Offer denied for ex-Liberal leader to avert bankruptcy
An 11th-hour offer from a defamed MP to partially defer an ousted state Liberal leader's $2.3 million legal bill in exchange for guaranteed preselection has fallen over.
Victorian Liberal Moira Deeming wrote to former opposition leader John Pesutto, his successor Brad Battin and Victorian Liberal president Philip Davis on Sunday with a series of demands to spare Mr Pesutto bankruptcy.
Mr Pesutto was ordered to pay $2.3 million in legal costs to Mrs Deeming after the Federal Court found he defamed her by implying she was associated with neo-Nazis who gatecrashed a Melbourne rally she attended in 2023.
A bankruptcy notice was served to Mr Pesutto on Friday, leaving him 21 days to pay the debt, sign up to a payment arrangement or face bankruptcy.
Bankruptcy would force his exit from Victorian parliament, setting up an expensive by-election in his marginal state seat of Hawthorn in Melbourne's east.
In her letter to the trio, seen by AAP, Mrs Deeming said she was "dismayed" the state party was considering an approach from Mr Pesutto to meet his financial obligations to her.
"It is because of the extraordinary support that I have received from rank-and-file members that I make this offer with the intention that the funds they have raised to fight the Labor Party remain solely directed to that important objective," she wrote.
Her demands included Mr Pesutto paying the roughly $760,000 he has raised and deferring the remainder of his debt until March 30, 2027.
A special resolution would have had to be passed to endorse preselection for her upper house seat so she could "enjoy the right to serve my community without any internal distractions which is something denied me to date".
She also requested the party, through Mr Battin, pen an unreserved written and public apology to her and appoint of an independent person from outside the state to review internal dispute resolution mechanisms.
The offer was non-negotiable and expired at 5pm on Tuesday after the parties were unable to agree.
"I have suffered through a gruelling two and half years where almost every offer I made to negotiate a settlement was rejected," she wrote.
"This is my final attempt to spare the Liberal Party further harm and to afford Mr Pesutto, and his family, the dignity that was denied to me, my husband and my children."
One senior Liberal told AAP it was "outrageous" to attempt to use the pair's long-running dispute to secure preselection.
Liberal preselection is traditionally completed through a vote of rank-and-file members, with the process for the next state election in November 2026 expected to begin from September.
AAP has also been told the money raised by Mr Pesutto was conditional on the party lending him the rest, about $1.5 million, which he has vowed to pay back with interest.
The party's administrative committee is expected to meet to discuss Mr Pesutto's request on June 19.
Mrs Deeming and Mr Pesutto were contacted for comment.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Advertiser
5 hours ago
- The Advertiser
Sun sets on another state's solar home battery rebate
The scrapping of a $2500 solar panel sweetener has been defended by a state energy minister after critics labelled the move a "slap in the face". As a federal battery subsidy kicks in on July 1, NSW will replace its home battery installation rebate with a smaller incentive to create more virtual power plants. The move comes as other states power down their own battery incentives. Virtual power plants connect solar-powered batteries owned by households and small businesses to the grid, allowing owners to generate ongoing revenue by selling the excess energy stored in their battery when demand is high. The NSW government argues households and businesses will benefit by stacking the new scheme - worth up to $1500 - on top of the federal program, which slashes up-front costs by about 30 per cent. "The real value of virtual power plants is that we don't waste energy that's in the batteries," NSW Energy Minister Penny Sharpe told AAP on Thursday. But renewable energy advocacy group Solar Citizens said ditching the state battery subsidy on June 30 was a "slap in the face" for solar panel owners. They were promised up to $2500 in addition to the federal program if they invested in a home battery. "This surprise decision is a blow to solar-home owners planning to buy a home battery in coming months," the group's chief executive Heidi Lee Douglas said. She described the rebate's removal as a "betrayal" of the Labor government's election promise of the federal Cheaper Home Batteries program, which can be topped up with state rebates. "We designed the Cheaper Home Batteries program to be stackable with state incentives, and it is," a spokesperson for Energy Minister Chris Bowen told AAP. The $2.3 billion federal government scheme will subsidise the up-front cost of installing eligible small-scale battery