Thursday, 23 February 2023
Committees
Parliamentary committees
Committees
Parliamentary committees
Membership
Mary-Anne THOMAS (Macedon – Leader of the House, Minister for Health, Minister for Health Infrastructure, Minister for Medical Research) (09:34): I move, by leave:
That:
(1) Jacinta Allan, Roma Britnell, Ben Carroll, Tim McCurdy, Cindy McLeish, Danny Pearson and Mary-Anne Thomas be members of the Dispute Resolution Committee.
(2) Anthony Cianflone, Wayne Farnham, Alison Marchant, John Mullahy, Kim O’Keeffe, Dylan Wight and Jess Wilson be members of the Economy and Infrastructure Committee.
(3) Brad Battin, Will Fowles, Sam Hibbins, Emma Kealy, Nathan Lambert and Emma Vulin be members of the Electoral Matters Committee.
(4) Juliana Addison, Martin Cameron, Jordan Crugnale, Daniela De Martino, Sam Groth, Martha Haylett and David Hodgett be members of the Environment and Planning Committee.
(5) Tim Bull, Matt Fregon, James Newbury, Pauline Richards, Ellen Sandell and Jackson Taylor be members of the House Committee.
(6) Jade Benham, Gary Maas, Paul Mercurio, Tim Read, Kim Wells and Belinda Wilson be members of the Integrity and Oversight Committee.
(7) Annabelle Cleeland, Chris Couzens, Chris Crewther, Ella George, Cindy McLeish, Meng Heang Tak and Jackson Taylor be members of the Legal and Social Issues Committee.
(8) A select committee be appointed to inquire into and report upon complaints of breach of privilege referred to it by the House, right of reply applications referred under standing order 227 and any other matter referred to it by the House; and Lily D’Ambrosio, Melissa Horne, James Newbury, Danny Pearson, Mary-Anne Thomas, Peter Walsh and Kim Wells, be members of the Privileges Committee.
(9) Sarah Connolly, Paul Hamer, Mathew Hilakari, Lauren Kathage, Danny O’Brien and Tim Read be members of the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee.
(10) Dylan Wight be a member of the Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations Committee.
(11) A select committee be appointed to consider and report upon the standing orders and practices of the House; and the Speaker, Jacinta Allan, Matt Fregon, James Newbury, Pauline Richards, Ellen Sandell, David Southwick, Mary-Anne Thomas and Peter Walsh, be members of the Standing Orders Committee.
James NEWBURY (Brighton) (09:36): I wish to move an amendment. I move:
That after the word ‘Committee’ in paragraph (6) the following words be inserted: ‘and the house requests the Committee elect a non-government member as its Chair’.
It is a dark week in Victoria, and we move an amendment today not in our own name but in the name of Victorians and in the name of integrity experts, integrity committee members and the integrity field in Victoria. We are speaking on their behalf.
Today the government has moved to appoint members to a number of committees, one being the Integrity and Oversight Committee. We saw the Integrity and Oversight Committee in the last term operate in a way that caused deep distress to all Victorians. Over the time of the last term we saw a committee that refused to hear the testimony of integrity agencies. There is nothing worse that a committee can do than refuse to hear the experts in the field who are attempting to appear before them. What did we see during those committee hearings? We saw feeds cut. We saw the gagging of integrity experts from speaking to that committee.
But I do not move this amendment this morning in my name; I move this amendment in the name of the IBAC Commissioner, Robert Redlich. Robert Redlich was asked in December what he would want changed in Victoria to assist with integrity in relation to the operation of the committee, and he said:
… that it no longer has a majority of members who are members of the party in government, and that the chair of the Committee is not from the party in government. So, the decisions made by the Committee cannot carry with them the perception that the decision was made for a partisan reason.
These are his words that he has put on the public record. Let me repeat the poignant point: that the chair of the committee is not from the party in government, because of the perception of decisions being made for partisan reasons.
This is an important amendment, an important enhancement to the operation of government, and had we seen a committee operate in a way that you would expect, in a way that this place has a tradition of doing – the great history of this place, the great history of the operation of committees in this place – we would not need to be moving this amendment.
Danny Pearson interjected.
James NEWBURY: It strikes me as more than passing strange that we hear interjections from the Assistant Treasurer, who has done more to undermine integrity in this place than almost anybody else.
Members interjecting.
The SPEAKER: Order! Speak to the motion only.
James NEWBURY: I appreciate, Speaker, that I should not have been distracted by the interjection. I apologise.
In relation to the amendment, Robert Redlich spoke in depth about the reasoning why he proposed a non-government member as chair of the committee, which goes to the heart of the amendment, because he said in his experience, his wealth of experience:
… which I’ve learned of as a result of the investigations of IBAC, the experiences of my fellow commissioners interstate –
this is not just his experience he is speaking from, it is from around the nation –
… during which, when we meet, we share our experiences, the reviews that have been conducted interstate, the federal environment tells me that around Australia … the way in which decision-making now occurs within executive … gives rise to much greater latitude for soft corruption.
These are deeply, deeply disturbing issues raised by Mr Redlich. We as a Parliament should take his wealth of experience seriously. We should be listening to him, and I see no reason why anyone of good conscience would not be listening to the experience of Mr Redlich and those experiences he has drawn upon from around Australia, which is why we have moved this amendment.
As much as it disappoints me to say it, it is not the only issue we see in the motion today. I note that section (8), the creation of the Privileges Committee, includes the member for Essendon. I note that, and I think the house should reflect on that: that the government has proposed to put the member for Essendon – and I am making no reflection other than to say –
Members interjecting.
The SPEAKER: Order!
James NEWBURY: I have made the simple point that he has been proposed –
The SPEAKER: I ask the member to come back to the amendment.
James NEWBURY: for that committee.
