Wednesday, 31 July 2024

Bills

Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission Amendment (Ending Political Corruption) Bill 2024

Introduction

Tim READ (Brunswick) (09:33): I move:

That I introduce a bill for an act to amend the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission Act ‍2011 in relation to the meaning of ‘corrupt conduct’ and for other purposes.

I will speak to the motion now. We need to introduce this bill now because the Premier has just referred CFMEU corruption to the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission. IBAC will be better able to investigate this current referral if we quickly pass this bill, which amends the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission Act 2011, which currently only defines corrupt conduct as a relevant offence defined as an indictable offence under the act: a serious criminal offence as well as common law offences – attempting to pervert the course of justice, bribery of a public official, perverting the course of justice and misconduct in public office. These common law offences are considered to be poorly defined, poorly understood and rarely prosecuted, and that is why we need to attend to this immediately, because this bill removes the requirement for corrupt conduct to constitute a relevant or common law offence, giving IBAC similar powers to the federal national anti-corruption commission.

In August last year this bill was passed by the Legislative Council and subsequently defeated here in the Assembly, so it must be introduced here now because of the recent referral to IBAC from the Premier and the need for IBAC to be able to look beyond the currently narrowly defined offences in its search for corruption.

A number of scandals over the past decade point to the need in Victoria for a commission able to investigate corruption that may fall short of a criminal offence, IBAC’s operations Daintree and Clara being just two examples. The allegations regarding the CFMEU that have surfaced recently demonstrate the urgency of this motion to give IBAC the teeth required to reassure Victorians that maladministration and improper use of resources do not extend to public projects.

We know that so much public corruption, misconduct and bad behaviour does not necessarily involve the committing of a criminal offence. We have seen again in the recent CFMEU allegations a lot of appalling conduct that at the same time is not illegal. We need agencies that are able to investigate and call out the sort of corruption that is often labelled ‘grey corruption’ or ‘soft corruption’. Unless this house addresses the issue this week by passing this bill, IBAC will be unable to look at the misuse of power or resources that may be legal but would disappoint Victorians, who expect public funds to be used wisely and to give us the best possible return. Corruption exists when improper influence ensures that this does not occur.

If we look in more detail for example at Operation Daintree, the findings of IBAC were mostly matters of misuse of resources that would not have satisfied the definition of ‘corrupt conduct’. We were fortunate that IBAC suspected corrupt conduct before it launched its investigation – in other words, it suspected illegality. In a situation like the current CFMEU allegations a large amount of what has been alleged is not strictly illegal, although all of us would agree it is improper, and that is why now is the right time to introduce this bill to the Legislative Assembly so that we can rectify our mistake of defeating the bill last year and send it back to the upper house, which has already passed the bill.

Josh BULL (Sunbury) (09:37): I rise to oppose this motion and in doing so make reference to a number of statements that have been made over the past couple of weeks, both by the Premier and of course by the government. What we unfortunately see time and time again when we come into this place from the Greens political party, at each and every opportunity, are consistent and persistent stunts. What this government is focused on, both today and for the entirety of the time that we have the great responsibility and indeed the great privilege to be in government, is to ensure that we refer these matters in an appropriate way to the appropriate authorities. What we see is in many ways both disappointing and incredible I think for those Victorians who are rightfully entitled to see the very best of representation –

Katie Hall interjected.

Josh BULL: and the very best, member for Footscray, of democracy. For those over that side of the house to come into this place and effectively play politics time and time again, each and every day, is frankly shameful and disgraceful. What we are focused on as a strong, sound, cohesive unit and team is of course making sure –

A member interjected.

Josh BULL: I am very pleased the member over there is in such a good mood this morning – bright and spritely.

Members interjecting.

