Upheaval a Shaw thing

THE member for Frankston has a spectacular list of notorious exploits.

Geoff Shaw MP for Frankston for Sunday Herald Sun. Picture: Coppel Alex

TO understand the circus that is the Victorian Parliament it is necessary to drive 40km south of Melbourne’s CBD, to a land outsiders call Frankghanistan.

It’s an unkind play on words to typecast the bayside suburb of Frankston, home to some of Victoria’s most disadvantaged residents and, ironically, the gateway to billionaire’s row, further southwest on the Mornington Peninsula.

Lindsay Fox can see Frankston from his helicopter on the way to his beach compound in Portsea, but the man at the centre of the parliamentary chaos — Geoffrey Page Shaw — will probably never leave.

Shaw is a 46-year-old former accountant who wears a suit, but his DNA is all tough-town Frankston.

Shaw takes advice from no one and, as a capable ruckman in the local league, former bouncer and committed Christian, says he fears no one either.

The problem for the Napthine government is that his robust refusal to conform has once again led the Coalition into deep uncertainty as Labor seeks to force a by-election and punt him out of parliament.

In normal circumstances, Shaw would be a punctuation mark in any government’s four-year narrative.

But his uncanny ability to attract negative publicity in a knife-edge parliament has harmed him politically and had a devastating impact on the government’s confidence and standing.

In just 3½ years, Shaw has helped bring down a premier, forced a speaker to fall on his sword and is now dangerously close to bringing down a government and maybe even himself.

His exploits are legendary.

Simulating masturbation in the parliament, erecting a roadside sign declaring his love for his estranged wife, a past stoush with the law over a 1992 assault while a nightclub bouncer and conflict with some constituents over his strident anti-abortion stance.

“I am who I am. What you see is what you get,’’ Shaw told me recently. “I take responsibility for my actions.’’

Shaw’s biggest indiscretion was uncovered in 2011, when it became clear that he had misused his parliamentary vehicle and his petrol card for his private business gain, a matter that attracted fraud charges (which were dropped), an ombudsman’s inquiry and a privileges committee investigation.

It emerged that staff in his then hardware store had driven for thousands of kilometres at taxpayers’ expense, delivering and collecting goods and otherwise servicing clients.

It was an error of judgment that deserved condemnation but the then narrow government majority meant Shaw immediately became the focus of relentless attention from Labor.

He was the MP cut loose from the herd.

With a parliament made up of 44 Coalition MPs, 43 Labor and Shaw, he was under strain.

It was attention he didn’t handle well but also attention that was often unwarranted and excessive.

The running sore over the misuse of his car — which may yet see him expelled from the parliament — is at the centre of this political crisis.

When Shaw quit the parliamentary Liberal Party 15 months ago, Labor targeted him mercilessly, using the Tony Abbott opposition textbook.

It was attack, attack, attack, to the extent Shaw’s friends in parliament were worried about his health; in the privileges committee report into the car scandal, the independent MP painted a rather sad picture of personal loss coinciding with the misuse of his car.

“In addition to the pressures of being a newly elected member of parliament, in early 2011, I separated from my wife of 20 years and my four children,’’ Shaw stated.

“This was a period of extreme emotional upheaval for my family and I and I had to continue to be an effective member for the constituents of Frankston.

“I had no time to be involved in the regular running of the Southern Cross Hardware business as my attention was diverted elsewhere.’’

At the same time, Labor has done its best to trash the parliament, with its members being ejected hundreds of times under former speaker Ken Smith as they ranted and raved about the injustice of opposition.

Smith is a VB-drinking, 25-year veteran of the parliament who turns 70 this year.

It was his decision to refer Shaw to the ombudsman, a decision he said was compulsory under whistleblower legislation.

Shaw never forgave Smith and many months later was in a blind fury when parliamentary security failed during a taxi protest on the front steps and he was set upon.

“Geoff never forgave Ken after that,’’ says a Parliament House friend.

Nor did Smith forgive Shaw.

Smith was forced out of the speaker’s chair by Shaw at the start of the parliamentary year and has been waiting ever since for the opportunity to strike.

That came last week when the minority Labor report in the privileges committee document held Shaw should be found guilty of contempt of parliament.

Smith seized on this and vowed to side with Labor, sending Shaw into a rage.

