Rorts-for-votes inquiry: John Lenders starts on front foot but soon becomes ‘puzzled’ by questions
FORMER state treasurer John Lenders arrived at the parliamentary inquiry into Labor’s rorts-for-votes scheme in a combative mood. But he was immediately on the back foot, writes James Campbell and Monique Hore.
National
Don't miss out on the headlines from National. Followed categories will be added to My News.
“YOU’VE got to try it on and if they pay, you know it’s met their ultimate test.”
This, according to former state treasurer John Lenders, was how he judged whether he was properly using his office budget — if the Department of Parliamentary Services paid the bill, it was OK.
Lenders arrived in a combative mood. Not only had he not been accorded procedural fairness, he complained, but he did not even acknowledge the Privileges Committee had the authority to investigate the previous parliament.
LABOR MP RAISED SCHEME WORRIES WITH DAN
LABOR RORTS MASTERMIND SNAPS: ‘GO TO SAUDI ARABIA’
It was a strong start, but he was immediately on the back foot.
Asked about a Red Shirt deployed in Daniel Andrews’s seat, Lenders looked blank.
He couldn’t recall such a thing, even though it was in his statutory declaration.
“Well I signed the stat dec believing it to be correct but I … I’m puzzled,” he said.
And because he couldn’t remember writing that, he couldn’t remember whether Andrews was aware there was a field officer in Mulgrave.
He did say later that Andrews had not been asked to participate.
While Lenders accepted electorate officers had carried out campaign work they shouldn’t have, he rejected Deborah Glass’s finding that he ignored advice from DPS.
But under questioning, it emerged this was because he had not told them the work he was planning for them to do.
“I wasn’t going to tell them exactly what these field officers, these electorate officers were going to do because as soon as you say, you get a debate over can you do things,” he explained.
What about the arrangement that saw field officers paid 60 per cent by the ALP and 40 per cent by parliament?
“To say they agreed to this 60/40 split would be unfair. I didn’t offer it, they didn’t ask.”
Did he tell the MPs? “I assumed I did but I can’t emphatically say.”
Had any MPs raised concerns about the propriety of the scheme? The closest we got to an answer was: “Obviously if you are having discussions with people they want assurances that this is a legitimate use of their resources.”
Also up were the good soldiers Nazih Elasmar — “I trusted my leader, I took his advice” — and Jenny Mikakos.
But between them we heard from Adem Somyurek, who had a different story. He’d been worried from the get-go but Lenders had said “it was all OK, it was ticked off by DPS”. For three months, he’d demanded a letter confirming it.
Somyurek said: “I wouldn’t take any steps until the letter arrived. In the meantime, Mr Lenders would quite often come to my office and put the pressure on me to sign up.”
In the end, Somyurek signed up anyway but he wasn’t the only one with concerns: “There was a bit of chatter around the place.”
Had he raised it with Daniel Andrews? This is what everyone had been waiting to know. Asked in March if anyone had raised concerns the Premier answered: “Let me be very clear with you, no such approaches were made.”
Did Somyurek agree? “At some point, I had a very brief casual chat to him, which didn’t last long … It was at the end of a caucus meeting, we were walking out. There were 55 members or so in our caucus … so 55 people walking out of a room such as this.
“I did sort-of ask for a second and raised the matter with him. It was very brief.”
The Premier’s problem is not only does this answer contradict his emphatic denials, Somyurek’s concerns about the scheme were later vindicated by the Ombudsman.
OTHER RORTS-FOR-VOTES NEWS:
RORTS-FOR-VOTES MASTERMIND RETAINS CONTROL
TIME FOR LABOR MPS TO TELL ALL ON RORTS-FOR-VOTES SCANDAL
PREMIER SORRY FOR $388K ELECTION CHEAT
Originally published as Rorts-for-votes inquiry: John Lenders starts on front foot but soon becomes ‘puzzled’ by questions