me and proceeded to burst forth, like a Julius Caesar speech, and said "I want a Special Committee of this Party set up to look into the affairs and behaviour of this "recalcitrant" Member.

I immediately said ''I would welcome such an inquiry" but Lindsay Thompson certainly didn't and killed the idea - bang!

As the weeks jolted by, with some stupid contradictory statements from Ministers, I began to wonder more and more how this unusual bunch of devious characters could organise anything properly, let alone a Government, which was responsible for handling so many millions of dollars of taxpayers' money.

/30 .

On Tuesday, 19th July, 1977, at the Party meeting, Murray Hamilton tried to bring up the land deals early in the meeting (which was a welcome change to the meeting of 28th June when he wanted a Committee set up to enquire into my activities) but the Premier said that it would be discussed later.

30.

About 12.50 p.m. Murray Hamilton brought up the issue of the land deals and said that he was concerned as he had heard it mentioned on the ABC that morning where a number of deals, including the Hume freeway, and the land deals, had been referred to on the basis that at least one smelt of corruption. He said he had been approached by at least two people recently with queries in regard to accusations which I had made. He urgently requested the Premier to show the community that we are leading the State positively and intend to do something about the position.

After Murray Hamilton sat down, the subject was dropped and there was no further discussion on the matter. Quite obviously the Premier made it clear he did not want the matter discussed.

On Thursday, 28th July, 1977, Jeff Kennett phoned me and said that everything is blowing up quickly. Some of the new guys are concerned that they are being left for dead. He said "We have organised a meeting of the new backbenchers at the Old Melbourne Motor Inn on Thursday, 4th August, at 10.00 a.m. He said it will be a very honest meeting as we want to discuss everything that has gone on.

Jeff Kennett said that he had been talking to the Premier yesterday. When I asked what the Premier had told him, he ignored answering and said that he believes that "The Age" is coming out with a bad article tomorrow, as the Young Liberals Editor has also sent out the Young Lib paper with an article and we are all going to get branded the same way if we don't do anything. He said "We were wondering if you would come to the meeting?" I said "The idea of the meeting was the first breath of fresh air since I brought up the matter on 7th June, but I do not think it would be appropriate for me to attend as I had brought the matter up and it was up to them to decide what should be done. All I could say was that everything I have said was based on fact. It was far better for them to make their own decision independently and if they agreed with my view, they should bring it up separately in the Party Room.

I gave Jeff Kennett a letter at the State Council meeting on the Saturday morning for him to read out at his meeting, which stated my view. I certainly didn't intend to get branded with them as Kennett had put it and I also felt the meeting could be a blind to get me to do the bulldozing for them. I thought how ridiculous for these blokes to be having secret meetings because they were just plain scared to get stuck into the leadership in the Party meetings.

/31.

•

•

•

31· We had another Party meeting coming up on 16th August 1977 and I was becoming more concerned than ever the way things were going, so prior to the Party meeting, I told Jeff Kennett I felt that Hamer was purposely working the Party meetings to avoid the land deals and it was important that the land deals should be discussed at the Party meeting and asked him if I moved a Suspension of Standing Orders, would he second the motion? He said he would and suggested we let the meeting go for an hour or so before I brought it up.

In the Party Room on 16th August, 1977, at 11.50 a.m., I asked the Premier if we were to be given the opportunity to discuss the land deals. He said "We have other business to discuss." I then moved a suspension of standing orders to allow for the land deals to be discussed. Jeff Kennett quickly seconded the motion, as promised, and I was surprised that it received such an overwhelming vote.

The Premier, R.J. Hamer, was in the chair.

The following is my speech as taken from my prepared notes:-

"It is vitally important that we discuss these land deals in this room today. We are either all in it together or we are not. The situation is bad and it is deteriorating. Our source of information is the newspapers and we are not being kept informed of what is proposed at all. The formal procedures of this Parliamentary Party have been completely ignored. It is now 10 weeks since I raised this matter at the special meeting on 7th June and what has happened since is sad indeed for this Party. If we had acted promptly then we could have been seen to be genuine in the eyes of the public, instead of being ridiculed by the press and the Labor Party.

I have said before that our whole operation revolves around three simple things -

good organisation

political activity that reflects what the majority of the people want.

money

At the recent State Council meeting of the Liberal Party, we were told that our membership is the worst it has been for ten years and our finances were just as bad, particularly as the President sent out letters late last year stating that it cost $480,000 per year to run the Liberal Party in this State and the money was not coming in.

The organisation is in a hopeless situation because of a number of factors, including the reliance on the computer, while our political activity has been completely the opposite to what it should be.

This reliance on the computer is organised confusion so that it can be abused and it is undermining the very life-blood of this Party. It has taken away the personal contact between officials and members in the branches and I feel it will continue to enable a few people to control the finances and no-one outside has a clue about the details. The most responsible members of this Party are the Branch Secretaries and Treasurers right across this country and the responsibilicy for collecting and collating memberships and subscriptions should be returned to them.

How can we feel confident politically when ten weeks ago, the Minister, Geoff Hayes, got up in this room and ~eplied ~o my allegations and said that 90% of what I sa1d was s1mply bull •••••• - that was his word not mine.

But since then Geoff Hayes has locked the files away, called in the police and now a judicial inquiry has been announced.

On 6th May, we read in the paper where Peter Stirling stated that his company, Pinmore, had been chosen from other schemes submitted by other companies,

32.

for the biggest Housing Commission contract ever. This, of course, was simply just not true, because no other developer had an opportunity to tender on the $100 million contract which was given to Stirling's • company, Pinmore.

We also read in the papers that the Minister, Geoff Hayes, did not know if the contract had been signed or not. What we would like to know is, if this is right, who did sign the contract or if it has really bean signed or not?

Like most of the doubtful deals, they are all big, made to look beautiful with brochures, etc. and simple.

Although Mt. Ridley and Pinmore are the biggest of their kind in this country, they were not even referred to this Party, let alone to a Party Committee.

The Mt. Ridlay deal was approved in principle by Cabinet after the last Party meeting last year. It was a perfect example of a negotiated planning deal and, typically, it fits the formula for the doubtful deals. These land deals reflect on all of us in this Party Room and yet we have not even had a say. There are also many disgruntled vendors in regard to some of these doubtful land transactions and, under the laws of the land, they can take action for misrepresentation and fraud and it is quite likely that this will happen. The further this matter goes, the greater the exposure of the type of doubtful people involved in these doubtful deals.

We were told by Mr. Dickie ten weeks ago, that Inspector Crowley investigated the deals and cleared them. We were told by Mr. Dickie at the following meeting that he would have a special report prepared for us in two week's time, that is five weeks ago, and we have received nothing other than a series of press statements which make us look more doubtful than ever in theeyes of the public.

We have been told many times that Cabinet discussions are confidential and yet we had a statement by Mr. Alan Hunt that he wanted to release the files and another statement by Mr. Geoff Hayes that Cabinet wduld not let him do it. What is right? Surely, as Members of this Party, we are entitled to know.

We read in the paper on 4th August where senior Government sources were quoted as stating that a Board of Inquiry would be held into these land deals but the Minister for Planning, Mr. Hayes, rejected the idea.

There are many questions that must be answered. Is the Valuer-General being allowed to speak or not?

As far as the biggest Housing Commission deal is concerned - Pinmora - who has bean paid commission? and who authorized it? and why cannot the Planning Committee vet both the Pinmore and Mt. Ridley deals?

..

•

•

We may think we have problems at the moment but we will have a lot more of them on 6th September when Parliament meets. We seem to have forgotten that the Opposition are vulnerable on this matter. What I am saying is that if we know what the Cabinet have been up to, at least we have a fair chance of defending the circumstances but, at the moment, none of us know and to me it looks like a case of planned incompetence which has been created to confuse people so that the system can be abused within the Government Department structure •

Our Parliamentary Party system can only work if we stick to the rules. We have committees and when

3 3.

we approve things, after discussion, both in Committee and this Party, we are all responsible and we can go to the public with confidence.

I quoted in Parliament, in my maiden speech, the greatest thing that has been said for this country was said by Arthur Calwell when Sir Robert Menzies retired, when he said that whilst Bob Menzies has been Prime Minister of this land, there has never been any shadow of a doubt or hint or sign of graft or corruption in either the administration or the Government of the day and that, I believe, is the type of political integrity and climate that people want to wake up to every morning.

We are either united in this together or we are not. The future of the Party is at stake. I think we can pull it through if allowed and if we all know the facts and this is the responsibility of our leaders. We must take the initiative but we must be told here and now what the true situation is, rather than read it in a garbled serial form in the press."

After I sat down, the Premier got up and gave an explanation of the Mt. Ridley deal and the Housing Commission deals, and he completely ignored the main questions which I raised and that is - these matters had not been referred to the Party. He was praising the Mt. Ridley deal because of the amount of money private enterprise would put into it and said that although some companies may make a few million that was private enterprise working. I interjected on the basis that it was not the main point. The main point is that it was an inside deal and what the people outside and the industry think. He then tried to explain it further and I felt it was another example of a cover up.

Similarly, Geoff Hayes got up and gave the same explanation on the Pinmore deal that he gave in the Party when I first brought the matter up on 7th June and also attempted to mislead the Members of the Party again on the cooked up advertisement in the "Financial Review" and the fact that they had received submissions from so many other people. He also said, in regard to Mt. Ridley, that the Planning Committee of the Party had considered it, to which I interjected "That is not so - after it was "fixed" by Cabinet. Hayes said that a letter I referred to in the first Party meeting was never, in fact, sent and he would like to know where I obtained it (i.e. the letter dated 21st December to the Secretary of the Town and Country Planning Board). After Hayes sat down, Sir Kenneth Wheeler said he would like some of the questions answered as he had been asked a lot of questions in his own Electorate.

/34

I then got up and said that in regard to what Geoff Hayes said, the statement by Stirling that his submission had been selected from over 55 others in the SlOO million contract, was just not so as no other contractor had been given the opportunity to tender on the same basis and I referred to a comment in "The Sun" newspaper, attributed to Stirling, to which Norman Billing said that I must be pretty naive politically if I believed the newspapers. I also told Hayes and the Party, that the letter to the Town & Country Planning Board from Hayes was sent to me and also reiterated that the Mt. Ridley deal was a negotiated deal with special arrangements.

34.

I told the Party that there is only one way that the Government can handle contracts and that is by deciding specifically what they want, advertising it so that everyone is tendering on the same basis so that particulars can be prepared and all tenders are to be submitted in a certain place, at a certain time and opened publicly so that all tenderers can see the position. I reiterated that is the only way we can cut out suspicion on Government deals of any sort.

