The Napthine government is “quite prepared” to banish Geoff Shaw from Parliament after deciding the balance-of-power MP can inflict no further damage to the Coalition’s legislative agenda.
The government spent the final parliamentary week of Mr Shaw’s 11-day suspension with a flurry of tough-on-crime announcements.
Mr Shaw’s expulsion from Parliament is now being viewed as a serious option as the Coalition enters a final phase of the political cycle focused on marginal electorate campaigning.
“There is nothing left on the legislative agenda that could make much difference,” a senior source said. “His time in the sun is over”.
Mr Shaw’s expulsion would leave the government without the numbers needed to protect against any no-confidence motion, although there is now no chance of an early election because of the proximity to the general election.
The MP was suspended from Parliament in June and will face permanent expulsion if he fails to deliver a satisfactory apology and repay almost $7000 for misusing his parliamentary vehicle when he returns on September 2.
Cabinet minister Louise Asher this week provocatively claimed Mr Shaw wanted to travel to London at taxpayers’ expense to get married.
On Thursday, Attorney-General Robert Clark further antagonised the Frankston independent, accusing him of inappropriately demanding judicial appointments in exchange for his support in Parliament.
More than two months after Premier Denis Napthine accused Mr Shaw of making the “outrageous” demand of him, the Attorney-General has revealed that he too was approached by Mr Shaw, who had suggested “one or two” names.
Pressed on whether he felt the balance-of-power MP was making demands of him to secure his support, Mr Clark said: “At a certain point I believed that Mr Shaw was.
“He was simply indicating in his conversation with me that he was expecting and insisting that a particular appointment be made. That is completely unacceptable and it was rejected.”
In question time, the opposition tried to expose both Dr Napthine and Mr Clark with a series of questions about why they had not referred the “demands” to the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission.
They also asked Dr Napthine when he became aware that Mr Shaw had spoken to the Attorney-General about appointments. He did not directly address these questions.
Mr Shaw, who had previously expressed annoyance about a left-leaning bias on the judiciary, has denied demanding particular appointments.
When contacted on Thursday, Mr Shaw declined to comment on the claims, or whether he would deliver a satisfactory apology. He said he had been busy doorknocking in Frankston, handing the phone to a constituent, who said: “You should piss off and leave him alone, he is good bloke.”
The Labor Party has referred claims that Mr Shaw made demands for a judicial appointment in exchange for his support to the IBAC , which is now deciding whether to investigate.
Dr Napthine, who says he cannot remember the name of the person Mr Shaw had demanded for the judiciary, confirmed the commission had written to him requesting information, promising to fully co-operate.
Opposition Leader Daniel Andrews predicted that the “circus” would continue when Mr Shaw returns to Parliament. “He’s not even back and the circus has started again,” he said.
