Enemies plot to bring down Daniel Andrews over Labor rort

Daniel Andrews’ caucus enemies are plotting to destabilise his leadership over the rorts-for-votes scandal.

Victorian Premier Daniel Andrews yesterday. Picture: AAP

Daniel Andrews’ caucus enemies are plotting to destabilise his leadership over the rorts-for-votes scandal, declaring it “implausible’’ that the Victorian Premier was unaware of the wrongdoing.

The enemies are pressing MPs involved in the affair to detail what they knew, and when, about former treasurer John Lenders’ strategy to partly pay election campaigners with public money.

The plotting comes as MPs engulfed by the rorts-for-votes scandal could face a grilling in the state’s upper house from a parliamentary committee which could be established to probe the affair.

Senior Labor sources said there were only two ways Mr Lenders could have approved the so-called 60:40 strategy: either it needed to have been approved by caucus or by Mr Andrews.

It was not approved by caucus, sources told The Australian.

Mr Lenders, a former Labor secretary, is being blasted across the party for having forced through the strategy of using the staff allowances of 21 MPs to pay for campaigners ahead of the 2014 election. Mr Lenders, who was ­excoriated in the Ombudsman’s inquiry, is yet to comment on the report but is seen by party figures as the key to whether the Premier survives.

“If he talks, then Andrews is dead,’’ a senior Labor MP said.

Most Labor figures think the government and Mr Andrews will survive the scandal because no charges were recommended in the Ombudsman’s report and the $387,842 has been repaid.

However, Mr Andrews is still under internal pressure, with attempts by his Labor enemies to force out the truth of what the Premier knew and when.

Mr Andrews has denied knowing the rort had been engineered by Mr Lenders.

“It’s absolute horse shit,’’ a senior Labor figure said. “Of course he knew. It didn’t go through caucus so it must have been approved by Andrews. Lenders did not have the authority to play around with electoral staff. We knew it was wrong.”

Geoff Shaw, a former independent member for Frankston who lost his seat at the 2014 election, told 3AW radio yesterday that Attorney-General Martin Pakula would have had to have known about the scheme.

“He knew about this, absolutely, no doubt,” he said. “He is the Attorney-General. He knows the guidelines, has been in parliament for a long time. So he’s ­either thick or he is telling fibs.”

The Australian understands the Premier’s supporters ­believe the scandal will dissipate, arguing that it is being fuelled by media bias and there will be little opportunity for significant developments after this week.

Another senior Labor source said the controversy would be long forgotten by the time of the next election. “It’s in the bubble, this is noise,’’ he said.

However, the Coalition is backing an upper-house inquiry into the matter, arguing that the limited scope of the Ombudsman’s report and its inability to probe the lower house means that the true value of the rort is much higher than $387,000 reported.

“The findings of the Ombudsman investigation are just the tip of the iceberg,” Opposition Leader Matthew Guy said.

Mr Guy argued that the select committee was best placed to probe the issue because it had the power to subpoena evidence from people and from records.

The Greens have proposed a motion ordering the Premier to apologise to parliament, while MPs named in the report pay a fine and Labor pays an additional 25 per cent on top of the funds it has repaid.

Treasurer Tim Pallas suggested the illegal pooling arrangements were practised by other political parties, but Mr Guy ­denied this. “The Ombudsman asked all parties and what we find is that she only found one (party) that had to answer questions ... only Labor has questions to answer,” Mr Guy said.

When asked if Coalition electorate officers were ever deployed to offices beyond the electorate where they were employed, Mr Guy said: “Since 2003, when the arrangements changed, no.”

The Australian understands that in previous governments there had been arrangements for pooling electorate staff but this stopped after the Kennett era.

However, there is no suggestion that during the Kennett era the arrangements were as cynical as those used in the votes-for-rorts affair. One senior Liberal said there had been thwarted talks after the 2006 election with a view to pooling some electoral officers for use or control by the then Liberal leader’s office.

This was not approved.