I sat down and then the Premier made some other statements about Mt. Ridley and then Pat Dickie got to his feet and harangued the meeting for about twenty m~nutes and said no-one else was responsible for the Housing Commission land selection other than him and he accepted full responsibility. He also made the incredible statement that "I thought we were in favour of private enterprise and profits and if Lensworth made a million or two and Welmac made a million, so what? He also said that in the Government Departments there is often backscratching and people getting cut in on deals but that seems to be par for the course. He said "What is bought by anyone else is no different to the Housing Commission, they have to pay the right price but in all his tirade, he did not answer some of the critical questions such as where was the report that he said was being prepared five weeks ago and had Commissioner Crowley prepared a report?

After Dickie sat down Sir Kenneth Wheeler said what a great speech had been made by Pat Dickie and that he was lOO% in the clear and that this whole thing had been brought up by the dirtiest opposition we have ever had to face.

The Premier was then going to close the meeting but Bill Campbell insisted he had something to say. He took exception to what Pat Dickie had said as it was the second time that Pat Dickie has misconstrued the position as far as he was concerned and he wanted to make it quite clear that what he had said before and what he was saying now, because what we think in the Party is absolutely minor and what the people outside think really matters, and all he was asking for was the answers to a number of questions.

Charles Francis then jumped up and said to Dickie "Did he or did he not instruct the Valuer-General on the valuation?" to which Pat Dickie replied "No, he did not". Charles Francis then asked "Well who did" to which Pat Dickie replied "I do not know".

The Premier then closed the meeting. He said the questions could be asked at any future meetings about these deals. After the meeting tha Premier asked me to stay back as he wanted to have a yarn to me. He then explained at soma length the Mt. Ridley proposition and tried to justify it and said that it had not been finalized and also that the Pinmore contract had not been signed.

•

"'

•

•

I said''Well, the newspapers said they had" and he repeated that they hadn't been signed.

I told him that the Mt. Ridley type deal was a special deal and everyone should be treated on the same basis and given the same opportunity. I said that this so-called negotiated planning is a confidence trick which he obviously didn't like. I walked down the passage with Dick Hamer discussing the matter and left him talking to the press. I thought at the time it was one of his typical tactics to try and divert my attention and keep me quiet in the Party Room .

After the meeting, I had about half an hour discussion with Joe Davis and Graeme Weideman over in the officey theywere most upset with Dorothy Turner's requests for information and balance sheets from the Flinders Electorate Finance Committee. I told them I was too busy to get involved with that. They both told me that if I didn't get Dorothy Turner to haul off it would have an adverse affect on me. I said I'd like to know how and left them to it.

/36

36.

On Saturday, 20th August, 1977, at 1.00 p.m., I phoned Jeff Kennett at home and thanked him for seconding the motion last Tuesday. He said "No sweat. It will be interesting to see what happens within the next few days." I said nwell, things can only deteriorate. If we had done the right thing quickly, we could have been seen to be cleaning up the mess ourselves." Jeff Kennett said "I don't think the blokes have the guts to do it and unfortunately, I think you are going to be proved lOO% right, and I think we are in for real trouble."

I thanked him again for what he did. He said he was only too pleased to help.

On 29th August, 1977, Geoff Coleman phoned and asked me if I would like to go to a meeting at 2.30 p.m. in the Annexe of Parliament House to discuss the land deals. He said "The same group who had organised the meeting at the Old Melbourne Motor Inn would be there - himself, George Cox and Jeff Kennett.

I told Geoff that I could not attend as I had a prior commitment to attend a Development Committee meeting for the roll on roll off wharf at Westernport.

I thought it was ridiculous having private meetings when none of them were prepared to let fly in the Party Room on the land deals.

/37.

•

..

•

•

•

At the Party meeting on 30th August, 1977, Robert Maclellan came up to me and accused me of talking to people in his Electorate and trying to undermine Alan Hunt's pre-selection. I told him not to be so stupid as I am flat out trying to fix up some of the mess that has been created for people in my Electorate without worrying about his silly politics and, in any case, people phone me from all over the place and I speak to anyone.

37.

During the Party meeting, which Lindsay Thompson chaired, he asked at about 11.45 a.m. if there were any questions in regard to the land deals? A number of men jumped to their feet which was encouraging. (It was noticeable that there were many more questions asked about the land deals when Dick Hamer was missing from the Party Room).

The first question was asked by Hayden Birrell, who wanted to know whether there was any difference of opinion in what Alan Hunt and Pat Dickie had said?

Pat Dickie avoided the question by stating that he was astounded to read an article in "The Australian" which quoted what he had said at the previous Party meeting and that Ken Wheeler had congratulated him but that the story was not carried in the city edition. "As everything seems to have been leaked out, I won't comment any further. 11 Pat Dickie then sat down and I thought it was about the best thing he could have done.

But typically, the Liberal Ministers usually change their minds quickly as a question was then asked by Bill Campbell and Pat Dickie got to his feet and talked continuously for about 35 minutes non-stop relating the whole messy history of the projects and that he had spent about three hours with his Barrister yesterday, and he became quite worked up and said that John Winneke told him that •.•.. and before he could let it out, both Lindsay Thompson and Alan Hunt said, "No, you must not say that" and he stopped in his tracks. This was most significant as they had obviously concocted a story.

During the course of his 35 minute burst, he said that all the transactions were carried out quickly, and when Dick Hamer was made Premier, they wanted to acquire a lot of land and build cheap homes on cheap land and he found that they had Sl2.5 million cash reserve in the Housing Commission which they decided to use.

He said a lot of emphasis has been placed in the press on the instructions given to the Valuer-General. He said "Sure, I gave instructions to the Valuer-General, like everyone does, verbally, on the basis - eh Jack, will you go and value this property and he said everyone knew the Housing Commission did not buy land for farming but to put houses on and, no doubt, it was valued accordingly.

This was a complete contradiction to what he told the Party on 16 August, 1977~ and it sounded quite ridiculous .

He then said "At that time, Jack Gaskin was Chairman of the Housing Commission and he has since died and that he, Pat Dickie, had a lot of personal files of letters and general documents which he took with him when he left the Housing Commission as Minister, but since then he has destroyed all these files and, therefore, now he has to rely on his memory.

38.

(Of course, we now know that Sir Gregory Gowans said in his report that the paucity of records in the files of the Housing Commission presented an obstacle to obtaining contemporaneous records to test the reliability of testimonies.)

Pat Dickie emphasized the policy to provide as many cheap homes for as many people as possible. He said it was going to be very difficult answering all the questions based on memory~ and that in his viGW~ tho inquiry should not have been even held at all and that ws should have fought it out in Parliament.

Jeanette Patrick asked the obvious question 11 In view of the stated policy to build so many homos so quickly and the amount of money spent on the land? why is it today that not one house has been built on any of the land?''

Pat Dickie replied that the Commonwealth Government promised a lot more money than they have provided. He then went on to congratulate Geoff Hayes on the great job he had done in getting Pinmore in because none of the other companies were interested, which was complete rubbish.

Pat Dickie then said "I know I will be in the witness box and under pressure and have to answer a lot of questions and it is going to be difficult for me remembering without the files, but we did not need this inquiry in the first place, and it is all very well for you fellows but you wait until Albury/Wodonga comes out and Ballarat, Keilor, Geelong and the Urban Land Council. When he said this, a number of Cabinet Ministers looked very uncomfortable and indeed they should have.

It was a pathetic performance and a se~ies of concentrated distortions of the truth from start to finish. But, irrespective, I felt certain and I am sure others in the Party Room felt the same way, that the other Cabinet Ministers involved had all ganged up and worked out a plan whereby Pat Dickie was going to have to carry the can for the lot of them - what loyalty!

Lou Lieberman got to his feet and said that he was concerned that some Liberal Parliamentarians had been at Albury/Wodonga, and one had suggested there be a Royal Commission.

Lieberman then followed with the old tactic of saying that in the interests of party unity they should give any information to the Premier.

Much to my surprise (as I thought he was having a shot at me) Tom Evens got to his feet and went into a lengthy explanation as to why he had suggested some time ago that there should be an inquiry into Albury/Wodonga.

Of course, Lou Lieberman's personal interest in the land transactions at Albury/Wodonga was now known to us because of legal involvement in so many transactions. His firm was requested to repay a considerable amount of excessive legal fees after an investigation in 1975 by the Public Works Department Auditors.

Lieberman also acted for the Speaker's son, Lindsay Wheeler, when he made his windfall sale to the Albury Wodonga Development Cor~oration in April 1975.

,

•

•

Norm Billing got up and said he was sick of the discussion on land deals as we have set up an inquiry and that is where it should start and finish as this Party has been in power for twenty odd years because of Party unity.

The most astounding statement of the whole meeting came at the end when Lindsay Thompson said that he had allowed the discussion to be fairly free but that it was vitally important that when any Member of Parliament spoke at any Party branch meeting, he was to get up and say categorically that he had every confidence in the Cabinet and in the ability and integrity of the Ministers involved, particularly Pat Dickie, Alan Hunt and Geoff Hayes.

I thought this statement went down like a lead balloon with most of the blokes and so did Lindsay Thompson's reputation with it.

/40 .

39.

40 •

On 5th September, 1977, at 12.30 p.m., I called into Parliament House to pick up my mail and Neville Hudson stopped me in the car park and_ asked if he could have a few minutes with me. He said "I don't know if you are aware but a few of us have been assigned a particular land deal to defend when Parliament starts tomorrow. 11 He said "Phil Gude, and I and Lou Lieberman will all get tossed out if we do not do anything to defend the situation.

He said ''I have been given the Melton deal to look into an d d e f e n d i n t h e Ho u s e and I h a v e b s e (I r G E. d i n g t ilr o u g h the file and I cannot find where ths Government are implicated in any way and that it wcs ~uite a legitimate transaction.

"What I want to know from you is - do you have any information which will alter that opinion of mine. 11 I said "\Jell, Neville, I have legally documented all the Melton land transactions. 11 He said "Yes, I have besn through all those and there is no problem there as all the land was purchased well before the Housing Commission bought it." I said 11 f,re you happy about the fact that Durston was involved in it and that an agent was appointed the day before the land was purchased? He said ''I must admit I am certainly not happy about Durston in view of the kidnapping because of the fact that he is now in Pentridge, but as far as the agents, Dillon & Inkster are concerned, the Housing Commission have used them on a number of occasions. I said "Well, that may be so, but the Housing Commission do not have to use agents to buy and I am sure that you and everyone else would like to have the Housing Commission as a client because of the unlimited source of funds. 11 He said "I know that but that is a matter of opinion." I said "Did you hear what Pat Dickie said in the Party Room about the method of instructing the Valuer-General?'' He said "Yes, I did, but the land was zoned Corridor so the Valuer-General's figure in my view was quite reasonable.

