Lehrmann called 'national joke' on return to lion's den
The former federal political staffer is appealing his loss to Network Ten and journalist Lisa Wilkinson, whom he sued over an interview they conducted with his former colleague Brittany Higgins on The Project in 2021.
In his ruling on the defamation case in April 2024, Federal Court Justice Michael Lee found Ms Higgins' claims she had been raped by Lehrmann in parliament house in 2019 were proven on the balance of probabilities.
In his headline-grabbing decision, the judge quipped: "Having escaped the lions' den, Mr Lehrmann made the mistake of going back for his hat" in reference to his doomed defamation bid.
Lehrmann's lawyer Zali Burrows told the appeal court on Wednesday Justice Lee's ruling, on the heels of an abandoned criminal trial, meant Lehrmann has become probably "the most damaged man in Australia".
Media attention, aggravated by commentary from Channel Ten and Wilkinson, led to a flood of hateful social media comments aimed at Lehrmann, she said.
"He's pretty much become a national joke," Ms Burrows told the court.
She argued Lehrmann, 30, was denied procedural fairness because the facts found by Justice Lee were "starkly different" from the case run by Ten.
The ex-Liberal staffer had been "taken by surprise" the judge had adopted a "softer" sequence of events that had not been put to Lehrmann in cross-examination, Ms Burrows said.
She claimed Lehrmann had been accused of committing a violent rape but Justice Lee had found it was a "non-violent rape", prompting Justice Craig Colvin to say he wasn't sure he understood that concept.
Ten's barrister Matt Collins KC contended the judge had found Ms Higgins' rape was violent, and indeed: "All rape is violent".
Lehrmann argued the judge was not satisfied about a number of the violent elements argued by Ten, including he had held open Ms Higgins' legs.
"The sting of the (defamatory) imputation resides in the act of intercourse without consent, not in any detail of it," Dr Collins said.
He rejected Lehrmann's suggestions he should be awarded damages of more than $20,000 if successful on appeal.
Lehrmann raped Ms Higgins when he knew she was seriously intoxicated, continued raping her when she became aware, and left her in a state of undress, Dr Collins said.
"That is not a man with any reputation in respect of sexual morality that would warrant compensation," he said.
He took issue with Justice Lee's finding Lehrmann had been reckless as to whether Ms Higgins was consenting and urged the appeal court to instead find he knew she did not consent.
Ms Wilkinson's lawyer agreed Lehrmann's "level of indifference" could not be inadvertent and instead amounted to a definition of "intentional rape" as understood by an ordinary person.
"A young man who knows that a woman is very drunk knows that she cannot consent," Sue Chrysanthou SC said.
"This is not a legal question, this is a question that is considered on the standards of the community."
Lehrmann not only knew Ms Higgins was very intoxicated but encouraged her to drink, she said.
Both lawyers argued Lehrmann had been confronted with the main facts of the case as found by Justice Lee: that sex took place, Ms Higgins did not consent and Lehrmann had been reckless as to her consent.
Lehrmann maintains he did not sexually assault Ms Higgins and a 2022 criminal case against him was abandoned without any findings against him.
Earlier in the day, Ms Burrows apologised Lehrmann was not represented by a silk, telling the panel of judges he "really wanted" Guy Reynolds SC but "couldn't afford" to engage him.
The defamation case and related appeal are among a host of court actions spawned by Ms Higgins' allegation of sexual assault.
The Western Australian Supreme Court will next Wednesday rule on former Liberal senator Linda Reynolds' high-profile defamation case against Ms Higgins, her former employee.
1800 RESPECT (1800 737 732)
National Sexual Abuse and Redress Support Service 1800 211 028
Bruce Lehrmann has challenged damning findings from a landmark defamation case, arguing not all rape is violent as his tattered reputation takes another beating.
The former federal political staffer is appealing his loss to Network Ten and journalist Lisa Wilkinson, whom he sued over an interview they conducted with his former colleague Brittany Higgins on The Project in 2021.
In his ruling on the defamation case in April 2024, Federal Court Justice Michael Lee found Ms Higgins' claims she had been raped by Lehrmann in parliament house in 2019 were proven on the balance of probabilities.
In his headline-grabbing decision, the judge quipped: "Having escaped the lions' den, Mr Lehrmann made the mistake of going back for his hat" in reference to his doomed defamation bid.