We have moved an important amendment today that would ensure that we have an independent chair of a committee in line with the proposal put forward by Mr Redlich after engaging with and discussing these issues in depth with people around the nation. I am certain Mr Redlich did not make these comments about the need for greater integrity and the fear of soft corruption lightly. In fact I am certain of it. I am certain a man of that standing does not provide a public interview without having thought through at great depth and probably at some pains as to whether or not he should make those comments in the way that he did. So what strikes me is that when he made those comments, he did it with purpose, and he would have done it with a very heavy heart, I am sure. We should be listening to his words, because he, unfortunately, was the man that tried to appear before a committee in this place and whose feed was cut – someone who turned up to this place to provide his insights, which we should be appreciative of. And yet that testimony was cut on a committee that, frankly speaking, over the last term saw five chairs.
I find it difficult to think of another example of where a committee has passed through so many chairs in a single term, which tells you something in and of itself: the member for Melton, followed by the former member for Altona, Ms Shing in the other place, the former member for Ringwood and finally the member for –
A member: Narre Warren South.
James NEWBURY: Narre Warren South, who lives a lot closer to my electorate than his, Mr St Kilda.
Members interjecting.
The SPEAKER: Order! Member for Brighton! I ask the Manager of Opposition Business to come back to the amendment.
James NEWBURY: I do apologise, Speaker – again distracted by the interjections.
There are a number of people I am sure in this chamber who would like to make a contribution on this issue, because this is an important issue. This is an important issue for the future of Victoria and goes to the heart of the integrity of this Parliament. This amendment says to Victorians, ‘We will operate in a way that you would expect us to.’ Victorians and Australians expect their community leaders to have integrity, to behave with integrity and to listen to people with integrity. Unfortunately that is not what we have seen, especially in relation to this committee, so we move this amendment not only in our name but in the name of Victorians and also in the name of experts like Mr Redlich who have put this good proposition forward.
Gary MAAS (Narre Warren South) (09:47): I rise to obviously speak against the amendment. I would like to take the opportunity to thank Commissioner Redlich for his time as IBAC Commissioner and for doing a stellar job during his term. He as the commissioner of an agency – not as a Court of Appeal judge but as a commissioner of an agency – is able –
Bridget Vallence interjected.
The SPEAKER: Order! Member for Evelyn!
Gary MAAS: to make those sorts of assertions. He has had a period of time as Commissioner and his term has come to an end. Of course in a democratic Victoria, in a Victoria that respects its separation of powers –
Members interjecting.
The SPEAKER: Order!
Gary MAAS: Let the record show that the opposition goes as far as to suggest that the separation of powers does not operate in this state.
Members interjecting.
Gary MAAS: Listen to them. Listen to this rabble.
Members interjecting.
The SPEAKER: I would expect a little more respect in this chamber for people who are on their feet.
Gary MAAS: Thank you, Speaker. What we seek out of the committees that are in this Parliament are not political outcomes. What we are seeking are actual outcomes. This amendment is about seeking a political outcome and a political gain, and there is no way that this side of the house, as extended as it is, is going to be supporting that. As I say, we thank Commissioner Redlich for his time as Commissioner of IBAC, and we speak against the amendment. I thank the house.
Tim READ (Brunswick) (09:49): First of all, I would like to acknowledge and thank the government for their good-faith negotiations resulting in the membership list of the committees. However, the Greens have a bill in the upper house to prevent government-dominated committees, which essentially would result in multiple committees avoiding having government chairs in investigatory committees.
I think it is fundamental, particularly for the Integrity and Oversight Committee, the role of which is to hold the government to account, that there is an impossible conflict of interest when the chair of the committee is a member of the government and often during the lifetime of the committee goes to join the very executive of the government. We have heard from the member for Brighton about the rapid turnover of chairs, sometimes like drummers in Spinal Tap. This is an appropriate and non-binding amendment for a single committee, and it is appropriate for the house to support it.
Paul EDBROOKE (Frankston) (09:51): I am a gentleman; I will keep my contribution short. I have done a fair bit of committee work over the last eight years.
A member: And it shows.
Paul EDBROOKE: Thank you very much. We have made a lot of good decisions and done a lot of hard work. There have been members of the opposition that have joined me on those committees, and one thing I think we can all agree on is the fact that committees choose their own chairs. That is something that –
Members interjecting.
Paul EDBROOKE: Those who have been here for 5 seconds might laugh, who have never been on a committee.
The SPEAKER: Order! Through the Chair, member for Frankston.
Paul EDBROOKE: But essentially what you will find has happened in all the time I have been in Parliament is that committees actually have chosen their own chairs. We have got people laughing. The member for Narre Warren South was talking about separation of powers. I see people laughing over there, but I am seeing this kind of fog go over their eyes and they are looking on their phones: ‘Separation of powers – what is it?’
Members interjecting.
The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Eildon.
Paul EDBROOKE: Again, I said I would keep my comments brief, but what we heard from the Manager of Opposition Business was nothing more than a soliloquy of apologies for actually having a go at and sledging people on the other side. It had nothing to do with committee work, it had nothing to do with selecting chairs of committees. I will leave it at that, but for those who maybe are unclear about what the separation of powers is, for those who are unclear about how committees choose their chairs, it is very clear that you need to go and do some research and maybe not listen to the people up on the front bench here –
The SPEAKER: I ask you not to use the word ‘you’.
Paul EDBROOKE: Thank you, Speaker – that are using this for political gain. We are going to have a division. I think we know what is going to happen in that division, and it is a waste of time.
Kim WELLS (Rowville) (09:53): I did not know whether I was going to live long enough to be able to get up here to speak. I support the amendment. As someone who was on the Integrity and Oversight Committee (IOC) in the last term of government, we saw the interference of government in that committee, and that is why this amendment is so very, very important. The Integrity and Oversight Committee is a parliamentary committee, not a government committee, and it is a breach of the Parliamentary Committees Act 2003 for the government to interfere. Then for the member for Narre Warren South to get up and talk about separation of powers, that is exactly my point – separation of powers, because you had the government interfering –
Members interjecting.
The SPEAKER: Order! Member for Rowville, through the Chair.
Danny Pearson interjected.
The SPEAKER: Order! The Assistant Treasurer will come to order. Through the Chair.
Kim WELLS: Thank you. It is all about the separation of powers, because if you have got the government directly contacting the members of the committee on the government side to direct them to go a particular way, that is blatant interference and that is not separation of powers. The IOC is an oversight entity of the government, and all of –
Danny Pearson interjected.