I said "Well, Neville, I wish you luck but it is very difficult to try and defend one land deal when there are so many which have been worked on a similar formula. I said "You go through Pakenham, Melton 1 Sunbury, Albury/ \Jodonga, Mt. Ridley and Pinmore deals - there is a simple formula being used. He said 11 1 arn not interested in those." I said "IYJaybe not, but the people who have designed them, particularly the Mt. Ridley and Pinmors deal, are not particularly interested in worrying about the seats of the backbenchers either." He said 11 Yes~ I know it is not good 11

I said Why don't they get the Ministem who were in the Cabinet at the time to defend ths deals? 11 Nevilla said "Well they want some of the new backbenchers to defend the deals so that we car. be seen to be united. (I thought what a rotten thing to do to implicate these new backbenchers in defending these crooked deals.)

I said "Oh well, I'll see you tonight at the reception.

At the Government House reception: I had a private discussion with Peter McArthur. He brought up the land deals and said he thought they were well organised tomorrow to counter the Labor attack. I said "I hope you are right." He said "Do you have any more information or. the deals? 11 I told him I was embarrassed by the number of people who have contacted me particularly from places like Albury/Wodonga over the last month. He said "Do you think you should supply the material to the various MinistGrs?" I said 11 \Jhy, they already know it allll lie said "LJoll I prosumo you have confidence in them?" I said "You LJould be joking, after what they tried to do to rne in tho \Jesternport stacking conspiracy and the blatant lies that have been told in the Party Room and are continually being told." Peter

McArthur then said "Do you realize a lot of people in the Party agreed with what you have said? 11 I said "Well you

_I .L 1. • 1

•

..

•

•

I felt that Peter McArthur was genuinely worried but could not really bring himself around to believing the facts. He was hoping like hell that I would be proved wrong which I suppose was the case with most of the new members. But once they have all been brainwashed,

41~

it is difficult to give them a quick re-rinse and leave some substance behind. It will take some time to soak in.

/42 .

On 6th September, 1977, at the Party moeting, normal legislation was discussed then Lindsay Tho~pson explained the procedure to be followed in regard to the opening of the new session of Parliament that afternoon and how the land deals would be handled. He said th they were not quite sure what would happen but that Gecff Hayes hnd prepared a ministerial statement which gave all the answers which were necessary at this stcga and from our point of view, we would discuss the matter on a general basis. He said illJe have organised a nur,Jber of speakers to defend our position " 11

Charles Francis stated quite firmly that he felt the Me~bers of the Party did not realiza tha situation they we m in as it was already disastrous from what uas coming out in the Land Inquiry and that it could only deteriorate further. A number of Members scoffed at what he said. He said "Well, if you don 1 t want to hear some advice, that's all right by me 11 and sat down.

The Premier jumped to his feet and said HlJe would like to hear what Charles has to say. 11 Charles Francis then laid the position on the line quite clearly about the importance of the type of thing that our Members were going to state in the House. The House Debate is in Hansard and I thought Geoff Hayes' prepared press statement was irrelevant and, if anything, implicated them further by the way he purposely tried to avoid answering the many questions that had been documented.

I thought the Premier's speech was just as pathetic.

The whole attitude of our Party and Members and the obvious lack of answers to documented evidence, I regarded as unworthy of the Party and I determined that I was going to abstain from voting 1 which I did.

On 8th September, 1977, Jim Ramsay came to me in the House and said "It was a pity you had to w2lk out last night as it would reflect on Dick Hamer." I said " T h at was not t h e p u r p o s e , i t was a m at t e r o f p r i n c i p 1 e • 11

and Jim Ramsay said "There are a lot of people upset. 11

I said "I cannot understand t..Jhy as quite often up in Canberra, Members refrain from voting. 11 He said nrt still does not get away from the Fact that the blokes are pretty upset about it. 11 I said nr am pretty b .•.• y well upset about it myself and there was no way I would support Geoff Hayes in the House on that statement which was read yesterday. Geoff Hayss has told blatant lies in the Party Room. I advised him of the~ but he still would not retract them. These Ministers are saying anything at all in the Party Room to misleed us, we cannot take notes and they get away with it. Uhat you should do Jim, is find out who fixed this Pinmore deal far Peter Stirling." He said "I don't know anything about that but did you see Geoff Hayes on the Willissee Show this evening? I said "Yes, I thought it would have

42.

been better if he had not gone on at all. 11 Remsay said again "It is a pity you have upset so many blokes". I said "Wall, I have had some of these b .. like that b ••• Maclellan questioning me. I don't have to take these lios from anyone. I never had to take it before coming into Parliament and I am certainly not going to take it now. 11

After this burst, Jim Remsay moved off.

•

•

•

•

Prior to the move to have me expelled from the Parliamentary Party in September 1977, I had a private meeting with the Premier, Mr. Hamar, the Deputy Premia~, Mr. Thompson and the Secretary to Cabinet, Jim Ramsay 1 at 4.30 p.m. on Monday, 12th September, 1977.

During the course of the Privileges Committee Heering, Mr. Hamer made reference to this meeting and presented a completely distorted picture cf what transpired.

After reading a copy of the transcript of Mr. Hamar 1 s evidence, I approached the Speaker, Sir Konn~th Wheeler on 9th May, 1978, to seek leove to me.:<e t\ personal explanation to Parliament but this requ~st was refused. I also attempted to bring the matter up in the Adjournment Debate but was ruled aut of ordEJr by ·cho Speaker.

It is, therefore, necessary to r~late the cir~umstances of this unusual behaviour of the P~emisr and the others involved as I had not intended to entGr into this matter as I regarded the hearing of the particular matter by the Privileges Committee as being quite inappropriate, but, as my position was referred to in evidence and the Chairman emphasized its importance, and in view of the statement made in Parliament by the leader of tho House in reply to a question from the Leader of the National Party, that the House would not let the matter rest as the Privileges Committee had spent soma weeks conducting a most comprehensive investigation, it is necessary that a couple of points be clarified.

During the course of questioning, the Premier was recalled and he was told by the Chairman, and I reed from the transcript "Mr. Premier, one of the reasons why the Committee asked you to come back today was to discuss the m,eetings which you had wi t_h Mr. Janning~ around ebout the same time as those with Mr. Francis. Would you like to comment on the reason given for the meetings and whether you can relate this in any way to the meetings that were held around the same time with Mr. Frencis? Whether the same sort of meetings were held with Mr. Jennings?

Mr. Hamar replied along the lines of when and why and that he warrted an explanation for my actions, etc. Then, on the next page 128, the Chairman questioned the Premier's act i a n i n w hi c h h e sa i d , I quo t e 11 Th e 1· o ? o J.' 8 , w 8 wan t e d to be guite certain that Mr. Jennings was not involved in the same manner as Mr. Francis has boon by the reference to this Committee."

The Premier replied, "The purpose was the same, but the circumstances ware somewhat difforont because Mr. Jenning! did not claim at any time ~E_haV.§ o. lot __ .af material which had i n f 1 u an c e d hi s way o f -~l i n l<i n Q_....§.D_q __ IJ.i s v o t e , as M r • francis said he had. So the circumstoncos were different but the purpose was the same because they hed both failed to vote."

The point, therefore, if the Deputy Premier said it was a comprehensive investigation. The Chairman said to the Premier that the reason he wae recalled was to ascertain the position in regard to me and that ha wanted to be guite certain that I was not involved in the same manner as Mr. Francia, and y~t, even after this, I waa not called to give avidance to the hearing. The Committee, therefore, could not possibly have been quito cartain end ths investigation could not have bean comprehensive as no attempt was made to check the statement ty tha ?remier which I regard as being misleading and it created s false impression.

At the meeting I had with the Premier, the Deputy Premier and the Secretary to the Cabinet were in attendance. They are all a war c that D t tl·, '" ~ rn r; t.i 119 r, ~l :.; , r 1. :·;·;; c:v bs eou ent

telephone calls, much of the discussion revolved around the material I had which had definitely influenced my position and decision considar2bly. It was also apparent some time later during the Gows;,s I.H.;ui:~v th8t many other people had similar material b~t they hsd not bsen preps~ad to do anything about it.

This matter of privilege is one that concsrns Porliament and the respect of Parliament or oth6~wieo !n the ayes of

44·

the public. In the first place 1 I question whether this hearing was in accordance with the purpose or originel objectives of the Privileges Committee, Oacause of its composition, I would heve thought that the Committee would have been concerned with matters relating to issues between people outside Parliament and Members of Parliament in regard to privilege but not between Members of Porliement themselves.

What further emphasize~ this point is that no evidence can be reported or discussed in the press.

The whole procedure must cause doubts and tend to undermine the institution of Parliament further in the public mind, and it did.

The very name 'Privilege' signifies an advantage or a privilege. The Committee, therefore, should be held in the highest regard by all, not ridiculed by the press and the public as it was. It is no-one e!se;s fault but the Members of Parliament who ~re responsiblG.

The hearing related to the quaotion of en inducoment. Our whole life revolves around inducements, incentives 1

rewards, encouragement or influance. It is part of our everyday life. Whether there is anything improper or not depends on the people concerned.

There is considerable doubt in my mind in regard to the attitude of the Committee towards the end of this hearing. I wonder if they really intended to finish the job at all or if they decided that their task tJas hopeless or useless and if they just went through the motions. I seriously question the future of the Privileges Committee if we are going to allow it to hear such matters. I think there is one privilege that we should all be entitled to end that is that such a Committee should always be seen to be quite i ndependeni and .imparti a~ and ~!:U.P.9..!:__l2_eu bli c sg.;: y~~.n:t,.

In view of the importance of the meeting of 12th September 1977, I have included my notes which wore dictated shortly after the meeting from a private phone.

4.30 p.m.

Went in to see Dick Hamer, Thompson end Ra~say. They all ahook hands then Hamer proceeded to dGscribe how thera was considerable feeling among the backbenchers of the Party and resentment that I had walked OL't .'~eat Tuesday on a •No Confide~ce' motion. He eaid that he and the Party hsve been very tolerant over th3 pericd since I have been in Parliament and it looks as t~cugh we have come to the parting of the ways. He said virtually w~et I did was expressing no confidence in tha Government end if 3veryone did it the Government would have fBllen.

He asked me what I thought about the position end if I wanted to continua in the Party as ha folt that I had contributed a lot. I said 11 iJEll.l, Dick, an for aa I Gm c o ,, c e r n o d , I d 5.. d no t m a k G my m i n d -.1 p 11 o t to v o t e u n t i 1 I heard the debCJ.te in th3 Hauao ar:cJ listell3d to Geoff Hay as 1

statement which I thought was pathetic.

I also told them of a lie which Geoff Hayes had stated in the Party Room in rer;s.td to fr~ r :~C::s of :nj.ne at a meetinq and I

..

•

•

•

•

•

I had requested he retract it but as he wouldn't, I wasn't g~ing to support him and his lies.