All this despite Smith’s own Coalition colleagues recommending against contempt of parliament proceedings.

If Smith backs Labor in its bid to expel Shaw — which is no certainty — then it may well be game over.

Shaw is believed to have been in a rage on Monday over Smith’s recalcitrance but Premier Denis Napthine was unable to broker a peace deal.

By 7pm Tuesday, Napthine had been backed into a corner.

Taking the Frankston front-foot option, he alleged Shaw had tried to impose a judicial appointment on the government, a claim Shaw has reportedly denied.

“I can’t be held to ransom for those sorts of outrageous demands,’’ Napthine said. “From time to time, Mr Shaw has made other demands of the government, which we have not accepted. That is outrageous, that is extreme, that is ludicrous, that is not tolerated by me as Premier.’’

This dummy spit by the Premier ends a 3½-year phony war between Shaw and the government.

Ted Baillieu, Napthine’s predecessor, could not handle Shaw, finding him disrespectful and obsessed with abortion. Baillieu lost his job 16 months ago in part due to Shaw, who resigned to become independent on the same day Baillieu was pushed.

Nor could Smith deal with Shaw, also accusing him of making inappropriate demands, claims denied by Shaw.

Shaw has voted on occasion against the government, and caused mayhem in the parliament when he voted down the government business program, stifling the ability of the speaker to run the house.

Which brings us to the constitutional aspects of the Shaw conundrum.

Constitutional expert Greg Taylor, an associate professor at Monash University, acknowledges the deep uncertainty over what happens next, but his best bet is that the government will limp through to the fixed four-year term deadline of November 29.

Labor in 2003 introduced wide-ranging reforms to the parliament designed to introduce fixed terms, allegedly to prevent any party holding a majority in the Legislative Council and making it highly difficult to hold an election earlier than the set fixed date.

The plan only partly worked, because the Coalition now has control of the upper house and an early election is still on the cards. Labor has advice that a by-election can be held on July 12 and July 19.

Shaw would likely lose any by-election, as would the Liberals; Frankston remains a marginal seat: after the redistribution it is just 0.4 per cent “Liberal’’ (any by-election would be conducted on the old boundaries, Labor says).

Constitutionally, the outcomes of the parliament are not easy to predict, although it is safe to say a by-election can be held if the government wants one, and an early election is possible.

The government is still seeking urgent legal and parliamentary advice to determine its final position, which will become clear early next week.

The most likely outcome at the time of writing was that the government would deny Labor’s attempts to expel Shaw and, instead, propose an alternative motion dealing with the privileges committee report.

A temporary suspension moved by the government would appear to be a logical outcome, banning Shaw from the parliament until after the July winter recess, which would make it constitutionally difficult for an election or by-election to be held, due to the looming November 29 poll date.

Nick Economou, a politics expert at Monash University, expects a compromise along these lines is a strong possibility, although Smith would have to vote with the government, which would leave a 43-43 tie and the Liberal Speaker backing the government.

Economou says from the government’s perspective, “you obviously can’t trust Shaw and it would be very dangerous to try to trust Andrews’’.

Smith told The Australian on Tuesday evening that he wanted to pursue Shaw to the end. “My position is still as strong as it was,’’ he said. “My position is still to support the minority (Labor) report.’’

Smith is a popular member of the Liberal old guard and Napthine will be doing his best to get him back into the government tent, which would deprive Labor of a crucial vote it needs to get its way.

Labor’s decision to seek Shaw’s expulsion from parliament would seem to dampen the prospects of the ALP and Shaw combining in any no-confidence vote.

But Labor leader Daniel Andrews refused yesterday to rule out combining with Shaw in any future no-confidence motion.

He also self-servingly urged the government to back his bid to expel Shaw, declaring: “It will be over once and for all.”

A Labor victory in any by-election would render the parliament deadlocked at 44 votes apiece, in all likelihood triggering an early general election, although — again — there are conditions that need to be met.

One of the great unknowns in this debate is how Shaw will respond.

He may not even turn up to parliament next week, “robbing’’ both Labor and the Coalition of his vote. Or he might quit, triggering a by-election, potentially bringing down the government.

This cannot be ruled out; it would fit Shaw’s modus operandi.

Going out with a bang would be the Frankston way.