Lehrmann's lawyer Zali Burrows told the appeal court on Wednesday Justice Lee's ruling, on the heels of an abandoned criminal trial, meant Lehrmann has become probably "the most damaged man in Australia".
Media attention, aggravated by commentary from Channel Ten and Wilkinson, led to a flood of hateful social media comments aimed at Lehrmann, she said.
"He's pretty much become a national joke," Ms Burrows told the court.
She argued Lehrmann, 30, was denied procedural fairness because the facts found by Justice Lee were "starkly different" from the case run by Ten.
The ex-Liberal staffer had been "taken by surprise" the judge had adopted a "softer" sequence of events that had not been put to Lehrmann in cross-examination, Ms Burrows said.
She claimed Lehrmann had been accused of committing a violent rape but Justice Lee had found it was a "non-violent rape", prompting Justice Craig Colvin to say he wasn't sure he understood that concept.
Ten's barrister Matt Collins KC contended the judge had found Ms Higgins' rape was violent, and indeed: "All rape is violent".
Lehrmann argued the judge was not satisfied about a number of the violent elements argued by Ten, including he had held open Ms Higgins' legs.
"The sting of the (defamatory) imputation resides in the act of intercourse without consent, not in any detail of it," Dr Collins said.
He rejected Lehrmann's suggestions he should be awarded damages of more than $20,000 if successful on appeal.
Lehrmann raped Ms Higgins when he knew she was seriously intoxicated, continued raping her when she became aware, and left her in a state of undress, Dr Collins said.
"That is not a man with any reputation in respect of sexual morality that would warrant compensation," he said.
He took issue with Justice Lee's finding Lehrmann had been reckless as to whether Ms Higgins was consenting and urged the appeal court to instead find he knew she did not consent.
Ms Wilkinson's lawyer agreed Lehrmann's "level of indifference" could not be inadvertent and instead amounted to a definition of "intentional rape" as understood by an ordinary person.
"A young man who knows that a woman is very drunk knows that she cannot consent," Sue Chrysanthou SC said.
"This is not a legal question, this is a question that is considered on the standards of the community."
Lehrmann not only knew Ms Higgins was very intoxicated but encouraged her to drink, she said.
Both lawyers argued Lehrmann had been confronted with the main facts of the case as found by Justice Lee: that sex took place, Ms Higgins did not consent and Lehrmann had been reckless as to her consent.
Lehrmann maintains he did not sexually assault Ms Higgins and a 2022 criminal case against him was abandoned without any findings against him.
Earlier in the day, Ms Burrows apologised Lehrmann was not represented by a silk, telling the panel of judges he "really wanted" Guy Reynolds SC but "couldn't afford" to engage him.
The defamation case and related appeal are among a host of court actions spawned by Ms Higgins' allegation of sexual assault.
The Western Australian Supreme Court will next Wednesday rule on former Liberal senator Linda Reynolds' high-profile defamation case against Ms Higgins, her former employee.
1800 RESPECT (1800 737 732)
National Sexual Abuse and Redress Support Service 1800 211 028
Bruce Lehrmann has challenged damning findings from a landmark defamation case, arguing not all rape is violent as his tattered reputation takes another beating.
The former federal political staffer is appealing his loss to Network Ten and journalist Lisa Wilkinson, whom he sued over an interview they conducted with his former colleague Brittany Higgins on The Project in 2021.
In his ruling on the defamation case in April 2024, Federal Court Justice Michael Lee found Ms Higgins' claims she had been raped by Lehrmann in parliament house in 2019 were proven on the balance of probabilities.
In his headline-grabbing decision, the judge quipped: "Having escaped the lions' den, Mr Lehrmann made the mistake of going back for his hat" in reference to his doomed defamation bid.
Lehrmann's lawyer Zali Burrows told the appeal court on Wednesday Justice Lee's ruling, on the heels of an abandoned criminal trial, meant Lehrmann has become probably "the most damaged man in Australia".
Media attention, aggravated by commentary from Channel Ten and Wilkinson, led to a flood of hateful social media comments aimed at Lehrmann, she said.
"He's pretty much become a national joke," Ms Burrows told the court.
She argued Lehrmann, 30, was denied procedural fairness because the facts found by Justice Lee were "starkly different" from the case run by Ten.
The ex-Liberal staffer had been "taken by surprise" the judge had adopted a "softer" sequence of events that had not been put to Lehrmann in cross-examination, Ms Burrows said.