Hame:c said 11 Havo you ~~ead ti1.1 :c:.•:O.c·c .::f t:1c lh:rty and do you uncisrstand t!1em?" I said :1Lif;·\:c;i1 ~ Oi.c!: r ~ hc.ve never rGad a s et o f :r u J. e s i n my l i f o 2. c I l1 o ·.: c o v .·; ~, I H: d -~: c 0 b u t i n

45·

th).s case I felt the no con?ic'cncG r:.fc:1·r·~"d ~-.0 -:.::.ho st::·c.t:l!.l8nt tJhi.ch was issued by Geoff H::;.;as.·~ ~il' [.r.::Lu ::•,.LJ1.l~ Uw cctuoJ. motion was the most sarious rdcti:;l ·c:-:1:1:-~ ;:~;U.C: b£: p•Jt end if IuS had last it we would hev~ li3.C! to :c·osigr:.·1 I o d 11 05.ck, it LJas certainly e sar.~.out.· subjoct end it ws haLl d o n s s a met hi n g w h e n I b r o u g h t i t u ~: i. n -c h E" iJ "'1' t y R o iJ ra o 11

7th June, we wouldn't be in this moss t:ut anywc:.y: there is no way i n the w or 1 d that we w c u 1 d ha v o l cL t i. t. " t! e sa i d 11 8ut if everyone else had dor::Jt>Jht;t y::n~ cHd, us !JOuld h:.:'.'JEJ. 0

He said "There are a number of f'io;nbars of the Pr,rty who orB upset and they feel that you have bGsn Oil o collision cou2se ever since you have come in.rt I sa.i.c.! 'UeL'-:; I C<:!n unC:srstand that because the people in my Electcr~to have boen adversely affected and many have been ruined and ! havs had problems that no-one else has had but I feel I have handled them with considerable discretion and rsst;:-aint. 11 He said 11 \Jhen you breach the Party rules in the way ycu have, a lot of fellows are going to try to get you expelled from the Party tomorrow." I said "I can understand that but Dick, you asked me what you should do end I said :•rf I wem in your position, I would get up at the Party meeting and say that last week a couple of blokes saw fit not to support us in the Ho~se and that you are so:ry so see this but the circumstances were unusual and you hope thet in ths future it won't happen again. Ho s3id uwoll thore is a set of rules and if we don't stick to thaJ1, the whola thing will fall apart." I said a!f tho !Enis\.;r:n·s had stuck tc the rules this wouldn't be nec2ss8~/· Lock this wasn 1 t a matter of policy, we had not C:iscusssd it in the Party Room. He said "Yes we did, sve:r;rone agrec~d the debat':l would be general and the inquiry ~ou:d be aet up to handle it." I said "That is not the woy I ac::.J it. hJG were told that Geoff Hayes was going to give us all t~e answsrs in the House and he didn 1 t. 11 He sE· id 1lYou cs.n.1ot go your way against the Party." I said 11 Thot fiHJ.Y be::~ so but none of the blokes should have voted fbr it. 11 He said 11 Look a lot of the Party think you have caused all these problems. 11

I said 11 \Jell they may think that but I have not caused any problem but it has been caused by people over which I have had no control - you and the Cabinet. 11

Then Lindsay Thompson said "You told a man over at Cranbourne that you have been supplying information to the Labor Party," I said 11 \Jho told you that, LJho was ths bloke?" He said "The fellow was Thwaites." I said avou'd be joking, why would I talk to a gossip like thct?" Thor.1pson said 11 \Jho is he?" I said "He is a Cranbourne Councillor, a member of the W.R.P.A. and I said he is putty. In other words, you can press him into any way possible. I said "This is typical of the rumours that have been spread around 11 •

I said "How stupid I would be if I spoke to that talker and told him that I had given information to the Labor Party. What benefit would that be?" He said "That is what I've heard 11 I said "What is just as stupid is thJ nN£tional Times" article yesterday. 11 He.msr immediately said "Do you k n OlJ an y t hi n g ab o u t that a r t i c.:·l o ? :: I s a i d 11 Y as , what I have read. liwas practicelly verbati8 on uhat happened in the ;Jarty Room". H&ntar scid :•tJs.ll th~7 fallaus think that you an g.; naarsd it. 11 I sc-.3.cJ 11 :c u 1 r~3 jn:d ng, uhat point lJJauld trw;::-s bo ::.,, lilY d:.:-:Li•CJ ·st:-:.:(:? 1: ·;:-,M.l;)sorJ s~1id 11 A .Loi:. or :;; :~a.1.ltllc';;; l:h.in:<: t;,~_,_-1: YiJLI !1£:'./8 l:Jocl invol\lf:cl :i.n en2L'ar-:r5.i1C::; r, lot of tc'!h>· i._,J CJOi.;,~; CJil ~~ne su::;plying the infor·m.;;>,tLm ·::!; tha pi· Jca•: l ~J·:::·.c :";;;; .l :~hoy ccn tl1ink it but it csrta.inly is no·~ r::.;Ji1C:· r~oi.>:Jay \~IHm said \J8li ~ho da you think was responsible ?or tho article in the 11 N3tional Times"? I said !I Look 7 Dick, "OU went to look close to home. 11 u • ' of!'' · 1 n I' ~- :~ ~. ,; t1 ··,· ·_ .. --1 ', __ 1 -_.' ,:·· : :.'· n G s n ... a .!lt ~ (! ~~ ~-: r;.) i I :'; ~- ~ r ~ r~ ~ ~ ;-; ;" ' ~ . - ~ ~ - - ' _, f) n ':

46.

particular member of your Cabi.net ~JJho had b::Jen stating to members of the press that he is gains to ba the next leader and, obviously, these erticlss atE taing plcnted and the information given to the prsss to dastroy you and the othe1· Members of the Cabinet se. ti.at hG can taks over. 11 Hamer said 11 \.Jell, ~,;t/o?: 1 I said .:l..c.~t.·::< J you fello~.:s in the Cabinet want to have a round tablG conferenco tu work it out." •

Hamer said 1'Have you ever rnot John Joot~·n I :::-upl.:8d that I may have met him at a Ps~li2~8ntor~ ~~ess conference but I have not had a~~ ~8ta~lsrl discus~ion l.Jit!l him or anyone else fro~ tho "{\:u~;5~onG 1 ... i~i .. 1as:' 3nd:-to my knowledge, they have never [Jiiw.l::d::i u; effj_ce 11 and R a m s ay s a i d "tJ a 11 , o f c o u r s e t h L o l u:: ::. ::· l: hi :-: ~ y o u h "' v e b9en responsible." I said 11 Ubviuus..L)·, ::.t :J.G a beeut.iful situation set up to destroy you EJ.nd th8 Cc:.binst :::no ;·t~,::!<ing

out that I am responsible bec2use I i13VJ ~een tha cnl; one raising the issue. This is typical. Cif the innuendos and rumours that have been spread a~ound CL!: ElGctorata. I will give you a few more if you lik3 as I em dealing w i t h some p ratty u nu sua 1 p eo p 1 s who tJ i ll c o 1:1 e at o. n y t :1 in g • 11

Hamer said "Well, what excuse can you giva that we can give them tomorrow for not voting last Tu~8dey?'' I said 11 Look, Dick, so much information is floe·~ing around that there is no doubt that there is corrupticn and there is no way in the world I can accept the view that you don't know about it." He looked surprised e.nd E aid ''~Jell, what do you mean?" 11 \.Jhat I have said 11 Rs.:.;say said 11 Haw high does this corruption go?" I ssid n;:i:;:h:. and 11 In what a::eaa?a I said "You just take what I:ve said 2nd an<:::lyse ita. He said 11 \.Jill you give the infc,:;:ma·cion to C·ick?': I said "You must already have it and you must bo j_ n an embar ;:ass::. ng p os i t i o n as you s h o u 1 d ha v e a]_ r· 8 s d y ·c c k s ; 1 .s. c t i on • I ha v e some i n f o r m a t i on s to r e d i n s a f e s f ::or,~ h .l b u ;~ y / Wo cl on g a a r1 c' that i s w h e r a i t w i 11 r a rn a i n b 8 c a. u s ~:: :J ..:; ;::, p l 9 : ... ;,w 8 c 8 me t a me in t :rust and he said 11 Don 1 t j' c u t i-, :L rd< ;; o w !·12 I' e e duty to the Party and the Premier'£:' ~ :.;:,eio '''0G1l;, I think my duty lies in the responsibl~ app:::.'os.:IJ thr~c I. am taking. 11

: :a me r then s a i d " A r e you ha p :'J y c·, b o '.: t. 'c; 1 o I r, q u i r y ? 11 I s 8 i d 11 S u r e " H s s a i d 11 W i 11 t h e i n f o :r r.; ~ t i o :1 y :J :.: h a v e c o 111 e o u t 8 t the Inquiry? 11 I said "f'lost of it 1.1ust e.s it h&s alresdy been published in the press bwt you ell lcoked the other way. Listen, Dick, if the InGuiry gets away with just covering those three particular a_aes than the Liberal Party is going to be extremely lucky ~ecause thera ara a number of areas that aren't touched and the=e are towns of fear in Victoria " • Ha m 8 :r sa i d 11 LJ h s r o , t ;, at ' s in c red i b 1 e? 11

I said 11 Sure : it 1 s in c red i b 1 e H 2nd Re. r.1 se y said "Well , where a r 8 they ? 11 and I s a i d 11 You f e ll mJ s . 'c :1.:. n k c n d I s a i d L i s t en Dick, it is about time you got tha f'1SL1bers of }'Our Cabine:t to get off their backsides and go around Victoria to find out what is happening. 11 Ramsay said niB on3 of the tatJns \Jodonga? 11 I .said "Sure". Thompsor~ then saiC: "What are p s o p 1 e w o r r i e d a b o u t ? 11 I s a i d 11 ~I e 11 , t h t~ r e a r E; t h :r e a Jc s " •

/47.

..

"

--------------··-----· -·-· ... ti444i#i!l!ll!. -""· *""-"'""' ------··-· '""'· •.

•

"The Durston type issue?" and I said "That's one of them". Ramsay said, when I mentioned towns of fear "\Jere the people frightened of developers?" I said "Look, asfar as I am concerned, the genuine developers have been too reticent by not coming 'forward on this. These people involved in these deals are not genuine developers at all. They are fringe, easy-money operators on the outside with inside connections and I am certainly upset with the ~velopment industry for not expressing their point of view more strongly."

Ramsay then said "Don't you think you should give as much information as possible to Dick on these matters? 1

' I said "You already know about it, it is up to tha Cabinet to get off their backsides. I have done everything possible and have been ridiculed. I said As far as the nNational Times" and other articles are concerned, and the Cabinet in general, no-one is going to hang anything on me again, like they tried to hang the Westernport stacking issue on me, and I am quite disgusted to read the sort of thing I read in the 11 National Times 11 yesterday. I said I have never had to put up with this sort of thing and these shifties before in life and I am certainly not going to put up with them now.