by about 30 per cent from July 1. In Western Australia, solar battery customers are still able to receive both federal and state battery subsidies starting from July. But NSW follows other states turfing battery sweeteners. Victoria ended an interest-free solar battery loan worth $8800 in May while Queensland closed its $4000 battery rebate in December. Australia has the highest take-up of rooftop solar in the world, with panels on more than two million homes providing about 13 per cent of electricity needs for the national grid in the past year. The nation could slash $4 billion a year off power bills by the end of the decade if households embrace solar batteries in larger numbers, a Climate Council report found. The scrapping of a $2500 solar panel sweetener has been defended by a state energy minister after critics labelled the move a "slap in the face". As a federal battery subsidy kicks in on July 1, NSW will replace its home battery installation rebate with a smaller incentive to create more virtual power plants. The move comes as other states power down their own battery incentives. Virtual power plants connect solar-powered batteries owned by households and small businesses to the grid, allowing owners to generate ongoing revenue by selling the excess energy stored in their battery when demand is high. The NSW government argues households and businesses will benefit by stacking the new scheme - worth up to $1500 - on top of the federal program, which slashes up-front costs by about 30 per cent. "The real value of virtual power plants is that we don't waste energy that's in the batteries," NSW Energy Minister Penny Sharpe told AAP on Thursday. But renewable energy advocacy group Solar Citizens said ditching the state battery subsidy on June 30 was a "slap in the face" for solar panel owners. They were promised up to $2500 in addition to the federal program if they invested in a home battery. "This surprise decision is a blow to solar-home owners planning to buy a home battery in coming months," the group's chief executive Heidi Lee Douglas said. She described the rebate's removal as a "betrayal" of the Labor government's election promise of the federal Cheaper Home Batteries program, which can be topped up with state rebates. "We designed the Cheaper Home Batteries program to be stackable with state incentives, and it is," a spokesperson for Energy Minister Chris Bowen told AAP. The $2.3 billion federal government scheme will subsidise the up-front cost of installing eligible small-scale battery by about 30 per cent from July 1. In Western Australia, solar battery customers are still able to receive both federal and state battery subsidies starting from July. But NSW follows other states turfing battery sweeteners. Victoria ended an interest-free solar battery loan worth $8800 in May while Queensland closed its $4000 battery rebate in December. Australia has the highest take-up of rooftop solar in the world, with panels on more than two million homes providing about 13 per cent of electricity needs for the national grid in the past year. The nation could slash $4 billion a year off power bills by the end of the decade if households embrace solar batteries in larger numbers, a Climate Council report found. The scrapping of a $2500 solar panel sweetener has been defended by a state energy minister after critics labelled the move a "slap in the face". As a federal battery subsidy kicks in on July 1, NSW will replace its home battery installation rebate with a smaller incentive to create more virtual power plants. The move comes as other states power down their own battery incentives. Virtual power plants connect solar-powered batteries owned by households and small businesses to the grid, allowing owners to generate ongoing revenue by selling the excess energy stored in their battery when demand is high. The NSW government argues households and businesses will benefit by stacking the new scheme - worth up to $1500 - on top of the federal program, which slashes up-front costs by about 30 per cent. "The real value of virtual power plants is that we don't waste energy that's in the batteries," NSW Energy Minister Penny Sharpe told AAP on Thursday. But renewable energy advocacy group Solar Citizens said ditching the state battery subsidy on June 30 was a "slap in the face" for solar panel owners. They were promised up to $2500 in addition to the federal program if they invested in a home battery. "This surprise decision is a blow to solar-home owners planning to buy a home battery in coming months," the group's chief executive Heidi Lee Douglas said. She described the rebate's removal as a "betrayal" of the Labor government's election promise of the federal Cheaper Home Batteries program, which can be topped up with state rebates. "We designed the Cheaper Home Batteries program to be stackable with state incentives, and it is," a spokesperson for Energy Minister Chris Bowen told AAP. The $2.3 billion federal government scheme will subsidise the up-front cost of installing eligible small-scale battery by about 30 per cent from July 1. In Western Australia, solar battery customers are still able to receive both federal and state battery subsidies starting from July. But NSW follows other states turfing battery sweeteners. Victoria ended an interest-free solar battery loan worth $8800 in May while Queensland closed its $4000 battery rebate in December. Australia has the highest take-up of rooftop solar in the world, with panels on more than two million homes providing about 13 per cent of electricity needs for the national grid in the past year. The nation could slash $4 billion a year off power bills by the end of the decade if households embrace solar batteries in larger numbers, a Climate Council report found. The scrapping of a $2500 solar panel sweetener has been defended by a state energy minister after critics labelled the move a "slap in the face". As a federal battery subsidy kicks in on July 1, NSW will replace its home battery installation rebate with a smaller incentive to create more virtual power plants. The move comes as other states power down their own battery incentives. Virtual power plants connect solar-powered batteries owned by households and small businesses to the grid, allowing owners to generate ongoing revenue by selling the excess energy stored in their battery when demand is high. The NSW government argues households and businesses will benefit by stacking the new scheme - worth up to $1500 - on top of the federal program, which slashes up-front costs by about 30 per cent. "The real value of virtual power plants is that we don't waste energy that's in the batteries," NSW Energy Minister Penny Sharpe told AAP on Thursday. But renewable energy advocacy group Solar Citizens said ditching the state battery subsidy on June 30 was a "slap in the face" for solar panel owners. They were promised up to $2500 in addition to the federal program if they invested in a home battery. "This surprise decision is a blow to solar-home owners planning to buy a home battery in coming months," the group's chief executive Heidi Lee Douglas said. She described the rebate's removal as a "betrayal" of the Labor government's election promise of the federal Cheaper Home Batteries program, which can be topped up with state rebates. "We designed the Cheaper Home Batteries program to be stackable with state incentives, and it is," a spokesperson for Energy Minister Chris Bowen told AAP. The $2.3 billion federal government scheme will subsidise the up-front cost of installing eligible small-scale battery by about 30 per cent from July 1. In Western Australia, solar battery customers are still able to receive both federal and state battery subsidies starting from July. But NSW follows other states turfing battery sweeteners. Victoria ended an interest-free solar battery loan worth $8800 in May while Queensland closed its $4000 battery rebate in December. Australia has the highest take-up of rooftop solar in the world, with panels on more than two million homes providing about 13 per cent of electricity needs for the national grid in the past year. The nation could slash $4 billion a year off power bills by the end of the decade if households embrace solar batteries in larger numbers, a Climate Council report found.
Perth Now
6 hours ago
- Perth Now
Reynolds' fresh target in Higgins lawsuit
Linda Reynolds has turned her attention to former Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus in her bid to sue the Commonwealth over its compensation payment to Brittany Higgins, as the nation's anti-corruption agency revealed there was 'no corruption issue' in the payment. The retiring former Liberal minister in May launched action in the Federal Court against the Commonwealth, with the crux of the claim over the $2.4m compensation payment to Brittany Higgins in 2022. Senator Reynolds argued the payment was 'publicly affirming' of Ms Higgins allegations against her that she didn't support her former staffer when she alleged she was raped by Bruce Lehrmann. Brittany Higgins was paid a $2.4m compensation payment. NewsWire / Jeremy Piper Credit: News Corp Australia The Federal Court has found Mr Lehrmann raped Ms Higgins on the civil standard of the balance of probabilities. A criminal trial was aborted due juror misconduct and a charge against him was dropped. Mr Lehrmann has always denied the allegation and is appealing the Federal Court's finding. An amended version of Ms Reynolds statement of claim was filed on Wednesday, just a day before the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) said there was 'no corruption issue' in the $2.4m payment. The NACC on Thursday announced there was 'no evidence that the settlement process, including the legal advice provided, who was present at the mediation, or the amount was subject to any improper influence by any Commonwealth public official'. Senator Reynolds' amended statement of claim was made public late on Thursday afternoon. Linda Reynolds has amended her statement of claim. NewsWire / Martin Ollman Credit: News Corp Australia Among the changes is a reference to a speech by Mr Dreyfus the then Attorney-General made to parliament on March 15, 2021. Mr Dreyfus is not a party to the claim. Mr Dreyfus recounted to the House of Representatives a speech by Ms Higgins just outside Parliament House, where she told a large crowd she was raped inside the building by a colleague, and how her story was 'a painful reminder to women that it can happen in Parliament House and can truly happen anywhere'. 