Kim WELLS: I would not be talking if I were you. I mean, they stacked you on Privileges.
The SPEAKER: Order! Through the Chair.
Kim WELLS: Why have they stacked him on Privileges?
Members interjecting.
The SPEAKER: Order! Member for Frankston, you had your turn.
Kim WELLS: It is not privileges for the individual.
Members interjecting.
The SPEAKER: Member for Rowville! Assistant Treasurer! Member for Rowville, through the Chair.
Kim WELLS: Otherwise you have a government oversighting itself on integrity, and that is just something which means the whole system would break down. Look at the allegations of corruption in the government. I mean, look at red shirts, branch stacking, the Woodman affair – good gracious – a former minister, acting as a lobbyist, dealing with the United Firefighters Union.
But let me give you an example. A journalist phoned the Premier’s private office, the PPO, and asked about a particular decision of the committee, and the PPO media adviser said the chair was going to be putting out a statement shortly. How in blue blazes would the PPO have known that the chair of the committee was going to be putting out a statement shortly? One can only conclude that that statement was written by the PPO on behalf of the committee. Otherwise how would they have known?
The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Rowville has been in this chamber a long time and he knows the rules, and I would ask him to address his comments through the Chair.
Kim WELLS: So the question is: how would the PPO have known that the chair was about to put out a statement? How would they have possibly known? And all of a sudden out comes this statement on behalf of the chair – too much of a coincidence – and it was embarrassing. It was actually embarrassing what was said in that statement. It was embarrassing because what it said was all decisions were made collectively, and that was a blatant untruth – they were not – because the member for Sandringham and I had actually opposed a number of decisions. We could not agree with it, because it was coming from the PPO.
Gary Maas interjected.
The SPEAKER: Order! Member for Narre Warren South, you have had your turn.
Kim WELLS: He should be thrown out.
The SPEAKER: Order! I ask you to withdraw that comment. That is a reflection on the Chair.
Kim WELLS: I withdraw that comment.
And then what had to happen was because the PPO had written or allegedly written a statement on behalf of the chair to put out to the media saying that all decisions were based collectively – in other words that we all agreed to them – the member for Sandringham had to then put out another statement to correct the statement that had just been put out by the PPO, saying they were not. The chairs of the committee in all the previous years would run any public statement past the deputy chair, but they did not – they bypassed him. It went from the PPO to the media on behalf of the chair, so one has to question who was actually running it. And why wouldn’t you support this amendment to stop those sorts of ridiculous situations happening? Because if you had an opposition member as chair, you would not have the PPO contacting the chair to dictate what actually happens.
The other example I want to raise is that we had this public meeting where we invited along the IBAC Commissioner for a public hearing, and we had a situation that was getting a bit tense. It was all about the public and private hearings. It was a pretty broad sort of question. We asked the Commissioner: why was there a situation that allowed Casey councillors to be examined in public, which may have led to the suicide of Amanda Stapleton, and yet when it comes to the Premier, whenever IBAC interviews Premier Andrews, it is only ever done behind closed doors? It is never, ever, ever done in public. So why do you have a situation where everyone else gets examined in public but you do not have a situation where the Premier of this state gets interviewed or examined in public?
At ICAC in New South Wales premiers are examined in public the whole time, but in Victoria it is completely different. When we asked that question – why wasn’t the Premier examined in public? – all of a sudden the chair went ‘Cut the feed, cut the feed, cut the feed’ and the feed and the whole public meeting was shut down. Let me tell you, if there was an opposition chair, that would not have happened, that would have never, ever have happened. The commissioner insisted on answering that question, so they shut down the whole public hearing. Then there was the argy-bargy, not between us and the chair, no, no, no, but between the commissioner and the chair, with him insisting he give an answer on that very question: why is it that Premier Andrews is always interviewed in private, never ever in public?
We want a situation where we can abide by the advice that was put forward by Commissioner Redlich. I think he did an incredible job. He did an incredible job. When it came to integrity and oversight, he fought the fight to be able to do an outstanding job. In an interview with Jon Faine, which was mentioned by the member for Brighton, it was very clear he wants the composition of the committee to be different. Who would have better insight than the Commissioner of IBAC? It would be very clear for him to be able to say, ‘We should have a majority of opposition members. We should have a chair who is from the opposition side to break the nexus between the government and the chair of the IOC.’
On those very few points, I very strongly support the amendment that has been put forward by the member for Brighton, and I hope that the government sees sense. If you firmly believe in the separation of powers, break the nexus between the communication and the direction that has been handed down by the PPO and the chair of IOC.
Brad ROWSWELL (Sandringham) (10:03): I also rise to speak on the member for Brighton’s amendment to the motion, and in doing so I just want to put some context around this. The reason why we have proposed this amendment to this motion is because it is the right thing to do. Through the lived experience of the last Parliament, the 59th Parliament, and the Integrity and Oversight Committee of that Parliament, we learned very, very early in the piece that this was sadly not solely a process run for the Victorian people by the members of the Victorian Parliament but that there was significant political interference throughout. This is not just my view, this is not just the view of my colleague on the committee the member for Rowville, this is the view of the now former Commissioner of the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission.
What could be more important than integrity in this state? We see time and time again members of the government not engaging in integrity in the way that the Victorian people would expect them to. I will quote from a transcript in support of this amendment, an interview between the former Commissioner of the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission and Jon Faine of the ABC. Mr Faine asks the Commissioner:
What do you want changed?
The Commissioner says:
Primarily, the composition of the Committee …
Faine then says:
The individual make up of it?
And Redlich responds:
… so that it no longer has a majority of members who are members of the party in government, and that the chair of the Committee is not from the party in government. So, the decisions made by the Committee cannot carry with them the perception that the decision was made for a partisan reason.
The transcript goes on, and the recommendation of the now former Commissioner goes on as well. He says:
That takes me to the reason why it’s important that I speak out, because the experiences which I’ve learned of as a result of the investigations of IBAC, the experiences of my fellow commissioners interstate, during which, when we meet, we share our experiences …
He then went on to express concerns with the interference of the Premier’s private office (PPO) as well, and I seek to make that transcript available to the house.