Thompson said "Well a lot of people are saying that you engineered the "National Times" article. I said "They can say it but how stupid. What was more stupid was the way Pat Dickie performed in the Party Room. I said I was relieved at the time when he got up and said that he was not going to speak much because of the leaks then much to my amazement he then went on for half an hour and told everyone he had destroyed some files. Thompson then said he did that because in the past we have been accustomed to security in the Party Room. I said "Well that may be so but Pat Dickie himself said he was not going to say anything because of the leaks then he did obviously knowing that it was going to be leaked and that some very close associate of yours saw it as

'an ideal opportunity to supply the information outside to try and get rid of you characters. Ramsay then said "Uhom do you think would have dons it? I said "That's for you to find out. You want to have a look at your Cabinet colleagues. Ramsay then said "Well, don't you think it is your responsibility to give the Premier all the information you know?. I said "Dick, I told you peoole have come to me in trust and many people have been disadvantaged." L.indsay said "Why are they coming to you?" I said "Well that's a good question and the answer is simply that they don't trust the other Members in Parliament, so you had better ask them" Jim Ramsay said '1Suraly you must trust the Premier and don't you think it is your responsibility to give me all this information?" I said "Look, that is the position what you do with it is up to you. Why didn't you do something when I raised these issues in June? I then turned to Hamer and said 11 The other day in the House, in replies to Ross Edwards when he asked the question about Albury/Wodonga -Why there had been no audited statement of account or balance sheet since June 74 and you replied that you did not know and you are supposed to be the Treasurer." He said "Well I did not know". I said "How do you think that affects the people outside who have been taken for a ride and I said no public company would get away with that. He said "There must be a reason for it" I said "I bet there must be a reason but it certainly does not engender confidence. 11

Thompson than said "Well can you give us a reason which we can take tomorrow to quieten the fellows so they won't move to expel you from the Party?" I said "Yes, you can tell them I said I am not going to support Geoff Hayes. I can get up and say that I have not read the rules." Thompson said "You have got to have some reason to stop them moving against you." I said "The simplest thing is as I have explained that we as a Party are supposed to tolerate individual views but I said "Listen Lindsay if they decide to kick me out, it is going to create a pretty difficult set of circumstances and I can assure you that I will act as a gentleman and not breach the confidentiality of these meetings or the Party meetings but the press will want to know why, they

will be asking questions that must be answered but I am quite prepared to get up in the Party Room and say Sorry if I have contravened the rules. He said that sounds pretty weak. I said "It may but it is a fact." He said "We will see how the position is in the morning then Hamer said again 11 Have you any knowledge of how the article got in the National Times?" With that I told him that you want to look close to home because it certainly disgusts me what is going on. He said "You can assure us you have never been in touch with the "National Times"? I said "No, never. We have a phone log at the office and they have not contacted me or vice versa. Hamer then said "Well some of the fellows reckon that you are not in step with the Party". I said "Well they can reckon it but I have a lot of unusual problems in Westernport and I said the Party have not done much for the people downthere. I have raised the issues with both you and Lindsay as requested and nothing has been done. I think, in retrospect, we in Westernport have done a lot for the Party since I have come in. Lindsay said "I know, that is what is worrying us as you have the ability to convince people." I said "Wall I'm not in this position because I want to be and I certainly don't have any stars in my eyes about Cabinet jobs and these other fellows who are trying to upset the apple cart and exploit the situation, disgust me."

I said I thought the performance of Pat Dickia in the Party Room in telling the Party that he had destroyed the files was incredibly stupid and it was a psychological reaction to try and convince the Party that he was in the clear but that it was completely unnecessary. On this subject Lindsay said nothing. Ramsay then said 11 You don't think there is anything else you can help us with?" I said "Sure, tell the Members of the Cabinet to get off their backsides and find out what is going on because if the fellows kick me out tomorrow, for me it would be a stupid move but the big worry is to come and if we can gat away with this Inquiry with only these three deals without the other deals that even Pat Oickie mentioned, such as Wodonga, Geelong and Ballarat, Urban Land Council and Pinmore, we will be very lucky indeed. You let the fellows do what they want to do tomorrow but I hope they have the common sensa and they appreciate the position. Ramsay then said 11 The main fellows it concerns are the swinging seaters." I said "There is no need to tell me that" "It's a pity the Cabinet Ministers who fixed these deals didn't think of that.

Thompson then turned to the issue of the information I had once again and said "You don't think that you can supply us with mora information that has been given to you?" I said "No, it is not my position. All I know is, it proves corruption and you must know about it as you must have read the Age on Melton and Sunbury and Albury/Wodonga. Ramsay then said "How high does this corruption go?" I ~aid "Wall that's a good question but it certainly doesn't start at the bottom and I think you had better leave it at that and he said "Are you saying that the Premier is involved?" I said "That is not what I said at all as the whole Cabinet are involved but I think you should leave it at that."

About a quarter of an hour before the meeting closed, at about 5.15 p.m. Sir Ern~st Coates appeared and Ramsay went out to sea him and Ramer said that he did not want to see him but it was noticeable that when I walked out at 5.35 p.m. Sir Ernest Coates was waiting outside the office and ha looked a bit embarrassed when he saw me walk out.

The meeting concluded when Hamer said "Well, we will see what happens in the morning at the Party meeting and I said "I appreciate having the meeting and thanked each one of them individually.

...

•

..

•

•

..

49.

I phoned Bill Thwaites and told him of what Lindsay Thompson said and questioned him about his statement that I had been supplying information to the Labor Party. He said he had been misrepresented and didn't want to get involved. I said you are already involved. He agreed to write me a letter, which he did, explaining the position.

In the Party Room on Tuesday, 13th September, 1977, at about midday, Dick Hamer raised the matter that Charles francis and I had left the House without voting on a 'No Confidence• motion in relationship to the land deals.

He read out a number of clauses in the Parliamentary Party Constitution and expressed his concern and the seriousness of the situation in that we failed to vote.

He asked if either of us wanted to say anything and I said that I would refrain until I had heard other people's comments, and as a result I received some derisive catcalls. Then Charles got up and put his point of view on the basis that asfar as he was concerned, it was a conscience vote and explained his reasons in some detail as to why he had not voted.

I then reminded the Party that I warned them at the State Council back in November 1976 and that since that time, the current Cabinet had pushed through the Mt. Ridley deal and the Housing Commission deal with Pinmore - two of the biggest deals of their type ever in this country, without either of them being considered by this Party.

I also reminded them that in June when I raised these matters in the Party Room, the reaction of the then Planning Minister, Geoff Hayes, was one of indignation and he said that the majority of what I had said was "bulls ... ". When the Premier looked surprised, I said that was his word~ not mine. I also said that Hayes, at a previous Party meeting had stated that he saw a "henchman of mine, Ted Kilner, at a meeting in Balnarring trying to stuff a taperecorder into his pocket." When I checked the facts, Ted Kilner was not even at the meeting and I wrote a letter accordingly to Geoff Hayes requesting an appropriate retraction at a future Party Meeting. This Hayes did not do and I regard it as being inexcusable. Also, the members of the Party should appreciate that I certainly did not vote against the Party -I just refrained, and I know the minor rule of not advising the Whip has been broken and in this day and age, and particularly with what has happened, it is quite clear to me that many other more important rules have been broken which havegot us into this mess.

We all have responsibilities to our Electorates, our Branches, our Electorate Committees, the people who vote for us and last, but not least, our Oath of Office.

I stated that I acted in accordance with the way my Electorate would want me to act, and I want to make it quite clear that no way in the world is anyone else going to hang another Westernport stacking issue on me again like last time .

I said "If we get out of this current inquiry with only the three areas being investigated, we will be very lucky indeed and to me it was a conscience vote and I would certainly do ' the same thing again tomorrow, underthe same circumstances.

After Charles and I had finished, a number of speakers got to their feet and set about criticising us for what we had done. It was obviously well-orchestrated.

so.

Ken Wheeler got up and told a blatant lie. He said that I had told a Branch President that he and Murray Byrne are corrupt and Wheeler said "All I have done is look after my son and I regard it as shocking that Doug Jennings has made such comments about me. 11 When he sat down I jumped to my feet and challenged him to produce the name of the Branch President whom I was supposed to have told. Wheeler got up and said to save the time of the meeting he would give me his name later, which he has never done from that day to this.

Cec Burgin stated that we had basically sacked ourselves by not voting with the Party and being members of the team and we should resign.

Lindsay Thompson also spoke against us and Jim Ramsay and Daryl McClure got up and said ''Rather than embarrass the Party, we should resign." to which Charles replied that he had no reason to resign and they did not even bother to ask me.

At 12.50, Hamer moved that a special meeting of the Party be held the following ~ednesday week, 21st September, to consider a resolution to expel us from the Party immediately. The resolution was moved and seconded and passed.

Norm Lacy brought me an envelope at 12.50 p.m. which had the signed letter and the resolution in it, which meant that the documentation had been prepared and signed before the meeting even got under wRy.

I regarded the fact that the Speaker, Sir Kenneth ~healer was one of the signatories as both a disgrace and stupid in his position as Speaker. He immediately compromised himself and could be subject to criticism in the House. ~hich he could not properly defend.) It was also bad because of what was beginning to come out at the time about Albury/Wodonga and his son's involvement.

At 11.45 p.m., which was the night of the Party meeting, Vern Hauser came into my office and talked until 1.00 a.m.

He said "Jennings you are wet behind the ears, right wing and naive." He said "Until you realize it is not what you do up here that counts, but how you go about it. You want to tell the people in Westernport who have got problems to get f •••••. He said "You are causing a lot of problems and unless you wake up that you have to accept what Ministers say, you will get nowhere.u

I said "Asfar as I am concerned, they are b .••• y liars." He said "Well you have to accept that". I said "As for the Mt. Ridley and Pinmore deals, they smell as much as the Melton deals. 11 He said 11 There's nothinl] wrong with Pinmore, that's a b •••. y good deal." I said "Yes, for the rotten b .•.•.• sin it." He said "I know that, but that's what it is all about up here and until you wake up you won't get anywhere."

I said 11 The current Cabinet fixed Mt. Ridley and Pinmore and they are all in it up to their eyeballs." He said "So what? I was able to get away with the Tamar Holdings land sale to the Urban Land Council because I know what to say and when." I said "Well I think that's b •.•• y awful, just like the Development Underwriting Limited deal with Charles Hider.

/51.

•

•

•

•

•

•

I told Hauser that Lindsay Thompson and Dick Hamer had done nothing for my problems in lJestarnport." He said "So what?" He said "You can see what's happened to Barry Beach - he's an honest man and he prepared a report

51.

on the police force which embarrassed the Government and is now paying the penalty. He should have been a Supreme Court Judge but he's like you, he won't accept the position that the men in Cabinet control the show. It's about time you realized that democracy is b •.... s .•.. A dictatorship is the only Government that works." I said "That's b ••• shocking. Why don't you go out to your Electorate and say that?" Hauser said ''That would be b .•• stupid as no-one would vote for me." I said "lJell I think it is b •.. awful if Barry Beach did a good job and prepared an honest report that he should suffer." Hauser said that the report was too good and he is paying the price and will go on paying for it." I said "lJhat a rotten b ..• set up and you stupid b •. think you can quieten Charles and I the sama way. Hauser said "Of course we will quieten you- you are just f •.. stupid and naive Jennings. You may have done well up in Queensland in the cattle country but it is a different ball game down here". I said "You can b,. well say that again, as you certainly cannot trust the b •. in this place." Haussr said "That's right but you are too b •. stupid to realize it and if you want to get anywhere here - and that means money -you have to go along with the boss and you have been continuously causing trouble."