She claimed Lehrmann had been accused of committing a violent rape but Justice Lee had found it was a "non-violent rape", prompting Justice Craig Colvin to say he wasn't sure he understood that concept.
Ten's barrister Matt Collins KC contended the judge had found Ms Higgins' rape was violent, and indeed: "All rape is violent".
Lehrmann argued the judge was not satisfied about a number of the violent elements argued by Ten, including he had held open Ms Higgins' legs.
"The sting of the (defamatory) imputation resides in the act of intercourse without consent, not in any detail of it," Dr Collins said.
He rejected Lehrmann's suggestions he should be awarded damages of more than $20,000 if successful on appeal.
Lehrmann raped Ms Higgins when he knew she was seriously intoxicated, continued raping her when she became aware, and left her in a state of undress, Dr Collins said.
"That is not a man with any reputation in respect of sexual morality that would warrant compensation," he said.
He took issue with Justice Lee's finding Lehrmann had been reckless as to whether Ms Higgins was consenting and urged the appeal court to instead find he knew she did not consent.
Ms Wilkinson's lawyer agreed Lehrmann's "level of indifference" could not be inadvertent and instead amounted to a definition of "intentional rape" as understood by an ordinary person.
"A young man who knows that a woman is very drunk knows that she cannot consent," Sue Chrysanthou SC said.
"This is not a legal question, this is a question that is considered on the standards of the community."
Lehrmann not only knew Ms Higgins was very intoxicated but encouraged her to drink, she said.
Both lawyers argued Lehrmann had been confronted with the main facts of the case as found by Justice Lee: that sex took place, Ms Higgins did not consent and Lehrmann had been reckless as to her consent.
Lehrmann maintains he did not sexually assault Ms Higgins and a 2022 criminal case against him was abandoned without any findings against him.
Earlier in the day, Ms Burrows apologised Lehrmann was not represented by a silk, telling the panel of judges he "really wanted" Guy Reynolds SC but "couldn't afford" to engage him.
The defamation case and related appeal are among a host of court actions spawned by Ms Higgins' allegation of sexual assault.
The Western Australian Supreme Court will next Wednesday rule on former Liberal senator Linda Reynolds' high-profile defamation case against Ms Higgins, her former employee.
1800 RESPECT (1800 737 732)
National Sexual Abuse and Redress Support Service 1800 211 028
Bruce Lehrmann has challenged damning findings from a landmark defamation case, arguing not all rape is violent as his tattered reputation takes another beating.
The former federal political staffer is appealing his loss to Network Ten and journalist Lisa Wilkinson, whom he sued over an interview they conducted with his former colleague Brittany Higgins on The Project in 2021.
In his ruling on the defamation case in April 2024, Federal Court Justice Michael Lee found Ms Higgins' claims she had been raped by Lehrmann in parliament house in 2019 were proven on the balance of probabilities.
In his headline-grabbing decision, the judge quipped: "Having escaped the lions' den, Mr Lehrmann made the mistake of going back for his hat" in reference to his doomed defamation bid.
Lehrmann's lawyer Zali Burrows told the appeal court on Wednesday Justice Lee's ruling, on the heels of an abandoned criminal trial, meant Lehrmann has become probably "the most damaged man in Australia".
Media attention, aggravated by commentary from Channel Ten and Wilkinson, led to a flood of hateful social media comments aimed at Lehrmann, she said.
"He's pretty much become a national joke," Ms Burrows told the court.
She argued Lehrmann, 30, was denied procedural fairness because the facts found by Justice Lee were "starkly different" from the case run by Ten.
The ex-Liberal staffer had been "taken by surprise" the judge had adopted a "softer" sequence of events that had not been put to Lehrmann in cross-examination, Ms Burrows said.
She claimed Lehrmann had been accused of committing a violent rape but Justice Lee had found it was a "non-violent rape", prompting Justice Craig Colvin to say he wasn't sure he understood that concept.
Ten's barrister Matt Collins KC contended the judge had found Ms Higgins' rape was violent, and indeed: "All rape is violent".
Lehrmann argued the judge was not satisfied about a number of the violent elements argued by Ten, including he had held open Ms Higgins' legs.
"The sting of the (defamatory) imputation resides in the act of intercourse without consent, not in any detail of it," Dr Collins said.
He rejected Lehrmann's suggestions he should be awarded damages of more than $20,000 if successful on appeal.
Lehrmann raped Ms Higgins when he knew she was seriously intoxicated, continued raping her when she became aware, and left her in a state of undress, Dr Collins said.