Josh BULL: A very cohesive outfit. What we will do, unlike the Greens political party, is ensure that we represent our communities and deal in the practical reality of delivering. For those in that particular party, as was said by a former member of this place, it is always appropriate for us in government to make those announcements to ensure that processes are followed and that integrity bodies that exist for a reason are used, and those matters have been referred to in an entirely appropriate way by the Premier. What we see, whether it is in question time or whether it is within the usual business of the house, is a group of people who would much prefer to operate in the hallways of Instagram or of Facebook – of all these places – but we on this side of the house deal with reality, and the reality is making sure that we make the appropriate decisions at the appropriate time and have the opportunity to represent each and every Victorian who is indeed entitled to representation that deals with reality. Rather than the fight, we are interested in the fix. That of course was not my line.

Katie Hall interjected.

Josh BULL: It was a former member of this house, member for Footscray. We are not interested in the commentary, we are interested in the reality. I know that all members on this side of the house each and every day within their electorates – including on a Friday – make sure that they work incredibly hard to represent their local communities. I know for the member for Macedon, the Leader of the House, often we will be together on a Friday doing various events across both of our electorates. It is important that we work hard for our local communities. The comments, the decisions and the matters that have been referred to by the Premier are an appropriate course of action. Each and every time these matters come before us this government will continue to represent our community and the people of Victoria in a strong, cohesive, sound fashion. We will do that today and every single other day.

Ellen SANDELL (Melbourne) (09:42): I would like to speak to why it is important that this Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission Amendment (Ending Political Corruption) Bill 2024 to bring our anti-corruption bodies up to scratch is important to pass this week specifically, and speak to this motion to bring it on immediately. Victorians have every right to expect that their government and government-funded projects are free from corruption and managed well in the public interest, not in the interests of a few or in the interests of vested interests. As we have seen with quite a number of scandals in Victoria over the last few years, this has not always happened. The CFMEU issue is just one of a number of scandals which have occurred recently, and it is why the allegations regarding the CFMEU and kickbacks or potentially corrupt and criminal behaviour are very serious and concerning and do warrant investigation. Workers everywhere deserve fair pay and conditions, they deserve fair workplaces and they deserve strong representation and effective, functioning unions, and it is everyday workers who suffer when this does not occur.

I note that the member for Sunbury opposite talked about a number of investigations and inquiries that are underway into this in Victoria. There are referrals, as I understand it, to police and to IBAC, which we are discussing today, and an independent inquiry. I am sure the public, like us, will be watching carefully to see what comes of these, and absolutely no-one should be above the law. But the member for Sunbury talked about wanting the fix, not the fight. Well, if we want to actually fix these scandals at their root, we need to fix our broken anti-corruption systems. That is why this bill is so important to be brought on today.

Integrity was a top concern for people of all ages at the last state election, and it is little wonder – there have been numerous scandals over the last few years in Victoria, whether it is red shirts or developer donations to Labor and Liberal MPs and councillors or the Commonwealth Games.

We have had the North East Link and West Gate toll road create incredible cost overruns, and the fact that we continue to have these scandals says to me that our anti-corruption systems simply are not up to scratch. In fact even the Ombudsman herself said that they are the weakest in the country. It requires structural changes and increased government transparency and accountability, and that is why it is so important that this bill actually is brought on right now – to make sure that we are getting the fix that the government even say that they are interested in achieving.

Our IBAC here in Victoria is not up to the same standard as other jurisdictions. It is not up to the same standard even as the national anti-corruption commission. It is not up to the same standard as the New South Wales anti-corruption commission. I do not see why Victorians deserve a weaker anti-corruption system than other Australians. IBAC currently can only investigate conduct which meets a very high criminal threshold, a very high bar, and that prevents a whole range of other forms of corruption being looked into, whether that is jobs for mates, conflicts of interest or kickbacks. IBAC does not currently have jurisdiction to look into this kind of grey corruption, as the member for Brunswick mentioned.

The chamber might recall that an identical bill to this actually passed the upper house a little while ago, but when it was brought back to this house the Labor government actually voted against it. I think that Victorians would be pretty disappointed to know that their Labor government does not want stronger anti-corruption laws and does not want Victorians to have anti-corruption measures that the rest of Australia actually has access to. The member for Sunbury, a Labor government member, said, ‘We want the fix, not the fight.’ Well, here is the fix, and not only is this a fix that we could have, it is a fix that we could have right now. Perhaps it could prevent some of these scandals from happening and give Victorians confidence in their government that they are actually taking anti-corruption seriously and that they do want to do something to prevent corruption occurring here in Victoria.