I said "I have had a lot of trouble in my Electorate caused by our stupid politicians and a lot of people have had their assets destroyed." Hauser said "F .... the people of Western­port and their assets. You want to wake up to yourself Jennings and forget that stupid mob in lJesternport who are following you. 11 I said "That's b .• lovely that is. In other words, our Liberal Party policies and platform mean nothing to you?" He said "I told you, the only form of Government which work<:l is a dictatorship." I said "You are b •• incredible. n·

Hauser said "After the last election we got three Conservatives into the Party - you, Francis and Kennett, and Kennett's the only one who has the brains to realize what has to be done to get on up here."

I said "I am not detracting from anyone else but no-one has the problems I have in my Electorate." Hauser said "You will never get anywhere until you f ••• forget the people of lJesternport."

He said "You don't even have meals up here. After Party meetings you p .•• off." I said "Quite often I have work to do but often I have meals up here. Today, for example, I had to go out to the Show to work the cattle which we are preparing. 11

Hauser said "You have got to m1· x w1· th the blokes p · n , • • • • l

their pockets." I said ''I have never had to do that before. I have always been able to discuss things with people."

Hauser said "Jennings, you and b •• Francis have set yourselves up as tin gods on some stupid b .• moralistic issue which is just f .•. b •• s .•• the only way to run the country is by a f .. dictatorship."

He ended the conversation with "I don't think you will ever learn."

52.

On Thursday, 15th September, 1977, at 6.15 p.m. Jim Ramsay phoned the office and asked me to phone Lindsay Thompson at his home, 25 6191, about dinner time, which I did at about 7.30 p.m.

Lindsay said that he had seen Charles Francis during the day and put to him that it might be useful if he prepared a written statement as to what he would be saying on Wednesday and Lindsay said 11 1 thought you might like to do the same." I said "Well I will give it some thought and I said to Lindsay, "Did you see the Channel 7 news bulletin tonight?" He said "No, I did not." I said 11 Dan Webb talked about the special Party meeting next Wednesday and stated that two members were to be censured or expelled for leaking information to the "National Times". I said 11 This has obviously been planted to besmirch our names. The "National Times 11

phoned my office today, as apparently, they have a complete story for next Sunday.

I was at the Show today with the cattle and I also told Lindsay, the people leaking the information were obviously after Dick Hamer's position.

11 Anyway, I said, I will give some thought to preparing a statement."

On Sunday, 18th September, 1977, at 7.30 p.m., I returned Jeff Kennett's call from Flinders. He said all the blokes were very perturbed about the position and that he won't be supporting the move to expel either me or Charles.

He said "Dick Hamer has put his job on the line over it and that the only thing that is going to save me is if I produce whatever information I have and that it should be handed over to Dick and Lindsay." I said "They already know it all Jeff and the information regarding Alburyl Wodonga has been given to me in trust and I will not breach that trust." He said 11 It will assist the Party if you did do it." I said "Listen Jeff no-one assisted me in the Parliamentary Party on that Westernport stacking issue." He said "I know that and I have told the blokes that they cannot blame you for not trusting the Party leadership as they all left you for dead last year." He said "I have told Charles that he should make the information available and disclose it to Dick and Lindsay, as a lot of people think Charles has been leaking stuff to the press." I said "That's pure hearsay" I said ''I told Dick, Lindsay and Jim last Monday that if they wanted to know where the leaks ere coming from, they should look close to home in their Cabinet." Jeff said 11 "Well I certainly suspect the same thing and no-one can prove it is you or Charles. 11

I said "It is an ideal situation because the leaks can be planted and then it can be spread that I am responsible and Jeff said "I also realize that if you are expelled they can then stop leaking the information to make it look as though they have the culprits.

Jeff said "I wish you would give the information to Dick and Lindsay as this charge against you is obviously trumped up and I don't think it is right that people should be thrown out on a f •• trumped up charge. 11

I thanked Jeff for his interest and he said "Good luck, anyway".

..

•

•

•

..

•

•

53.

On Monday, 19th September, 1977, at 10.05 a.m., Jim Ramsay phoned me at Flinders and said Lindsay Thompson was in a meeting and wanted to know if I was going to deliver any notes to Lindsay today on what I propose to say on Wednesday? I said "Jim, I was intending to but because of all the articles in the press since Thursday night, I have not decided what I am going to say yet~ but I will be going to the office shortly and after reading today 1 s paper, I will give it some thought and will drop something into Lindsay's place on my return from a meeting at Wonthaggi. Jim said ''If you like you can drop it into my place at f'lont Albert Road."

Jim then said "You know this position is pretty worrying and I was just wondering if I could talk to you as Jim Ramsay to Doug Jennings?" I said "You certainly can°.

He said "Well, this information you have about corruption if you could give it to either Dick or Lindsay, I am sure it would relieve the pressure in regard to the whole matter. I said "Obviously, they must already know most of it and in regard to Albury/Wodonga, I cannot Jim, I won't breach the trust of the people who have supplied me with this information as they are quite frightened. They want a proper investigation.

Jim Ramsay said "Would you supply me with the information if I would swear on the Bible that I would not give it to anyone else? 11 I said "No, what the hell is the good of that, it would be breaching the trust". I said 11 Look, Jim, until you fellows realize that my aim is to save the Party and not to destroy it, we will not get very far.

Ramsay said "The situation is very serious and because you won't supply them with the informationt they don't like the situation and it is reflected in their attitude to you, and some fellows doubt whether you have any information and whether you are right in what you are saying." I said 11 Look, Jim, they can have as much doubt as they like but all you and·everyone else has to do is to check back on the statements I have made in the past and just see what I have said and I don't think you will find that anything I have said is wrong."

He said "\Jell, what you know, does it concern special Cabinet Ministers because I can think of two it probably does?" I said "Jim, I am not saying whom it concerns but if you tan say two, you obviously know a lot yourself so why ask me also. S60-$90 million has been spent up at Albury/Wodonga and no audited statement of account, it certainly leaves it wide open." He said \Jell I'm sorry that you feel this way because it is going to put us in a 'Jery difficult position." I said "The most important thing immediately is to get out of this meeting organised for Wednesday. Anyway, that is up to the others not to me. He said "Well, I hope you can do something, it is very bad for the Liberal Party in Victoria." I said "I know Jim it is not only Victoria it is Australia." I said "How can Fr~ser decide on whether he is going to have an election or not with all that is going on?" Jim said "It is a pity you cannot place your trust in the Premier and Lindsay. I said "Listen, Jim, when that \Jesternport stacking issue came up last year, I received no assistance whatsoever from the Parliamentary Party or anyone in it but a lot were hoping that they would get me, so I am certainly not going to be responsible for being accused of destroying the Party because I am trying to keep it together and it is my judgement that the way I am handling the situation is the best way."

I said "Listen J.im 7 the other night I had a member of the Parliamentary Party, who has been in Parliament for a while, come into my office and say to me "Listen, Jennings, you stupid f •• c •• until you realize democracy is b •.•• s •.• and we have to have a dictatorship, you will go nowhere and that

54.

I have to accept that Cabinet Ministers will lie and mislead and that is what I have to accept." Ramsay said "He must have been drunk" I said "No, he may have had a few but I have heard him before in the same tone and I felt like throwing him out of the office on his head, but I listened."

I said "I have to go" and ha said"Will you drop the letter into my place tonight?" and I said uves, 11 which I did.

At the Special Party Meeting on 21st September 1977, the

..

Premier opened it up by saying that the reason for the • meeting was well-known to everyone there and that the rules of the Party had been contravened and the purpose of the meeting was to consider the expulsion of Charles Francis and me.

R.J. Hamer then said 11 \Je will give Charles Francis and Doug Jennings an opportunity to say a few words and then asked Charles if he would like to say something. Charles went out to the front and said that he would like to ask a couple of questions and then pointed out that the notice of expulsion which he had received had not been signed and that in fact it was not legally correct, in accordance with the Party Constitution, and although the letter attached to the notice was signed, he felt that they could not proceed with the expulsion for at least another week. There were a number of Members in the Party Room who scoffed at the suggestion.

Charles Francis then said that he was paired in the Pairs Book and, therefore, not entitled to vote but he assured the meeting that under the circumstances, whether he was in the Pairs Book or not, he still would not have voted for the Government on these particular transactions.

Charles then asked if a secret ballot could be held and explained that asfar as he was concerned, he had breached no rules of the Party, and that he was prepared to stand by his actions.

After Charles sat down, he was questioned by a number of people. James Guest asked if Charles had any information about Cabinet Ministers being involved in any of these deals· and would he make the information available to the Premier or Lindsay Thompson? Charles then said that he was not prepared to do this as he had previously made information available in confidence to Ministers and~e confidence had been gravely abused. He said he therefore did not trust everyone in the Party. He was then asked if he was prepared to give the information to one of the Members he trusted? and he said he was prepared to make it avqilable to Bill Campbell.

George Cox got up and asked Charles why he had visited Joanne Leaks up in Surfer's Paradise and what was the purpose of the visit and was he prepared to tell the Party what happened? (I thought this was an impertinence on the part of Cox·).

Charles replied that he was disturbed by a lot of information that he had received,and his aim in seeing Joanne Leake was to ascertain if it was correct or not and ha told the Party that she would not give him any information and that was about the length of the call.

Charles Francis was asked by Ken Wheeler if ha had confidence in the Leader of the Party? Charles disputed the relevance of the question as it was not applicable to the charge and gave an example of Malcolm fraser's publication of his lack of confidence in John Gorton, but he continued in the Party. Charles told the Premier that he should not be requested to answer the question and asked to Premier to rule accordingly.

•

•

•

..

•

R.J. Hamer said the question must be answered, and Charles francis replied that under the circumstances, he did not have confidence in him.

Bill Campbell then some other people asked questions of Charles. The Premier then asked if I would like to say a few words.

I went to the front and apologized to the Whip again

55.

for not advising him that I left the Chamber and re-endorsed Charles francis' request for a secret ballot,and told the meeting that I was certainly not going to repeat everything I had said the previous week but that last Tuesday, we had obviously set about a premeditated course of self-destruction and public bungling, and after all the clamour about leaks to the media, I was very interested to get up and read the report of yesterday's Party meeting (which Charles and I did not attend) in the press this morning.