"That is not a man with any reputation in respect of sexual morality that would warrant compensation," he said.
He took issue with Justice Lee's finding Lehrmann had been reckless as to whether Ms Higgins was consenting and urged the appeal court to instead find he knew she did not consent.
Ms Wilkinson's lawyer agreed Lehrmann's "level of indifference" could not be inadvertent and instead amounted to a definition of "intentional rape" as understood by an ordinary person.
"A young man who knows that a woman is very drunk knows that she cannot consent," Sue Chrysanthou SC said.
"This is not a legal question, this is a question that is considered on the standards of the community."
Lehrmann not only knew Ms Higgins was very intoxicated but encouraged her to drink, she said.
Both lawyers argued Lehrmann had been confronted with the main facts of the case as found by Justice Lee: that sex took place, Ms Higgins did not consent and Lehrmann had been reckless as to her consent.
Lehrmann maintains he did not sexually assault Ms Higgins and a 2022 criminal case against him was abandoned without any findings against him.
Earlier in the day, Ms Burrows apologised Lehrmann was not represented by a silk, telling the panel of judges he "really wanted" Guy Reynolds SC but "couldn't afford" to engage him.
The defamation case and related appeal are among a host of court actions spawned by Ms Higgins' allegation of sexual assault.
The Western Australian Supreme Court will next Wednesday rule on former Liberal senator Linda Reynolds' high-profile defamation case against Ms Higgins, her former employee.
1800 RESPECT (1800 737 732)
National Sexual Abuse and Redress Support Service 1800 211 028
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
ABC News
4 hours ago
- ABC News
Bruce Lehrmann's lawyer seems to have forgotten one key detail: the defamation case was his idea
Bruce Lehrmann's bid to overturn the damning findings of his failed defamation case made for intensely awkward viewing. The former Liberal staffer was back in court this week, more than a year after Federal Court Justice Michael Lee dismissed his case against Network Ten and journalist Lisa Wilkinson, over the blockbuster interview with Brittany Higgins on The Project in 2021. Justice Lee was satisfied that the civil standard had been proven — that, on the balance of probabilities, Mr Lehrmann had raped Ms Higgins in an office at Parliament House after a night out drinking. But Mr Lehrmann, who has always maintained his innocence, launched an appeal seeking to overturn that judgment. For that task, he retained Zali Burrows, a high-profile Sydney solicitor whose primary experience has been in criminal law. She would spend the two days of appeal hearings acting alone for Mr Lehrmann — who sat beside her at the bar table — having confessed to the Federal Court that her client could not afford Sydney silk Guy Reynolds. She conceded she was underprepared. "I'm just going to try and do the best I can," she told the court on Wednesday. It was just the first sign that the path ahead for Mr Lehrmann's appeal would be rocky. Ms Burrows claimed Justice Lee's findings erred in four ways, but she frequently found a way back to her central point: that Mr Lehrmann had been denied procedural fairness. She claimed the original trial judge came up with "his own version" of how the alleged rape occurred, which strayed too far from the "forceful" rape that The Project had presented. "It is not, with respect, a judge's role to do that," Ms Burrows said. At one point, Ms Burrows even tried to characterise the court's findings as describing a "soft rape" — a kind of "consolation prize" for Network Ten, since she said Justice Lee was not persuaded as to the network's version of events. And her argument that the case could have turned out differently if a varying set of allegations had been put to Mr Lehrmann was met with confusion by the three-judge bench. "You need to explain why it is a different case," Justice Craig Colvin told Ms Burrows. "His Honour [Justice Lee] didn't find sex on a different day … with a different lead up of different circumstances … "The findings His Honour has made are all within the four corners of what was described. Justice Michael Wigney also pointed out that Mr Lehrmann has consistently maintained his innocence and said that no sexual intercourse took place. He told Ms Burrows it would not have made sense for Mr Lerhmann to have faced questions about the nature of an act he was denying. It was a point that went "round and round in circles," Justice Wigney said, summarising the clear observation that Ms Burrows seemed overwhelmed. Struggling to articulate certain arguments, answer questions clearly, follow page references, or, at times, even find documents, Ms Burrows laboured to advance the 16 pages of written submissions she had lodged months ago. Indeed, she strayed far from them, often lapsing into criminal terminology, such as telling the court there was a case put "against" Bruce Lehrmann that he was required to "defend". Of course, Mr Lehrmann has already been through that process in the ACT, which ended in a mistrial with no verdict and no criminal findings against him. But anyone who heard Ms Burrows's description of Mr Lehrmann's appeal grounds could be forgiven for forgetting that her client was the applicant — and now appellant — in a civil