There are of course a number of other measures that need to be fixed when it comes to our anti-corruption and integrity measures in Victoria. We have a system of parliamentary committees where essentially the government marks its own homework, where government committees and the budget estimates process, which are supposed to keep the government of the day in check, are actually controlled by that same government so therefore cannot keep the government in check.

Members interjecting.

Ellen SANDELL: I am the chair of the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee? I think the member opposite, from the government, is a little bit confused about her own parliamentary committees. We do not have the chair of PAEC. In fact it has a government chair and it is a government-controlled committee. This is just one idea. If the government is interested in the fix, not the fight –

The SPEAKER: Through the Chair, member for Melbourne.

Ellen SANDELL: I am simply putting –

The SPEAKER: Through the Chair, member for Melbourne.

Ellen SANDELL: Through the Chair, if the government wants the fix, not the fight, we are putting some sensible ideas on the table, and I think they would be wise to support them.

Tim RICHARDSON (Mordialloc) (09:47): If ever there was an example that the Greens do their best work before 10 am – because yesterday you could not see any of them voting or participating in democracy. You could not see any of that contribution at all. They did not vote; they did not participate. When they talk about fronting up and supporting their communities, Parliament goes more than 3 ‍hours in a day, because that is the model of government and that is the work that needs to be done across government and opposition. At least those opposite in the coalition fronted up until 7:30. We genuinely do not know where the Greens go after a certain time. You do not see any of them around the precinct. If you are serious about bringing forward reforms and having that discussion, then come with some sort of engagement into that frame.

A member interjected.

Tim RICHARDSON: I was here the whole time.

Ellen Sandell: On a point of order, Speaker, this is a procedural debate. I appreciate that the government do not have a lot to say on this matter because they want to get out of supporting this bill, but I would ask you to bring the member back to the procedural debate.

The SPEAKER: The member for Mordialloc will come back to the procedural debate.

Tim RICHARDSON: There were a few things that were mentioned by the member for Brunswick that are worth clarification on why this procedural motion and the bill coming forward should not be considered. There is a committee that makes recommendations, the Integrity and Oversight Committee. I find it a little delicate and a little difficult where you are an advocate about a committee as well as the chair of that Parliament committee. It is a bit of a conflicted space, where some of the advocacy that you bring out of that space is delicate. Recommendations and then changes are probably a more appropriate journey.

The other thing as well is when the member for Brunswick was talking about what is legal, that definitional element is really important, because IBAC should be regarded as the pre-eminent anti-corruption authority. It should not be dealing with things that are in the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman or the Auditor-General. The whole remit when IBAC was established was to weed out serious and corrupt conduct. It is what the ICAC in New South Wales does. It has various forms across the nation, and then there is the federal anti-corruption commission as well, which has been led by Labor’s federal Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus. It is a significant contribution to the public.

You do not want them chasing down matters that are in the better frame to be with the Ombudsman, because then you will miss serious corrupt conduct. Half of their work – as we know and the chair should know – is policing, and then the other half is public sector corruption or allegations of corruption. We do not want IBAC to be tied up in bureaucratic issues that are in the better remit of public sector reform or what the Ombudsman would put by in reform. So I think maybe their motion is a bit half-baked because it is a Wednesday and it is more about getting a couple of hits for socials than it is about the actual governance, change and regulation in this place.