Peter Collins interjected and said it was not verbatim. I said "That's neither here nor there. :• I said that the headline article on the front page of "The Herald" last week about our impending expulsion was b2cause some bright spark from this Party Room had leaked the wrong story to the press about the purpose of today 1 s meeting. 11 I bJas queried by Rafferty "How do you know that?" I said 11 8ecause I read it in the newspapers" and they said "Did any reporters talk to you?" I said "Of course they did but I gave them no comment untila couple of days ago. 11

I said "One thing you fellows want to remember on these land deals, the Opposition is extremely vulnerable, if we are prepared to act accordingly."

I then said "Well everyone in this Party Room knows l.iJhat I am about and what I believe in, so let's get on with the job and have the vote. I was then asked by Ken Wheeler if I had confidence in the Premier? I replied that I had never done anything outside the Party Room to give any impression other than I had confidence in the Premier, but I wanted to make it quite clear that because of the problems in my Electorate and the fact that I had been asked to go to various Ministers with these problems, including the Premier and the Deputy Premier, and I had put the alternative points that should have been carried out, but no-one, including the Premier, had done anything to assist and in that regard, I had lost confidence in him.

It was noticeable to me that no-one put any question to me about the land transactions. This, I thought, may have emanated from the discussion I had with Thompson, Hamer and Ramsay on 12th September when I accused the Premier of being aware of corruption.

The vote was taken and we were advised of the figures and out we went to a passage full of pressmen.

/56 .

Quite often individual examples of behaviour by themselves do not mean much but when they are related to other similar circumstances, it helps complete the picture of what has taken place.

On 23rd August, 1977, at 12.20 p.m., Ken wheeler came up to Lou Lieberman, who was sitting alongside me in the Party Room and said "I believe there has been an article in the Border Morning Mail about Lindsay's land. Have

56 •

you seen it?" Lou Lieberman replied "Yes, it is not too bad end I think we have covered the position". Ken wheeler then asked Lieberman about his trip to Japan and Lieberman said "It was a most successful trip. 11 wheeler then said to Lieberman"will you make sure you keep an eye on things for Lindsay, as there was a lot of money in that and we don't want to mess it up?" Lou Lieberman chuckled and said "She'll be right". and Ken Wheeler left the meeting.

No wonder Wheeler and Lieberman had an interest in seeing me silenced and Albury/Wodonga left lie.

On 28th September, 1977, at 2.25 p.m. Bill Stephens phoned me at Flinders, out of the blue, and said that he wanted to assure me that he was not involved in any land deals at Geelong or Ballarat with Murray Byrne,and that he did not think Murray Byrne was involved either.

I said "It is noticeable Bill that none of the Ministers have responded to my request to issue sworn statements that they have not been involved in the transactions.

I said "You remember what Pat Dickie said in the Party Room about Albury/Wodonga, Geelong and Ballarat and the Urban Land Council?" He said "Yes, I know." I said "Bill, the newsmen have been on to me about these areas and I told them to contact the local Members of Parliament, but I said one thing is for certain, I don't mind being kicked out of the Party for abstaining from voting, but I am certainly not going to accept the smears and insinuations which the Premier and Vasey Houghton have levelled at us since. 11

Bill Stephens was particularly concerned about Albury/wodonga and said that "as three Governments we re involved that should not affect us much up there, should it?" I said "Bill, I think the other deals will pale in significance once a proper look is taken at Albury/Wodonga. I was never more depressed than when I went up to Alburylwodong late in July at the request of some of the locals and saw what was going on.

Some Ministers had developed an incredible idea of their importance and ability to "standover". An example of this attitude was on 3rd May, 1977, when Rob. Maclellan came up to me in the Party Room and told me to tell the Editor of the Bunyip and Garfield Express not to print my press statements in the paper. I said "What for?" He said "Well it only goes to a few people in your Electorate whereas it goes to a lot of people in my Electorate and your articles cause me a lot of problems. I said You can go jump in the lake and tell him yourself if you want to make yourself look stupid."

We were rather amused when Phillip Lynch phoned me on 26th July 1976 and suggested I use his Public Relations firm International Public Relations. We were already concerned and suspicious about his complete lack of support at the time as the press were plastering us over the Westernport stacking issue. Obviously, Lynch wanted an inside source of information and anyone he suggested was immediately ruled out by Bob Turner and Ted Kilner, who were handling the situation down in Westernport for me.

•

•

17th November, 1977.

Michael Schildberger made a statement on 3AK that the disclosure of Lynch's involvement in Stumpy Gully Estates was because information had been spread by the people in Westernport who were bitter because he had not helped during the Westernport Stacking Inquiry.

I phoned Michael Schildberger myself and asked him where he got the information from and he told me, without any hesitation, that Phillip Lynch told him personally. That, I said, is a blatant lie as we did not know he was involved in the Stumpy Gully Estates until Peter Leaks let it go at the Land Deals Inquiry.

Not many people appreciate the circumstances surrounding

57.

the disclosure that Phillip Lynch was involved in the Stumpy Gully Estates deal with Peter Leaks. Many people have stated that there is little wrong with what Phillip Lynch did, without realizing how the deal was worked.

In my Electorate, I have had many people come to me because they own land in old subdivisions which were frozen by the Westernport Regional Planning Authority. This meant that the owners could not build on the land and, therefore, could not sell it to anyone or get compensation. In other words, their asset and freehold title was virtually destroyed and, to put it plainly, they were robbed without any recourse to law.

During the time when Peter Leaks was on the Westernport Regional Planning Authority, of which he was also Chairman, most or all these old subdivisions were frozen, but not Stumpy Gully Estates. Quite obviously, anyone in the know, and Peter Leaks was certainly in the know, would realize that Stumpy Gully Estates would automatically be increased in value when all the other old subdivisions were made worthless.

In other words, no-one would ever be able to get the opportunity to develop such an estate in the future with blocks of land of about a quarter of an acre with the low cost minimum road and drainage works. The Stumpy Gully blocks couldJ therefore, be sold well under the price of a fully developed block with sealed road, etc., and the profit margin would be so much higher and so much easier to get.

As the other subdivisions were frozen, it virtually destroyed all the opposition.

It would also not be difficult for someone in Peter Leaks's position to organise that the previous owner of Stumpy Gully Estates be encouraged to sell at a cheap price on the basis that if he didn't, he might find his land frozen.

Anyone on a planning authority, or in Government, who has anything to do with a proposition of the Stumpy Gully Estates type has a code of behaviour which we simply cannot tolerate in Government in this country •

So, for reasons known to themselves, Phillip Lynch was cut in on the deal unbeknown to any of us and all the other peopla who had seen the value of their properties slashed and sometimes destroyed by the Government and the Westernport Regional Planning Authority so-called conservation policies.

This all happened whilst Phillip Lynch was Parliamentary Member for the area and it was done so that no-one knew and at the same time, he was praising these so-called conservation groups who were trying to ban any future houses in ths area.

In other ~ords, it was a blatant act of using his Parliamentary position, inside information and planning control powers to make quick money at the expense of decent, honest people.

Instead of being moved from the Treasury to another Cabinet portfolio, Phillip Lynch should have resigned forthwith from Parliament for what he did. He misled all of us in the Electorate and outside.

If he ~ants to be a dealer, he should not be in Parliament basad on this matter alone, without any others.

The disclosure of the Stumpy Gully Estates matter at the Land Deals Inquiry followed on the disclosure of his penthouse purchase at Surfer's Paradise, which caused

58 •

great discontent in my Electorate, where so many people have seen their assets destroyed by Governmental decisions.

As a number of businessmen said to me at a farewell for John Lysaght luncheon at Hastings - "Most people can add, and the arithmetic in Phillip Lynch's cass, does not add up.

My expulsion from the Liberal Party is also closely connected to the control and manipulation of the finarices,and the sequence of events in the Finance Committee is intertwined with the other moves of the hierarchy and Phillip Lynch.

/59.

•

...

•

•

59.

In mid 1974, when we decided on our long term objective of cleaning up the Liberal Party finances and the organisation, we did not appreciate the extent of the problem and the depth of the decadence.

On 4th December, 1974, as Flinders Electorate Chairman, I wrote a two page letter to the General Secretary (after the text received unanimous approval by a Flinders Electorate Committee meeting) with copies to members of State Executive.

In the letter we were critical of the financial initiatives and poor organisation in general and outlined a number of proposals.

We received a curt, one-paragraph reply from Roger Shipton stating that finance was not the responsiblity of State Executive.

We wrote a reply to Shipton on 21st December 1974 reiterating our concern about the control of the finances.

As time went on, we kept trying to get to the bottom of the money position and late in 1976 when we were trying to get the Westernport stacking matter cleaned up, there were a number of differences in regard to organizing a Flinders Electorate fund-raising dinner.

We discussed John Constable's, the Electorate Secretary statement that Joe Davis had told him that being in control of the Liberal Party organisation was as good as being in the Mafia - "it's one big family and we must make sure we keep it that way,"said Davis. We thought that obviously Davis was either big dealing or he was right and we were tending to agree with the latter.

In accordance with our plan, Dorothy Turner, the Flinders Finance Secretary, kept persisting and on 4th May, 1977, she sent Joe Davis,the Chairman, a letter virtually demanding that a meeting be called and she outlined the constitutional reasons why.

For her trouble she received a hostile phone call from Stan Guilfoyle on 9th May, 1977, while she was working with me in the office. Guilfoyle strongly criticised her and virtually told her that the State Executive can do what they like. Dorothy Turner immediately set to and wrote Guilfoyle an appropriate reply which caused more ructions.

Our continual financial probing must have been worrying Graeme Weideman because he sat next to me in Parliament on Wednesday, 11th May, 1977, and showed me the letter that Dorothy Turner had sent to Joe Davis and told me I had better get her to lay off or it would have a bad affect on me. I said I'd like to know how?

Later in the night, Weideman told me again that if I don't kill Dot Turner's letter, I will be brought into it. I said to Weideman that I am too flat out in my Electorate to worry about the Finance Committee and, anyway, what's wrong with the request for a meeting? Weideman said "It's more than a meeting as Dorothy Turner is out to get Joe Davis. I said "That's ridiculous."

On the following Tuesday, 17th May, 1977, Weideman complained indignantly to me that at the election of the executive of the Flinders Electorate Committee, the result was ridiculous as "your mob" as he put it, have organised it so nine out of the ten positions ware taken by people organised from Westernport.

I thought this was a bit of a joke because they could have taken the ten seats if they had wanted to.

/60.

Weideman, Davis, Lynch, Guilfoyle and Mrs. Mein were becoming more and more concerned about the pressure from the Flinders Finance Committee through Dorothy Turner to get more information and meetings.

In the middle of all this, I opened up the land deals in the Party Room on 7th June.

60 •

Eventually Dorothy Turner was called before the President's Standing Committee on Friday, 24th June, 1977, and questioned. When she first walked in, Mrs. Main spoke to her as though she were a spy and said to her 11 Have you any bugging or listening devices on you?"