'If a woman cannot feel safe from rape in Parliament House, a veritable fortress ringed with security cameras, with entrances protected by armed guards and with Federal Police officers on duty inside, where can women feel safe?' Mr Dreyfus told the House of Representatives, according to a transcript excerpt in the claim. 'How strong is the rule of law if it isn't able to protect a young woman working in the ministerial wing of Parliament House?' The amended statement of claim argued Senator Reynolds had suffered loss and damage as a result of Mr Dreyfus' conduct, including denying her the opportunity to rebut Ms Higgins' allegation 'in the appropriate forum'. Former attorney-general Mark Dreyfus. NewsWire / Martin Ollman Credit: News Corp Australia It also argues Mr Dreyfus 'enabled and encouraged the falsity of Ms Higgins' claim to be maintained by Ms Higgins'. HWL Ebsworth, which acted on the Commonwealth's behalf, is also being sued by Senator Reynolds for negligence. Lawyers on behalf of Senator Reynolds argued HWLE breached its fiduciary duty to her by excluding her from the mediation conference where the $2.4m settlement was reached, and failing to conduct independent investigations to establish if there was 'at least a meaningful prospect of liability' by Ms Higgins. However, similar alleged breaches initially put forth against the Commonwealth were withdrawn in the amended document, with it now largely focusing on allegations of Mr Dreyfus' misfeasance of public office and alleged breaches of HWLE. Mr Dreyfus has been contacted for comment. He earlier welcomed NACC's statement. 'The NACC has conclusively found there was no improper interference by any Commonwealth official at any stage,' Mr Dreyfus said. 'I regret the baseless allegation of corruption has been so widely publicised ahead of this finding and hope future matters can be resolved in a more timely manner. 'I also regret any further distress caused to Ms Higgins as a result of this matter.'
The Advertiser
6 hours ago
- The Advertiser
How Australia's 'no-worries' approach has led our nation's defence astray
With the precision of a barrister and the venom of a politician betrayed, Malcolm Turnbull has torpedoed the credulous heart of Australia's multibillion-dollar AUKUS evangelism, raising the question: are we the only true believers? If the answer turns out to be yes, and we may know soon, the unhealthy consensus between our two major parties will have been exposed as the most naive conflation of our security interests with those of another country since Iraq, or even Vietnam. "The UK is conducting a review of AUKUS" the former Liberal prime minister tweeted. "The US DoD [dept of defence] is conducting a review of AUKUS. But Australia, which has the most at stake, has no review. Our Parliament to date has been the least curious and least informed. Time to wake up?" Maybe. We don't really do introspection and we're not much inclined towards looking backwards, either. To its credit, the UK allowed seven years for its Chilcot inquiry into Britain's disastrous enthusiasm for the Iraq invasion. It found that non-military options had been deliberately overlooked, that Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction, and that the UK had too willingly agreed with America in sexing up intelligence. An easily beguiled Australia was along for the ride, unlawful and unethical as it all was. Yet an Australian equivalent of the Chilcot process was never embarked on in the years after. Lessons went unlearned. When it was unveiled in September 2021, AUKUS quickly became the new big thing - one of those binary faith questions in mainstream politics and most media. There were only two types: believers and apostates. The tripartite Anglophone deal for nuclear subs came as a rude shock to the French who had been contracted (by the Turnbull government) to build our next generation of conventionally powered submarines. The costs were gargantuan but the long-term punt on unfailing US delivery was far greater because it relied on future administrations and unknowable security challenges in the decades ahead. Change of president? No worries. Everybody in Washington is onboard, the story went. Now, with Anthony Albanese on his way to the Americas for a possible