During the course of the last Parliament there were a number of reports that were submitted to this place, that were tabled in this place, including a minority report that the member for Rowville and I co-authored. It was a Victorian parliamentary inquiry into the performance of Victorian integrity agencies focused on witness welfare. Recommendation 6 of that minority report states that:
Committee members must be required to disclose, at the earliest opportunity, any interference in Committee business that they become aware of – or are party to – by the PPO or any other politically aligned individual or body.
We did not make that recommendation on a whim and a prayer and a hope that we might have struck a target – no, no, no. We did that on the basis of facts. Recommendation 6 was made for the following reasons: the stated intent of that particular inquiry and the process that ensued, including hearings, did not match, and the recommendations contained within the committee report we thought had been unreservedly affected by the limitations placed upon the inquiry process. As the member for Rowville stated earlier, we have a live example before us of the PPO interfering in a parliamentary process. The member for Narre Warren South sought to suggest that we thought, on this side of the house, that the separation of powers did not exist in this state. Well, sadly, that is the lived experience that we are proposing here.
What the member for Rowville said was absolutely right. A member of the fourth estate made contact with a member of the Premier’s private office. A member of the Premier’s private office then asserted that the chair of the committee at that point – the fifth chair of the committee, Mr Maas – would shortly be making a statement. Why? Why on earth would a member of the Premier’s private office –
The SPEAKER: It is the member for Narre Warren South.
Brad ROWSWELL: Thank you, Speaker. Why on earth would a member of the Premier’s private office know that the member for Narre Warren South would shortly be putting out a statement if there was adequate separation between the executive arm of government and the operations of a parliamentary committee? I think the member for Rowville’s suggestion is absolutely spot-on. We have then concluded, and rightly so, that only the Premier’s private office themselves could have drafted the statement put out in the name of the member for Narre Warren South.
This is just one example. I come back to committee hearings where, being in the committee room, sitting there next to my committee colleagues, we saw firsthand the text message exchanges between government members of the committee, the government chair of the committee and other people at pretty crucial times. Why on earth were my colleague the member for Rowville and I cut off from proposing our questions, from asking our questions, time and time again by the Labor committee chair?
If the government truly believe that integrity is a thing that matters in this state, then they will not run from this amendment. They will not hide from this amendment. If they truly believe that integrity is an important thing in this state, they will agree to the amendment moved by the member for Brighton, because it is the right thing to do. It is the right thing to do to remove any ounce of doubt that integrity comes first in this state. I am not much of a betting man, but I suspect that within just a few short minutes a closure motion will be moved, a division will be called and the government and every government member will vote on the side of a gag, of allowing the Premier’s private office to continue interfering in parliamentary committee processes.
This is a moment in time for all of us to look back and reflect. This is the standard that takes place in this place. This is the standard that takes place in Victoria. I just do not think it is right, which is why we have proposed this amendment in the first place. It is the right thing to do. The government should support it.
Finally, in that minority report that the member for Rowville and I tabled we also reviewed at length a number of other issues which I have flagged in this place before. But in essence the separation of powers does matter – between the courts, the Parliament and the executive arm of government – and our experience on this side is that the government just does not respect that. They do not respect it. They do not want to. The operations of this state and some parliamentary committees are, sadly, dictated to by the Premier’s private office and the executive arm of government, and frankly the Victorian people deserve better.
Roma BRITNELL (South-West Coast) (10:11): I also rise in support of this amendment that has been put forward by the member for Brighton. It is outrageous that I have to stand up and fight for the Integrity and Oversight Committee to have a recommendation adopted by the government, by their own Labor-appointed integrity commissioner, the IBAC Commissioner himself, who has now retired but actually put forward in his recommendations before he retired that we should get the community confident in integrity – instil confidence once again. This current Labor government have lost the confidence of our community because we have seen so much corruption in this last couple of terms of the Labor government. We have seen five, that we know of, IBAC sessions looking at the integrity of this government. It is incredible arrogance that someone as respected and revered as Robert Redlich, who put forward a recommendation that a non-government member of the committee should be the Chair – how simple, and what would be the problem with that? If you have got nothing to hide, why wouldn’t you be confident of the independence of the Integrity and Oversight Committee?
Clearly, as a result of the analysis of the IBAC Commissioner, there are questions, significant questions, over the independence of the Integrity and Oversight Committee, as articulated by the member for Rowville, who put forward a very clear example of how the Premier’s office itself was contacted by the media and the media were told a statement would be coming soon without any communication with the other committee members. That gives you a very real example. This is a very important committee. These committees are important to the integrity of our state. They are important to the fact that we continue to have the confidence of the community in the systems we have in place for our laws to be made, and unfortunately that has been eroded through this government having no less than five inquiries by IBAC into their corruption and corrupt behaviours. Integrity is so damaged that we have come to this – that we have come to a recommendation that will not even be adopted by this government. Why would you, if you have got nothing to hide – the member for Essendon has just walked into the chamber.
The SPEAKER: Order! I would ask the member to stick to the amendment.
Roma BRITNELL: Given that we have just heard that the members of the committees have been listed, I suggest that this is relevant to the amendment here.
The SPEAKER: The amendment is related to number 6 on the paper.
Roma BRITNELL: I would hope that people on the committee are confident of their integrity, and integrity is the issue that I am discussing here. I cannot believe that we are questioning putting in place an independent assessor of a committee, putting in a non-government person. We had too many members who were from the government, according to Robert Redlich.
Mary-Anne Thomas: A political stunt.
Roma BRITNELL: A political stunt – I take up the interjection from the minister at the table.
The SPEAKER: Order! The member for South-West Coast knows not to respond to interjections. Through the Chair.