If they are serious about coming forward with those issues and the thresholds that they are setting, I really wonder how they and their leader, the member for Melbourne, could stand up when this government has increased funding substantially to IBAC from where it first started. The member for Prahran and I have sat on the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee together, and it has shown time and time again the expansion of funding. It does not require too much on a percentage scale to work out that IBAC has more resources than it has had previously. So the notion that we have not been serious about that is incorrect, and as well we accept recommendations when IBAC brings forward reforms. I am thinking of Operation Sandon, Operation Daintree and Operation Watts. When you see those reforms that come through, the work that they have done and the reforms that that has led to, that is the appropriate setting. So I do not think it is worth some half-baked motion here today, coming into this place to disrupt the work of the Parliament and the government business program that we have got underway. Maybe there is a time down the track where rather than just doing a 24-hour quick smash together of dot points there will be a bit more intellectual rigour to that and a bit more consideration.

I just reflect to the member for Brunswick that when you say something is legal and then you want IBAC to be investigating legal things, that is not the threshold. As chair of the Integrity and Oversight Committee I would go back to the remit and the terms of reference of what IBAC is actually set up to do rather than chasing legal things that you suggest might not be good in a public discussion. That is not the responsibility of the highest pre-eminent anti-corruption agency in Victoria. We do not want Victoria Police going after people who are parking illegally and getting council fines, do we. That is the analogy. Yes, it is not great that people are parking over a certain amount of time, but you do not want VicPol being deployed each and every time to issue a parking fine. You want them to be policing serious offences, and that is the exact same thing that we want IBAC to be doing – serious corrupt conduct and not the stuff that has been outlined. I hope that the member for Brunswick reflects on this motion and does a little bit of a better job next time he fronts up.

James NEWBURY (Brighton) (09:52): The coalition will be supporting the member for Brunswick’s attempt to introduce the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission Amendment (Ending Political Corruption) Bill 2024. I will make a couple of comments both on principle and on subject matter. In relation to the principle, we have spoken in this place many times about the government blocking the right of non-government members to introduce bills. In fact we saw yesterday the member for Caulfield attempt to introduce an important bill that would have cleaned up illegal behaviour on government worksites – behaviour which is occurring right now – and the government voted against that attempt.

Today we have seen the Greens attempt to move a bill that would help do something with the corruption problem in this state – and there is a corruption problem in this state. The Premier has acknowledged there is a problem with corruption in this state. So on two occasions just this week non-government members have attempted to do something. The member for Sunbury – who has probably gone off to look for a tie – has made the point that the government wanted a fix, but a fix that we have not seen. Right now we know that corruption is occurring on government worksites. I am sure every Victorian finds that abhorrent. To know that the government continually votes against any fix is a disgrace.

Mary-Anne Thomas interjected.

James NEWBURY: I hear across the table, ‘We are fixing it.’ By doing what, I ask? By thinking, by hoping, by praying? I suspect what has been revealed so far in terms of corruption is only the tip of the iceberg. I am sure there will be more, because more people knew and more people were told. No wonder the government do not want their inquiry to be public or to look at illegality – no wonder. I suspect that we will hear more because there is more, and that is the core of why the government does not want to allow non-government members to try and clean up what is happening in this state.

The Greens should have the right to introduce a bill, on principle, whether we agree with it or not, and the Greens have moved bills before that we have supported where on substance we did not agree with the subject matter, but they have the right to introduce it into this place for this place to have time to debate it. The way that the government blocks non-government members from doing that is disgraceful and is not something that is done in other parliaments. It is something where this particular government wants to suck the oxygen away from real problems that are occurring that it does not want to solve.

On principle, we support the Greens’ right, and on the subject matter, of course there is a corruption problem in this state and of course we need to look at ways to fix it. This bill should be debated in this chamber so that all members can look at the detail. I have not seen the bill yet, but I would certainly appreciate the opportunity to have a debate on this bill so that we can look at the substance and we can all speak to the substance, because doing nothing is not good enough, and that is what is occurring. There is corruption, and we thought, frankly, the last Premier oversaw some abhorrent behaviour under his watch – shameful behaviour. We were all ashamed by what we saw, and we did think and hope that under this Premier we would not see the same. Under these recent revelations they have been exposed.

Mary-Anne Thomas: On a point of order, Speaker, the Manager of Opposition Business knows that this is a narrow procedural debate. He has strayed far from the confines of that debate, and I would ask you to bring him back to speaking succinctly on the procedural debate.