first-ever meeting with Donald Trump, AUKUS is suddenly under active review to assess its consistency with Trump's populist rubric, "America First". Few really know where Trump stands or if he has ever thought about AUKUS. What is clear is that the president's acolytes are fuming about Australian sanctions on far-right members of Netanyahu's cabinet and are looking askance at Albanese's recent statements affirming Australia's exclusive right to set levels of defence spending. Then there's the whole trade/tariff argument. READ MORE: These eddies will make for trickier conditions than Albanese might have imagined only days ago. Might it even see a bilateral meeting delayed or downgraded as a rebuke to Australia? With friends like Trump, literally anything is possible. Which, by the way, is why blind faith in AUKUS has always been disreputable. With the precision of a barrister and the venom of a politician betrayed, Malcolm Turnbull has torpedoed the credulous heart of Australia's multibillion-dollar AUKUS evangelism, raising the question: are we the only true believers? If the answer turns out to be yes, and we may know soon, the unhealthy consensus between our two major parties will have been exposed as the most naive conflation of our security interests with those of another country since Iraq, or even Vietnam. "The UK is conducting a review of AUKUS" the former Liberal prime minister tweeted. "The US DoD [dept of defence] is conducting a review of AUKUS. But Australia, which has the most at stake, has no review. Our Parliament to date has been the least curious and least informed. Time to wake up?" Maybe. We don't really do introspection and we're not much inclined towards looking backwards, either. To its credit, the UK allowed seven years for its Chilcot inquiry into Britain's disastrous enthusiasm for the Iraq invasion. It found that non-military options had been deliberately overlooked, that Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction, and that the UK had too willingly agreed with America in sexing up intelligence. An easily beguiled Australia was along for the ride, unlawful and unethical as it all was. Yet an Australian equivalent of the Chilcot process was never embarked on in the years after. Lessons went unlearned. When it was unveiled in September 2021, AUKUS quickly became the new big thing - one of those binary faith questions in mainstream politics and most media. There were only two types: believers and apostates. The tripartite Anglophone deal for nuclear subs came as a rude shock to the French who had been contracted (by the Turnbull government) to build our next generation of conventionally powered submarines. The costs were gargantuan but the long-term punt on unfailing US delivery was far greater because it relied on future administrations and unknowable security challenges in the decades ahead. Change of president? No worries. Everybody in Washington is onboard, the story went. Now, with Anthony Albanese on his way to the Americas for a possible first-ever meeting with Donald Trump, AUKUS is suddenly under active review to assess its consistency with Trump's populist rubric, "America First". Few really know where Trump stands or if he has ever thought about AUKUS. What is clear is that the president's acolytes are fuming about Australian sanctions on far-right members of Netanyahu's cabinet and are looking askance at Albanese's recent statements affirming Australia's exclusive right to set levels of defence spending. Then there's the whole trade/tariff argument. READ MORE: These eddies will make for trickier conditions than Albanese might have imagined only days ago. Might it even see a bilateral meeting delayed or downgraded as a rebuke to Australia? With friends like Trump, literally anything is possible. Which, by the way, is why blind faith in AUKUS has always been disreputable. With the precision of a barrister and the venom of a politician betrayed, Malcolm Turnbull has torpedoed the credulous heart of Australia's multibillion-dollar AUKUS evangelism, raising the question: are we the only true believers? If the answer turns out to be yes, and we may know soon, the unhealthy consensus between our two major parties will have been exposed as the most naive conflation of our security interests with those of another country since Iraq, or even Vietnam. "The UK is conducting a review of AUKUS" the former Liberal prime minister tweeted. "The US DoD [dept of defence] is conducting a review of AUKUS. But Australia, which has the most at stake, has no review. Our Parliament to date has been the least curious and least informed. Time to wake up?" Maybe. We don't really do introspection and we're not much inclined towards looking backwards, either. To its credit, the UK allowed seven years for its Chilcot inquiry into Britain's disastrous enthusiasm for the Iraq invasion. It found that non-military options had been deliberately