Roma BRITNELL: I do find it incredibly distressing that the community want to see integrity – so much so that the assessment done by the integrity commissioner, the IBAC Commissioner, actually recommends that you have a non-government member of the committee as the chair. It sounds like a very reasonable recommendation, and it is a recommendation he made after assessing the fact that there is severe doubt over whether the independence exists when you have got a majority of the members of the committee coming from the government and the chairman also from the government. It makes complete sense to instil confidence back into these committees by putting a non-government member as the chair, yet we are standing here in this chamber debating that very sensible recommendation. And I ask myself: why? If they have got nothing to hide – and I do not know how many times we have been saying that in the last eight years about this government – why are they so frightened of reasonable oversight, of reasonable assessment of the activities that they are involved in? If there is nothing to hide, then put a non-government chair in the position so there is some confidence put back into the community about the activities of this government. I never thought, being a Victorian, that I would be very genuinely concerned about the level of corruption in the state of Victoria, but we read about it time and time again. Just this week there have been many questions about the integrity of this government. The media are reporting it. The Age reports it. The left media are reporting it. It is so obvious it is unavoidable to question it.
If we have such reasonable recommendations by someone as revered and respected in our community as Robert Redlich, why on earth would that be something for this government to be frightened of implementing? What are they frightened of? What are they hiding? We have seen so many examples – red shirts. There is an enormous amount to talk about here – an enormous amount. But what are we seeing – an arrogant government who want total control taking away the ability to even instil confidence back into the community by putting some simple solutions forward: an independent person in the chair rather than a government person in the chair, a non-government member to scrutinise and to make sure integrity remains the priority of the Integrity and Oversight Committee. I mean, that is an irony in itself, isn’t it? We have got an Integrity and Oversight Committee and we are trying to restore integrity back into that committee, and the recommendation by the IBAC Commissioner is being ignored. I mean, is that not absolutely clearly an admission of guilt, concern and worry by this government – that by doing that their activities will be too exposed, which they try to keep under the cover of darkness so that the community, who elected them, who they are responsible to, cannot know exactly what they are doing. It is just incredibly deceitful and disrespectful to the community and disrespectful to their own appointment of the IBAC Commissioner Robert Redlich.
Astoundingly, this government never ceases to amaze me with their level of arrogance. Their tactics are clever: they cut the feed when they do not want to hear what is being said in a committee hearing, they blame probably the system – not their fault, nothing to see here. I just cannot work out why this government thinks it is going to continue to get away with this level of secrecy when their own people are saying, ‘We’re skating on thin ice. Let’s try and put some things in place to get back the confidence.’ I am standing here trying to make you see sense.
Mary-Anne Thomas interjected.
Roma BRITNELL: I think confidence will not remain when there are IBAC sessions after IBAC sessions that are questioning the corruption in this government – and when that is the word that is being used, that is a concern – when your own Labor appointment to IBAC, the Commissioner himself, is questioning how integrity can be restored and is asking for something as simple as a non-government member of the committee to be appointed as the chairman and when you are standing here fighting against a recommendation by such an esteemed member of the community appointed by none other than the Labor government.
David SOUTHWICK (Caulfield) (10:21): If the government have got nothing to hide, they will support the amendment proposed by the member for Brighton and appoint a non-government chair to this very, very important Integrity and Oversight Committee. We know that integrity has been a real issue here in Victoria for a long time. We have seen inquiry after inquiry, we have seen IBAC report after IBAC report, and something that is very, very unusual I think, as the Leader of the Opposition said yesterday in his contribution, is that for the first time in Victoria we have seen the Premier be involved in more IBAC inquiries than we ever have before, and it is only getting worse.
To put a halt to this, if this government cares at all about integrity, they will do the right thing and show some independence and appoint a non-government member to this board. This is a critical time for all those new members on the other side that have joined this Parliament and have made their contributions. Many of them have made fine contributions saying they want to make a real change in this Parliament. Well, to do that you need to uphold the key values of integrity that some of us take as a key plank and a key platform going forward. This is really decision time for many of those government members today to support this amendment today by the member for Brighton.
We saw in the last Parliament an absolute disgrace in the way that the Integrity and Oversight Committee was treated. The member for Rowville, who was active on that committee, saw chair after chair after chair – a revolving door, five chairs. It had more chairs than I have had hot lunches. This is absolutely ridiculous. You would think that you would just get going and they would swap over another chair because they frankly could not get their act together. What we have seen is the former IBAC Commissioner, in his going out, give the most independent analysis of the way things have not worked and how we can fix them and set the record straight, and that was to in fact have a non-government member to run the show. Wouldn’t you think the government would follow suit in terms of the advice that the very person they appointed to set the game up has provided? This is not a Liberal providing this advice, this is not people from our side that are providing this advice, this is the Honourable Justice Redlich, the former IBAC Commissioner, that has provided this advice. If the government were serious about this, they would follow his advice.
We have seen the shambolic way that the Integrity and Oversight Committee operated, where we had live feeds cut because the government wanted to censor what was going on in those committees. They wanted to censor the information so the public could not see it.
A member: What have they got to hide?
David SOUTHWICK: And that is the question: what is the government hiding? We have started this parliamentary year already with a whole lot of integrity issues, a cloud that this government is facing. We have seen already a minister under a huge cloud in terms of integrity issues and shareholdings and dodgy deals, making more money on day trading than actually doing his job in terms of being a minister.
John Pesutto: Our own Gordon Gekko.
David SOUTHWICK: This is absolutely appalling. As the opposition leader says, we have got our own Gordon Gekko on the ministerial front bench in the Assistant Treasurer. These are important integrity issues, and we need to hold them to account. We cannot have a dodgy Assistant Treasurer effectively running a share portfolio on the side, as a side hustle.
Colin Brooks: On a point of order, Speaker, the member has been in this place long enough to know that personal reflections on other members are inappropriate.
David SOUTHWICK: On the point of order, Speaker, this particular debate that we are talking on is about integrity, and I am highlighting the importance of integrity for all members in this place. That is certainly the commentary that I am running.
The SPEAKER: I ask all members to be mindful of not reflecting on other members.
David SOUTHWICK: Thank you, Speaker. It is very, very important that all of us in this chamber uphold the integrity standards under which we have been elected to be in here, and if we do not, the consequences could be that we might end up at the Privileges Committee. We would hope the people that may be appointed to Privileges also uphold that point, because you would hate to think that somebody is not following the integrity process and may even be a committee member of Privileges and might have to excuse themselves because they are the very person that is up before Privileges. We would hope that would not be the case, and that is why integrity is so important for everyone in this place.