After the meeting, Mrs. Turner wrote a letter to Mrs. Main. In reply she received a letter dated 9th August, 1977, signed by the State Director advising her that they had dissolved the Flinders Area Finance Committee and appointed a new small Committee without Mrs. Turner and with Joe Davis as Chairman. Mrs. Turner was told that she was incompatible with the Chairman, Joe Davis, who had previously refused to allow any discussion or questions at a meeting and was removed from the Chair by the delegates.

The removal of Dorothy Turner and the disbanding of the Committee caused more discontent and suspicion in the Electorate of the people handling the money and particularly the Lynch group.

On lOth August, 1977, a statement by Graeme Weideman was published on the front page of local papers in which he claimed that allegations of discrepancies in the financial affairs of the Liberal Party Flinders Area Finance Committee were unfounded.

He said he was commenting on a claim that the Westernport Electorate Committee were pressing Liberal Party Headquarters for an inquiry into the finances of the area. He also said that he knew nothing about a substantial amount of money going astry and stated that, like any political party, "we run our campaigns largely on credit so that there are never any large amounts of money around at any one time." The statement was just rubbish and purposely misleading.

We thought Phillip Lynch must have instructed Weideman to put it in the local press because people in the Electorate were not happy about his Surfer's Paradise flat publicity and a lot of questions were being asked about how he financed it.

The whole financial position of the Party and the people connected with it were looking more and more doubtful. This was confirmed after I was expelled from the Parliamentary Liberal Party when Don Fowler cams down to H5stings to see me and have lunch.

He told me of the importance of staying in Parliement for at least another three years. He said "Corruption in Government is one thing but the corruption in the Liberal Party finances is shocking. He said "No one can question where the rnoney goes or comes from. We used to get a lot from 3XY which Stan Guilfoyle controls. Whenevery anyone asks any questions they quieten them and try to ridicule them on the basis that the information will be used for the Labor Party.

I said I know now that's why you pushed Dotty and me into the Finances Committee back in 1973. He said "That's right."

/61.

..

•

, •

i

•

But the Davis group thought they would use you as a front to raise money only, and they would continue to do what they liked with the organisation.

I said "W 8 11 you sure have got us in 'cc u ne o 1.. g bra tJ 1 n

He 1 a u g h 8 d and s a i d n 8 ut I k i 1 0 \.J y u u t ~ 1 o tc' o L :. d n ' t c; u 5_ t , I s a i d 11 I t ' s no t a cas e a f q u i t t i r 1 g c: u i:; ·_~ c h u G :J e i r g kicked out before we cen clea:·1 <.:i1J'':;hif;g :._:p. i.ouk ~.d;;.;..t

61.

they did to Dot. 11 He said 11 Do1-1 1 t wo:·:.:y, c. J..c·C. of pec;J.:'..G are starting to wake up." I seid t'L!rdoi··~ui~ei:.cly, J. t.;l5.nk it maybe the wrong people and they a~o tea lata a~yw~y, but we'll keep having a go at thom.:'

The Liberal Party finances are a wall-crQu~ised mess o n pur p os 8 an d t h 8 us e o f the cc rn p u t e r i s a s imp l e .-~·: e ·c !'! c d of employing the planned confusion tochnique so thct tha system can be abused. No wonder Liberal Party membership is continuing to fall.

It will take some time for the impact and importunes cf Don fowler's role to be appreciated. He saw the problems at first hand in the early 70's and he was certainly left lonely in his attempts to get a clean up. His continual encouragement and finger pointing have been invaluable and his actions have resulted from a basic integrity and belief in decency without any personal gain.

/62.

It is still surprising how certain M.P. 1 s such as James Guest keep on making_ statements of bls. tent untruths.

James Guest in the August 1978 Clendon ~2wslatter stntod that I never did my duty by making apGech~s ab~ut the land deal allegations in Parliament or -~~§..~_~ ~-~---~~,0 Rn

T h e M a 1 v e r n V o u n g L i be r a 1 s e v an i n t :·1 c :~ r [; L: g u s t n a w o l ::;::.:; t 3 .. ·

accused me of crossing the floor on ti·.,..; 6:;:-; 3cptambnr r: 1

at no time did I present any e•Jidencs i.r~.pJ..ic.:3ti ng ffJ<J•iiiJ.sr"v of Cabinet in the lands ~andal.

Charles Hider stated at a mseting of h::.G b:r.·anc;'ias on 20th June, 1977, that freedom c f spo3::;l; \:JL:s c. 2 thing but: t ha Me m b e r f o r \J e s t e r n p o r t h as m G d e p L' b l. i .:: s -;~ 8. t ::Hii o n t s er i ti cis i ng Ministers. t-:s said rw h eC.: t:ocn olected os a liberal and if he did not lika :.:.he; ::;i{;;.JC.i ;en ho cou.~d

get out • 11 I n at her words , I w 2 s ex pact e cl ·:; D to 2. 3 :.::·at o t iH:.t

mess and the messers.

Hider phoned me three days later on 23~J J~Ge ond complaineJ about the leaks to the press. I tcld him to phone Norr1; L2cy as after lacy phona:J me and the blr.Jkes IJ:Ot.:thed off at i.:ha Windsor Bar, the press started hunting, Gnd they did~'t have to go very far.

Although there are many other meetings end conversa~1ons which are examples of the current politicnl mind and low benders, the following brief outline summ3rizas the pcsiticn.

.. '

J &

I

On 30th July, 1976, the night before the State Council at which Peter Hardie stated that 11 there will be no cover up on Westernport" (which, of course, was the start of the biggest cover up Hardie, Hamer and company could mount). They work on the simple principle that the bigger the lie the more people will believe it)

Alan Hunt stated that anyone who thought the State Government was about to back away from support for 11 sffective planning" had rocks in their head.

As the Hamer and Hunt idea of effective planning is Melton, Pakenham, Sunbury, Mt. Ridley and Pinmore, to name a few, then I certainly have rocks in my head~ which I am sure is less costly to the Victorian taxpayer than the rocks in the bad land they bought.

For example, we now know that little or no proper consideration could have been given to the suitability of McMahon's land at Sunbury for housing at all and its purchase for this purpose at the time was quite ridiculous from a practical housing point of view, but, apparently, it was regarded as quite logical from a quick and easy money point of view for the people in on the deal. It is incredible that the Minister, the Valuers and the Housing Commission made out that it was appropriate for housing. It was another example of blatant incompetence or corruption.

Anyone taking a cursory look at a project to build homes on McMahon's land would quite easily ascertain that rock would be struck throughout the drainege and sewerage works and floaters would also be encountered in the roadworks, making it an extremely costly housing project if anyone proceeded.

In addition, the land is overlaid by a black, clay soil ~ which would necessitate that the bulk of the work would • have to be carried out in the dry months .

..

t ;

In other words, there is simply so much more suitable land available for housing than McMahons and since the Housing Commission were buying rural land, they had a wide choice. That is, if they were genuine at the time in wanting to build houses.

The fact that they did not build any houses at all ma~es the whole Melton/Sunbury deal a huge confidence trick and we are expected to go on swallowing the statements from the Premier that he and all his Cabinet hove acted properly.

The Gowans Report stated that there was outright dis~onesty negligence, excessive prices, failure of the valuation system, false information, deliberate deceit, inside knowledge, conspiracy and criminal proceedings ~ere recommended.

Ironically enough, one of the most serious stctements in the Gowans Report which was least noticed, was that on Page 2 where reference is made to the lack of records in the files.

No wonder we were all handed such e pack of lies in the Party Room and no wonder Mr. Dickis stated he destroyed a lot of files.

If Mr. Hamer and his Cabinet get away with this coverup and the Parliamentary backbench Members go on endorsing him, Victoria will be the homo State for the rackets and racketeers and all the resultant evil and ths destruction of law and order that goes with it.

As Roberts Dunstan stated early in 1975, the Hamer Government will stand or fall on its conservation policy. That is their policy of conserving an ideal climate for the wheeler dealers, big fjxgrs and croaks.

Messrs. Hamer and Thompson have tried to stop the probing and questions by cunningly exploiting the fear in many genuine Liberals minds along the lines of - What alternative have you got? You wouldn't want Labor in would you?

I want to emphasize the most important requirement is an honest Government.

Policies which are clear and specific and carried out honestly will not destroy this country but dishonest Government and corruption will. The voters can understand the first, while the criminal element can exploit the second.

I have said our genuine liberal Platform and policies are the last hope for this land. About the only thing liberal about our present leadership, both in State Parliament and the organisation, is the name. The rest of their behaviour has been similar to some so-called third world countries who claim they are"guided democracies" which simply means special laws for special people who have special associations with the leaders.

The liberal Party is supposed to stand for freedom of the individual and encouragement of initiative and the acceptance of responsibility.

It is also stated in the Platform that The Liberal Party is dedicated to political liberty and the freedom and dignity of man.

Our State Party leaders insist on and practice the exact opposite.

The corrupt deals we know about are one thing as they are of the most serious concern. The matters which we don't know about are another. If past performance is any indication, they must also be bad.

Many politicians and others have said that politics is a dirty game. I say it's not - it's only some of the rotten people in it.

Finally, if the Liberal Party is to survive as a viable political force in this State, it must be seen by the public to be a Party that only tolerates political representatives whose code of public behaviour is absolutely beyond reproach.

The only way this will be achieved is by some basic reorganisation which must be put into effect immediately,

The important areas are the State Executive, Branch responsibilities and pre-selections.

The present method of plection of State Executive must be altered so that its membership is representative of and responsible to the Party Branches all over the State. The Executive ~hould consist of representatives elected by each Federal Electorate Committee. This would provide a direct line of communication and representation.

At present, the election at State Council has craated and is ideal for a huge gerrymander where soma Electorates have a number of representatives on the Stata Executive and control it, while many Electorates have no representation at all and are not likely to have.

The president should then be elected by tho State Executive rrom the Executive.

If this prcpoaal was carried out, the impact an the Party would be electric and the organisation would then have a chance of controlling the politicians. Not the other way round as at present.

r

'

• •

J \

• '

c

t r

The current method of collecting annual subscriptions and control of membership by the computer hAs caused a complete disregard of the abilities of the best Dnd most responsible members of t PE~rty, end they are the many Branch Presidents, SecretariB3~ Tre~B~rors and committees.

The personal contact between thasa officiols and the members when collecting subscriptions in the past was such an important grass roots l:i.ne of Ct)ftlrau;d.cation.

The current pre-selection process has encoursged and caused many manipulations whGre each b~cnch is entitled

65,

to a number of delegates bas:::d on Branch membership numbr:..::-:3.

Every paid up member of the Liberal Party should be entitled to a vote in the pre-selection of a candidate in their Electorate.

These three points I have outlined are vit~l to bring the Party back to what it should be and thet is the Party of the people, for the people end controlled by the people. Not a Private Club as the President, Mrs. Joy Main proudly proclaimed on the radio on 31st July this year.