overlooked, that Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction, and that the UK had too willingly agreed with America in sexing up intelligence. An easily beguiled Australia was along for the ride, unlawful and unethical as it all was. Yet an Australian equivalent of the Chilcot process was never embarked on in the years after. Lessons went unlearned. When it was unveiled in September 2021, AUKUS quickly became the new big thing - one of those binary faith questions in mainstream politics and most media. There were only two types: believers and apostates. The tripartite Anglophone deal for nuclear subs came as a rude shock to the French who had been contracted (by the Turnbull government) to build our next generation of conventionally powered submarines. The costs were gargantuan but the long-term punt on unfailing US delivery was far greater because it relied on future administrations and unknowable security challenges in the decades ahead. Change of president? No worries. Everybody in Washington is onboard, the story went. Now, with Anthony Albanese on his way to the Americas for a possible first-ever meeting with Donald Trump, AUKUS is suddenly under active review to assess its consistency with Trump's populist rubric, "America First". Few really know where Trump stands or if he has ever thought about AUKUS. What is clear is that the president's acolytes are fuming about Australian sanctions on far-right members of Netanyahu's cabinet and are looking askance at Albanese's recent statements affirming Australia's exclusive right to set levels of defence spending. Then there's the whole trade/tariff argument. READ MORE: These eddies will make for trickier conditions than Albanese might have imagined only days ago. Might it even see a bilateral meeting delayed or downgraded as a rebuke to Australia? With friends like Trump, literally anything is possible. Which, by the way, is why blind faith in AUKUS has always been disreputable. With the precision of a barrister and the venom of a politician betrayed, Malcolm Turnbull has torpedoed the credulous heart of Australia's multibillion-dollar AUKUS evangelism, raising the question: are we the only true believers? If the answer turns out to be yes, and we may know soon, the unhealthy consensus between our two major parties will have been exposed as the most naive conflation of our security interests with those of another country since Iraq, or even Vietnam. "The UK is conducting a review of AUKUS" the former Liberal prime minister tweeted. "The US DoD [dept of defence] is conducting a review of AUKUS. But Australia, which has the most at stake, has no review. Our Parliament to date has been the least curious and least informed. Time to wake up?" Maybe. We don't really do introspection and we're not much inclined towards looking backwards, either. To its credit, the UK allowed seven years for its Chilcot inquiry into Britain's disastrous enthusiasm for the Iraq invasion. It found that non-military options had been deliberately overlooked, that Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction, and that the UK had too willingly agreed with America in sexing up intelligence. An easily beguiled Australia was along for the ride, unlawful and unethical as it all was. Yet an Australian equivalent of the Chilcot process was never embarked on in the years after. Lessons went unlearned. When it was unveiled in September 2021, AUKUS quickly became the new big thing - one of those binary faith questions in mainstream politics and most media. There were only two types: believers and apostates. The tripartite Anglophone deal for nuclear subs came as a rude shock to the French who had been contracted (by the Turnbull government) to build our next generation of conventionally powered submarines. The costs were gargantuan but the long-term punt on unfailing US delivery was far greater because it relied on future administrations and unknowable security challenges in the decades ahead. Change of president? No worries. Everybody in Washington is onboard, the story went. Now, with Anthony Albanese on his way to the Americas for a possible first-ever meeting with Donald Trump, AUKUS is suddenly under active review to assess its consistency with Trump's populist rubric, "America First". Few really know where Trump stands or if he has ever thought about AUKUS. What is clear is that the president's acolytes are fuming about Australian sanctions on far-right members of Netanyahu's cabinet and are looking askance at Albanese's recent statements affirming Australia's exclusive right to set levels of defence spending. Then there's the whole trade/tariff argument. READ MORE: These eddies will make for trickier conditions than Albanese might have imagined only days ago. Might it even see a bilateral meeting delayed or downgraded as a rebuke to Australia? With friends like Trump, literally anything is possible. Which, by the way, is why blind faith in AUKUS has always been disreputable.