Coming back to this particular motion today, which is so important in underpinning the values of this place, the very reason why we are all here is to ensure that everybody gets a fair deal – not looking after yourself, not coming here to see how much money you can make, how many deals you can do or increasing your share portfolio. No, that is not what this is about. None of us should be thinking about that. We have got a full-time job. There are other parliaments around the world that run part-time parliaments and people can have an extracurricular job. They could be a day trader, they could run a share portfolio on the side and then they could go into parliament. This is a full-time parliament that requires a full-time job, not side deals, not casual work where you can effectively be Gordon Gekko on the side. That is not what people expect. When people tune into this Parliament they expect those people – all of us from all sides of Parliament – that are paid to do a job to stand up for all Victorians regardless of who they are.
James Newbury interjected.
David SOUTHWICK: As the member for Brighton quite rightly says, with integrity. That is what this is about today. It is about integrity. It is about getting things better. If this government were serious, they would actually adopt this motion, because all it does is say if you have got nothing to hide, then let us get somebody from the non-government side to be the chair – not to run the Integrity and Oversight Committee from the Premier’s private office, as the member for Rowville quite rightly pointed out. It is not an extension of the government. This is a parliamentary committee that keeps us all honest. That is what it should do – it should keep us all honest, and when people do the wrong thing, then that is what this committee should look at. That is what IBAC is set up to look at – to ensure that people, all Victorians, can have confidence in the process. In this Parliament we have already seen things start poorly. We have seen the IBAC Operation Clara report that was issued, which shows a former minister on a board effectively trying to lobby the board, not taking clean and honest payments for it but then channelling donations to get somebody elected to the Parliament. I mean, seriously, that shows that there are huge integrity issues that need to be properly investigated, and you need to ensure it is independent as part of the investigation.
So there is Operation Clara, another IBAC report, in this first term of Parliament, and the Assistant Treasurer is under a cloud – also part of this Parliament. That shows that we need to clean things up very early on. Here is a perfect opportunity to do that. I implore particularly the new members on the back bench that are in ultimately to be able to go back to their constituencies and honestly, hand on the heart, say to them, ‘I’m standing up for you to ensure we get a transparent system and that we can uphold the integrity values of the Parliament.’ We can do that.
Mary-Anne Thomas interjected.
David SOUTHWICK: Well, the manager of government business can interject all she likes, but let me just say: this is fundamental to the core values. It is not about a protection racket for the member for Essendon. It is not about running protection for people that are trying to do dodgy Gordon Gekko shares on the side. It is not about that. It is about upholding integrity standards right across the board. If we are serious about our jobs here in Parliament and not being share traders on the side, if we are serious about keeping up our jobs and doing the jobs we were elected to do, we should be supporting the member for Brighton’s very, very important amendment here, which, as we have heard, Justice Redlich has also said the government should proceed with.
That the question be now put.
The SPEAKER: Order! I do not accept that the question will be put at this point. I have not heard from the minority. I ask if there is a speaker from the Nationals.
Michael O’BRIEN (Malvern) (10:32): I rise to support the member for Brighton’s amendment to the motion on the appointment of committees. We heard from the member for Narre Warren South earlier about separation of powers, and I just do question whether the member actually knows what the separation of powers is. What it means is that the executive, being the ministers, and the Parliament are not the same. But you would not know that from the way in which some Labor Party members of Parliament have chaired their committees, because they have acted as cat’s paws of the Premier’s office. They have acted as extensions of 1 Treasury Place, and that is why this amendment is so important, because these committees should be part of holding the executive to account, not acting as protection rackets for the executive, which unfortunately is what we have seen happen too many times. The only reason that happens is because the chairmanships of important committees have been used and have been abused by Labor Party members acting as chair.
It is important that we have non-government chairs of these committees, and we are not saying it necessarily has to be opposition members. It could be members of the crossbench or independents – well, actually we do not have those anymore in the Assembly – or members of minor parties. But it is very important that we do not have government members chairing these committees, because they are running the orders of the Premier’s private office. They are either doing it out of fear or doing it because they are seeking promotion and they want to be ministers themselves one day, so they are not prepared to cross the Premier or the Premier’s private office and they are not acting in the interests of this Parliament. They are not acting in the interests of transparency or democracy or holding the executive to account. They are putting their own personal career promotion prospects before their jobs, and that is why the member for Brighton’s amendment is so important.
Let us just look at the Integrity and Oversight Committee and the important role that it undertakes. It is responsible for IBAC, the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission, one of the most important integrity agencies that this state has, one that was established by a Liberal and Nationals government after 12 years of Labor refusing to establish an IBAC because – well, we know they did not think corruption was not happening in Victoria; they just did not want it exposed. We had 12 years of the Bracks–Brumby governments refusing to implement an IBAC because they did not want anybody looking over their shoulder while they were getting their deals done. Well, it took a Liberal–Nationals government, and I was very pleased to be a part of that, to establish Victoria’s first Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission.
When Labor got elected in 2014 and then re-elected in 2018, what did they do? They cut IBAC’s funding. They reduced its funding, so that made it harder for IBAC to do its job. It made it harder to identify, investigate and root out public sector corruption. It made it harder to identify and root out serious police misconduct. What sort of government cuts the funding for an integrity watchdog?
But they did not just cut the funding, they also cut the powers. This government restricted the ability of IBAC to hold public hearings. Why would it do that? Why would this government change the law, change the legislation, to make it harder for IBAC to have public hearings? When you understand that the Premier of this state, the Labor Premier of this state, has been involved in anywhere up to five – that we know of – anti-corruption commission investigations but not once has he had his witness statements taken in public, we understand why the government made that change. It was very, very keen to make sure the Premier would be protected. Unlike New South Wales, where premiers have been investigated and have been asked questions in public, in Victoria it is done in secret, because this government changed the rules. They changed the rules to protect themselves.