proceeding. Mr Lehrmann was the one who — to borrow a phrase associated with this case — "made the mistake of going back for his hat". Nor did the civil case require proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. While it was still Network Ten's job to justify its broadcast, establishing the "substantial truth" would suffice. Ms Burrows was up against two of the country's most accomplished defamation specialists in Matthew Collins and Sue Chrysanthou. Her learned friends were friendly enough to recognise that Ms Burrows needed time to review the vast bundles of material from the trial, with which they were innately familiar. Perhaps given that familiarity, they also used the opportunity of the appeal to launch their own contentions with Justice Lee's finding. Network Ten urged the court to find Bruce Lehrmann did in fact know he did not have consent for sex, based on how intoxicated Brittany Higgins was, and his role in encouraging her to drink. Ms Chrysanthou also sought to reverse Justice Lee's decision to dismiss Lisa Wilkinson's qualified privilege defence. She argued the journalist acted reasonably in preparation of the program, going so far as to prepare interview questions from a make-up chair if Mr Lehrmann took the opportunity for a right of reply on the day of the broadcast. Four years and three courts later, Mr Lehrmann has certainly exercised that right. The Full Court of the Federal Court has reserved a decision which could prove to be the end of what Justice Lee described as "an omnishambles".
ABC News
6 hours ago
- ABC News
Anti-corruption advocate calls for greater scrutiny over political lobbyists
The good news, for those currently striding the halls of power, is that there is life after politics. The bad news, for the rest of us, is that a favoured career path for ex-pollies involves peddling influence for powerful clients with their former colleagues, often behind closed doors. Lobbying has become big business. At last count, around 727 lobbyists were registered in the national capital, more than three times the number of elected officials sitting in parliament. Even more concerning, the rules governing federal lobbyists are among the slackest in the country. A new study by Transparency International Australia has found that the Commonwealth ranks almost last when it comes to transparency, integrity and enforcement of lobbyists, outranking only the Northern Territory. The findings were released in conjunction with an Australian Anti-Corruption Summit where lobbying reform was a central theme. Queensland comes out on top, followed by South Australia, New South Wales, Victoria, Western Australia. Tasmania and the ACT. "Despite a stated cooling-off period, former federal ministers can start lobbying straight out of office with impunity, while only Queensland has a ban of two years to stop the revolving door," the report found. According to the report, at least eight federal ministers, senior ministerial advisers and at least one state premier have taken up roles promoting gambling. But the infiltration is even more pronounced in the resources industry. Unlike most states, the Commonwealth has no independent regulator to enforce rules around lobbying and, instead of dedicated legislation, there is merely an administrative code of conduct. It may be the richest all-cash takeover offer in Australian history but money alone is not enough. When the Abu Dhabi National Oil Company, in partnership with a national wealth fund and US private equity firm Carlyle, lobbed a $36 billion bid for gas giant Santos, the Australian company's board was quick to accept the offer to shareholders. But the consortium has to step through a maze of regulatory hoops before the bid gets across the line, including an assessment by the Foreign Investment Review Board and then the tick of approval from Treasurer Jim Chalmers. After years of gas shortages and soaring energy prices, a backlash from business and community groups is gathering pace, an environment that has seen a furious demand for lobbyists. Among those pushing for the deal to proceed unhindered is former federal minister Stephen Conroy, who operates under the banner of TG Public Affairs. He is working alongside Michael Choueifate, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese's former chief of staff. It would be naive to think those opposing the transaction wouldn't be equally as armed in the lobbying department. While there is nothing untoward in their engagements, Transparency International Australia argues that we should be concerned about the lack of public scrutiny over the activities of former politicians and staffers and the industry more generally. It is pushing for a range of reforms, including a legislated code of conduct and a waiting period of at least three years before former politicians, senior staffers and former public servants can take up positions related to their previous roles. It also argues that the current list of registered lobbyists ignores the vast army of individuals working inside corporations and is demanding amendments requiring lobbyists to declare who they have met with and who has unescorted access to Parliament House. It also wants an independent body to enforce standards and codes of conduct for both parliamentarians and lobbyists along with sanctions and fines for those who fail to meet the standards.
