A prominent Victorian Liberal Member of Parliament is engaged in a last-ditch effort to retain her candidacy for the upcoming state election, escalating an internal party dispute to the Supreme Court. The MP, who represents the Western Metropolitan Region in the upper house, faces potential disendorsement following her steadfast refusal to apologize to a parliamentary colleague.

Allegations and Police Review

The controversy stems from an incident in May, where the MP accused former party leader Matthew Guy of assaulting her at a community event. She alleged she was "grabbed, held and pulled with force that caused me pain and distress." This claim led to a review by law enforcement authorities. While initial reports suggested a 'headlock,' police reviewed CCTV footage of the interaction, which reportedly showed Mr. Guy placing his hand on the MP's back during a conversation at a crowded function. Following a thorough investigation, police confirmed that no offence was detected.

Mr. Guy has consistently maintained his innocence regarding the allegations and demanded an apology, a stance supported by Opposition Leader Jess Wilson. Reports indicate that Mr. Guy has also threatened defamation action against his colleague.

Refusal to Apologize and Legal Challenge

Despite accepting that Mr. Guy did not physically apply a headlock, the MP has firmly stated she will not issue an apology. She asserts that her initial allegation was made in good faith, utilizing the party's confidential complaint processes. In a statement presented to the party's state executive this week, she articulated her belief that she should not be subjected to "public vilification or professional retaliation" for following due process. She further emphasized that the specific grounds for an apology have not been adequately explained to her, labeling any removal without reasonable justification as "disgraceful."

To challenge the party's move to revoke her preselection, the MP has sought an injunction in the Supreme Court. A one-day trial has been scheduled for Friday, highlighting the urgency and seriousness of the internal conflict.

Proposed Resolution and Broader Implications

In an attempt to find a resolution, the MP proposed a joint statement with the party. This statement would clarify that Mr. Guy's actions were intended as a "friendly gesture in a noisy environment" and acknowledge that he may not have realized his colleague, who lives with PTSD, was experiencing "pain, fear or distress."

Legal correspondence from the MP's lawyer to the investigating detective senior constable in July reiterated the assertion of an assault, broadly defining the application of force to include any physical contact. However, police maintained their decision not to lay charges. The MP argues that defending herself against disendorsement is a matter of "principle," asserting that her removal would set a dangerous precedent regarding party members' ability to use internal complaints processes without fear of political reprisal. She stressed that her sworn police statement was carefully worded, avoiding terms like "violent" and not attributing malicious intent to Mr. Guy, despite describing the interaction as "short, painful and distressing, degrading and confusing."

This ongoing dispute is not the first time the MP has been involved in high-profile internal party conflicts. Earlier in her term, she successfully sued former opposition leader John Pesutto for defamation, further straining her relationship within the partyroom. With Mr. Guy also threatening renewed defamation action, the stakes are exceptionally high for all parties involved as the Supreme Court prepares to hear the case.