There is a really, really important reason going forward why this amendment being put by the member for Brighton needs to be supported. Commissioner Robert Redlich’s term expired at the end of last year, and it is now up to the government to select a new IBAC Commissioner. This is one of the most important roles that we have in Victoria. The Integrity and Oversight Committee, under legislation, has a very important role. The IOC has the capacity to veto the government’s choice of IBAC Commissioner. I think we understand now why the government may not be supporting the member for Brighton’s amendment, because this government does not want the IOC to have the ability to veto the appointment of a new IBAC Commissioner. This government, I fear, would rather see a lapdog than a watchdog. This government does not want to see an IBAC Commissioner who will call out their corruption the way that Commissioner Redlich did. This government wants to see a commissioner appointed who will not look into their dirty dealings the way that Commissioner Redlich did. That is the real reason. If this motion fails, it will be because the government wants the IOC to be a lapdog, not a watchdog. It does not want it to have the veto power over the new IBAC Commissioner.
When you look at what this government has done and if you look as recently as yesterday with the tabling of the Operation Clara: Special Report, there we saw a former Labor minister, Labor royalty Theo Theophanous, being exposed as having engaged in misconduct, conflicts of interest, abusing his public position for private ends and doing so to help support and raise funds for the campaign of the member for Northcote. This is outrageous conduct. Mr Theophanous was still on the board of State Trustees as of yesterday.
The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Malvern has strayed a lot from the amendment before the house. I ask him to come back to the amendment.
Michael O’BRIEN: Thank you, Speaker. This amendment is important because IBAC is important. We want to make sure that we have an IBAC Commissioner who will not go soft on corruption from this government. I can talk about Operation Clara, I can talk about Operation Watts, where a number of members of this Parliament were investigated and named in relation to abusing electorate office material and resources for political ends. I can talk about Operation Sandon. We all wait for the Operation Sandon report with bated breath. With all the Labor Party members in the south-east – I see the member for Cranbourne there – and all the operations of the Labor Party in the south-east and John Woodman, we wait to see that Operation Sandon report, because IBAC matters.
We do not want to see an Integrity and Oversight Committee which will not support IBAC. We do not want to see an Integrity and Oversight Committee chaired by somebody who will cut the feed and gag the IBAC Commissioner when they have got something to say. We do not have to make that up; that is what happened. We do not have to speculate. We know what happens when you have Labor Party members of Parliament chairing the IOC: they gag the Commissioner, they cut the feed. They act as cat’s paws of the Premier’s office, letting them write their statements for them for the media.
It is appalling behaviour, and it cannot stand. It should not stand, and that is why the member for Brighton’s amendment is so important. We need to have independence. We need to have a non-government chair. If these committees are to do their job, and their job is to hold the executive to account, it cannot be done when you have Labor Party members as chairs. History shows you they will put the interests of themselves and their party and protecting their government mates before the interests of the Parliament, and that is not what this is about.
The IOC is I think one of the most important committees of this Parliament, but there are other committees as well. With the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee we have seen many times government members shutting down lines of questioning of ministers and of departmental staff when it is proving embarrassing to the government. That would not be happening if we had an independent chair – a non-government member of Parliament as chair. Whether it is the Integrity and Oversight Committee or the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee, there are plenty of committees where Victorians would be better informed, the government would be better held to account and democracy would be improved if we had a non-government chair in place.
I am sure there are some very capable members of the government backbench who could serve on committees and do very good work, but the chair’s role is one which comes with extraordinary power. What we have seen, unfortunately, is that that power has been abused too many times on too many committees by too many Labor MPs as chair. That is why the amendment moved by the member for Brighton is so important. Government members have had the chance to do those roles properly, to do them fairly and impartially and to act as parliamentarians, not as aspiring ministers, and those Labor members have failed in that opportunity. That is why it is time to change it, that is why it is time to bring in non-government chairs of parliamentary committees, and that is why I support the amendment moved by the member for Brighton.
Peter WALSH (Murray Plains) (10:42): I rise to support the member for Brighton’s amendment to have a non-government chair of the Integrity and Oversight Committee. The member for Frankston – it is a pity the member for Frankston is not in here – commented on people searching on their phones. Could I suggest to the member for Frankston that he might want to google ‘separation of powers’ and actually understand it. By his interjections, he has absolutely no concept of the separation of powers. Separation of powers under the Westminster system is about the Parliament, the executive government and the judiciary. People have spoken here about the Parliament and the executive, but it is also about the judiciary. The Parliament is pivotal to all that. The Parliament makes the laws, the judiciary enforces the laws and the executive government runs the day-to-day business, but the Parliament is ultimately the one that is responsible for all of that. The Parliament is there to oversight the executive. You cannot have oversight of the executive when the government appoints the chairs of the committees that do that oversight. There is no more important oversight committee than the Integrity and Oversight Committee, which manages IBAC and who IBAC reports to.
We have had a number of speakers on this side who have talked about the fact that former Commissioner Redlich made some recommendations at the end of his term, and one of those recommendations was to have an independent chair of the Integrity and Oversight Committee. It goes to the absolute core of the separation of powers. Some on the other side have interjected, ‘Let the committee elect their own chair.’ When you have got a majority of government members, it goes without saying they are going to elect a government member as the chair of that committee. It is a self-defeating argument that they are putting up around that particular issue. It has to be a non-government chair.
One of the other things that former Commissioner Redlich talked about in this state was his concern about the increase in soft corruption. That is not where someone gets a brown paper bag of money, it is about nepotism, it is about mates, it is about jobs for members of your family that may have a job with a portfolio that you are responsible for. That is the sort of soft corruption we are seeing here in Victoria. There is a time for every side of politics to be in government and a time not to be in government. The Andrews government is following on from the Bracks–Brumby governments in having been there for too long. They view government as their right, as their toy, as their thing for engendering special favours for people on their side of politics, not for actually talking about and doing what is in the best interests of Victorians into the future.
Let us make an important change today with this amendment from the member for Brighton so that this Parliament actually stands up for integrity. I would urge all those on the other side of the house to look deeply into their souls. Do they really believe in integrity in this state, or do they support the nepotism and the soft corruption that is going on with the Andrews government at the moment? If members on the other side were seriously committed to integrity, they would support the member for Brighton’s amendment. There would be unanimous support for it.