Sky News AU
6 hours ago
- Sky News AU
‘I am so p***ed off': Former premier Jeff Kennett details deep 'frustration' at state of Victoria, how in can be turned around
Former premier Jeff Kennett has opened up about his 'frustration and disappointment' at the state Victoria finds itself in and how it could be turned around in just two or three years. Mr Kennett made headlines on Thursday when he told The Nightly the state he once led was 'f***ed' – a description he extended to the economy and the state of public safety. In a lengthy interview with Sky News Australia's Steve Price on Thursday evening, the former Liberal premier apologised for using the swear word, but said he was not only 'frustrated' but extremely 'p***ed off'. 'I cannot tell you how frustrated and disappointed I am at where we find Victoria today. I mean, we have so many things going for us as a state and as a country, and yet we are financially going down the gurgle very quickly,' Mr Kennett said. The former premier, who revived the Victorian economy during his eight years in office, his feelings were not only about the economy and the effect it was having on government services, but about the spiralling crime crisis. 'We've now got this lack of focus on actually addressing this lawlessness, which has almost become a competition between some of our young today at great personal risk and price to people,' he said. 'So am I frustrated? Yes. Should I have used the F word? Probably not." Mr Kennett, who is the founding chair of mental health support organisation Beyond Blue, said the crime problems had partly been caused by Covid-19. 'In many ways it's become a competition between these young people out there, part of which I blame on Covid, (and the) disruption to education,' he said. 'You've seen the scores at schools, men down lower than ever before, men, young boys, frustrated, no good employment, out there trying to prove themselves and it's getting worse. 'Sadly, the government doesn't seem to care…. Why isn't our government protecting us? Why isn't our government changing the laws as a matter of urgency?' Mr Kennett said the state's crime crisis could be turned around in just two or three years by a government willing to take just a few clear steps. 'You need a good government focused on your and my safety and our children. You need the police force that has the manpower and the powers. You need legislation to make sure that the judiciary understand what the options are and their freedom of choice and interpretation is limited,' he said. 'Right now, we have a situation where our police force is technically 2,000 under manpower strength - a thousand less people, and the other thousand on sick leave, etc, with another 700 potentially to go before Christmas. '(And) current laws do no allow there to be a strict guidance for those magistrates and others… the government should make sure they understand what the rules are. 'I've come to the point now where I believe the only way through this is to fix these issues of policing, government and the judiciary.' The former premier said there needed to be a 'zero tolerance' approach. 'We've got to change the culture, but it's not going to happen overnight – you can do it over two or three years,' he said. "If anyone commits a crime, there's got to be a consequence and, importantly, the magistrates do not have a choice as to whether they give bail or not. 'The only choice I think they should have is whether their interpretation of the crime committed by the individual, partly dependent on their age and the nature of the crimes, sends them to a prison farm or to a youth centre or to prison itself. They don't have the opportunity of saying: 'You can go back on the street'. 'Then you've got to give the police the powers and you've got to direct the magistrates and the judiciary that we're going to clean this up, but it will take two or three years.' Pivoting to Victoria's financial woes, Mr Kennett said the methods he had used to get the budget back into surplus when he was first elected in 1992 would not work today because of the massive size of the state's debt – which is projected to hit $194 billion by 2029. 'They're borrowing money without any sense of obligation to those who are going to follow. You and I'll get through our lives, our children, our grandchildren, won't. They'll have to bear that,' he said. 'Our security is at risk. We're not living in a third-world country, we're living in Australia and the government doesn't care. 'So yes, I was frustrated and I publicly apologise for using the word, but that's how I feel. I am so p***ed off.' Mr Kennett was also asked about the latest opinion polls, which showed the Labor government on track to win a fourth straight election. However, the political veteran said this 'doesn't worry me at all'. 'I think if people were going into the polling booths to cast their vote you'd get a very different result,' he said, before taking aim at Premier Jacinta Allan's proposal to make working from home a legal right. 'Jacinta has thought of something that seems popular, but is an absolute disaster. 'How are you going to build houses if your tradies can only work three days a week? 'Who's going to teach our children? Or are we going back to a situation where our teachers will teach from home, and our children will be at home? That was the cause, the lockdown, of so much of this violence today. 'They haven't thought it through, but they don't care. 'She's not introducing legislation until next year and so she can have the argument all the way up to the election… It's all about them. It's not about you, it's not me, it's not about our grandchildren.'