What has the government got to fear by having an independent chair of a committee? They will still have government members on that committee. That committee still needs to function in the proper way for it to function, but it will actually have some accountability and will actually have some respect from the people of Victoria, because it will actually be seen to be independent. At the moment most people I talk to just shake their head about what is happening in Victoria because they know there is no integrity, because the government controls everything.
We have heard examples talked about by speakers on this side – how when Commissioner Redlich, near the end of his term, was giving evidence to the Integrity and Oversight Committee, the chair actually cut the feed so the broadcast was stopped. The chair effectively said, ‘I refuse to hear from former Commissioner Redlich about his concerns about how his job can or cannot be done in this particular state.’ So we have people like Commissioner Redlich coming to these roles with a very extensive career in the judiciary, who actually understand the law, who are there to uphold the law, who are sworn to uphold the law and who want to uphold the law, but the government is refusing to take their advice.
We saw how the powers of IBAC were reduced in the last term of government. The opportunity for public hearings was reduced for IBAC – something that we actually put in place in government – and Commissioner Redlich wanted to see some changes so that his successor could have the opportunity to do the job better. I think we all have concerns as to who might be appointed as the new commissioner of IBAC, and that is why the Integrity and Oversight Committee is so important in that particular role. We do not want to see a gamekeeper–poacher situation where the government appoints a mate to that role, which means the integrity of this state will suffer into the future.
I would urge those on the other side of the house to look deeply into their souls and think about the decision we are going to make in a few minutes. It is a very important vote that will send a clear signal to Victorians as to whether this Parliament actually believes in integrity and wants to make sure it is doing its role in having oversight of the executive by empowering the Integrity and Oversight Committee to be truly independent and giving the new commissioner for IBAC some opportunities to do the things that the former commissioner could not do. So I would urge those on the other side of the house to vote with us and for the member for Brighton’s amendment to have some true integrity in this state, rather than vote against the member for Brighton’s amendment and reinforce the view of Victorians that the Labor side of this chamber just think it is a mates place where you can protect everyone that does something wrong.
That the question be now put.
The SPEAKER: I accept the question.
Assembly divided on motion:
Ayes (58): Juliana Addison, Jacinta Allan, Daniel Andrews, Colin Brooks, Josh Bull, Anthony Carbines, Ben Carroll, Darren Cheeseman, Anthony Cianflone, Sarah Connolly, Chris Couzens, Jordan Crugnale, Daniela De Martino, Gabrielle de Vietri, Steve Dimopoulos, Paul Edbrooke, Will Fowles, Matt Fregon, Ella George, Luba Grigorovitch, Bronwyn Halfpenny, Katie Hall, Paul Hamer, Martha Haylett, Sam Hibbins, Mathew Hilakari, Melissa Horne, Natalie Hutchins, Lauren Kathage, Sonya Kilkenny, Nathan Lambert, Gary Maas, Alison Marchant, Kathleen Matthews-Ward, Steve McGhie, Paul Mercurio, John Mullahy, Tim Pallas, Danny Pearson, Tim Read, Pauline Richards, Tim Richardson, Ellen Sandell, Michaela Settle, Ros Spence, Nick Staikos, Natalie Suleyman, Meng Heang Tak, Jackson Taylor, Nina Taylor, Kat Theophanous, Mary-Anne Thomas, Emma Vulin, Iwan Walters, Vicki Ward, Dylan Wight, Gabrielle Williams, Belinda Wilson
Noes (26): Brad Battin, Jade Benham, Roma Britnell, Tim Bull, Martin Cameron, Annabelle Cleeland, Chris Crewther, Wayne Farnham, Sam Groth, Matthew Guy, David Hodgett, Emma Kealy, Cindy McLeish, James Newbury, Danny O’Brien, Michael O’Brien, Kim O’Keeffe, John Pesutto, Richard Riordan, Brad Rowswell, David Southwick, Bill Tilley, Bridget Vallence, Peter Walsh, Kim Wells, Jess Wilson
Motion agreed to.
The SPEAKER: I will now put the question on the amendment moved by the Manager of Opposition Business. The member for Brighton has moved an amendment to this motion. He has proposed to insert words, which have been circulated, after the word ‘committee’ in paragraph 6. The question is:
That the words proposed to be inserted be so inserted.
Those supporting the amendment moved by the member for Brighton should vote yes.
Assembly divided on question:
Ayes (30): Brad Battin, Jade Benham, Roma Britnell, Tim Bull, Martin Cameron, Annabelle Cleeland, Chris Crewther, Gabrielle de Vietri, Wayne Farnham, Sam Groth, Matthew Guy, Sam Hibbins, David Hodgett, Emma Kealy, Cindy McLeish, James Newbury, Danny O’Brien, Michael O’Brien, Kim O’Keeffe, John Pesutto, Tim Read, Richard Riordan, Brad Rowswell, Ellen Sandell, David Southwick, Bill Tilley, Bridget Vallence, Peter Walsh, Kim Wells, Jess Wilson
Noes (54): Juliana Addison, Jacinta Allan, Daniel Andrews, Colin Brooks, Josh Bull, Anthony Carbines, Ben Carroll, Darren Cheeseman, Anthony Cianflone, Sarah Connolly, Chris Couzens, Jordan Crugnale, Daniela De Martino, Steve Dimopoulos, Paul Edbrooke, Will Fowles, Matt Fregon, Ella George, Luba Grigorovitch, Bronwyn Halfpenny, Katie Hall, Paul Hamer, Martha Haylett, Mathew Hilakari, Melissa Horne, Natalie Hutchins, Lauren Kathage, Sonya Kilkenny, Nathan Lambert, Gary Maas, Alison Marchant, Kathleen Matthews-Ward, Steve McGhie, Paul Mercurio, John Mullahy, Tim Pallas, Danny Pearson, Pauline Richards, Tim Richardson, Michaela Settle, Ros Spence, Nick Staikos, Natalie Suleyman, Meng Heang Tak, Jackson Taylor, Nina Taylor, Kat Theophanous, Mary-Anne Thomas, Emma Vulin, Iwan Walters, Vicki Ward, Dylan Wight, Gabrielle Williams, Belinda Wilson
Question defeated.
Motion agreed to.