The SPEAKER: The member for Brighton will come back to the procedural debate.

James NEWBURY: I understand why the government are upset at being exposed for voting against a bill to clean up corruption in this state, and that is what they are about to do.

Juliana ADDISON (Wendouree) (09:58): I too am very pleased to rise to talk on this very narrow procedural debate that has been brought on by the member for Brunswick and spoken to and followed up by the member for Melbourne and their good friend the member for Brighton. We only have to look back on the 2022 election results in Brunswick to know that it was Liberal preferences that meant that the member for Brunswick is in this house.

James Newbury: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker: relevance.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Succinct. I appreciate that. The member for Wendouree on the introduction of the bill.

Juliana ADDISON: I just was unsure of your ruling on that, so I do not want to stray from your ruling. What was your ruling, sorry?

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The matter at hand is the introduction of the bill from the member for Brunswick, and I would appreciate it if you continued on that matter.

Juliana ADDISON: Terrific. So, the member for Brunswick, who was elected in 2022, has brought this to the house today, and it has been followed up by the member for Melbourne and the member for Brighton.

A member interjected.

Juliana ADDISON: It is an interesting combination. I am very happy to follow on from the excellent contribution of the member for Sunbury and the outstanding contribution from the member for Mordialloc, two people who work so hard, and that is why they have been re-elected so many times. They have gone back to their community, and every single time, they have been re-elected, because they get it. They get what it is about. They know what being a member of Parliament is about. They know what the rights and responsibilities are of being a member of Parliament, and that is what we are about today in this narrow procedural debate.

We had a debate yesterday on the government business program. We voted, as we do every single Tuesday just after 12 o’clock, when we start and have a debate about what we are going to discuss throughout the three days of the sitting. We made it very clear that the order of business, as the notice paper indicates, today and for the next few days would be about discussing the Aboriginal Land Legislation Amendment Bill 2024, and we want to talk about Aboriginal land legislation amendment.

James Newbury: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, on relevance, may I seek clarity? Whether a bill is introduced has nothing to do with the government business program. The motion before the house is about whether a bill can be introduced. It has nothing to do with whether it is debated today or any other day. The motion before the house is about whether the bill is introduced. That is it, full stop.

Tim Richardson: On the point of order, Deputy Speaker, the relevance is that it is procedural, and the member for Wendouree going to why we should not because of other things on the government business program is absolutely relevant.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: There is no point of order on this occasion.

Juliana ADDISON: We are the party of treaty, we are the party that is working and walking every day with Aboriginal people, and we are very proud of that. We know that –

James Newbury: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, on relevance, they are also the party of secret reviews.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Here we go. That was not a point of order, but the member for Wendouree had started to stray, and I bring her back to the procedural debate.

Juliana ADDISON: I would really, really like to also talk about what else we want to talk about today. We know that the matter of public importance is coming up today, and that is a part of the government business program as well. Our MPI today is on women’s health, and it is going to be led by our Parliamentary Secretary for Women’s Health. Once again, we are the party of women and we are the party of women’s health, and we know that when you elect women to this Parliament you get better outcomes. That is what the government business program has decided – that we are going to have an MPI between 4 and 6 o’clock today. But, guess what, because we have got the MPI on the government business program we need time to talk about the bills that have already been introduced, including the State Sporting Legislation Amendment Bill 2024 and the Youth Justice Bill 2024.

The stunts that are being pulled by the Greens for their Instagram, for their live, are all about them and not about women’s health. They are not about Aboriginal land. They are about them putting their own egos up once again in cahoots in the Liberal Party. You rest well together. All the best.

Assembly divided on motion:

Ayes (28): 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, Tim McCurdy, 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, Bridget Vallence, Peter Walsh, Jess Wilson

Noes (50): Juliana Addison, Jacinta Allan, Colin Brooks, Josh Bull, Anthony Carbines, Ben Carroll, Darren Cheeseman, Anthony Cianflone, Sarah Connolly, Chris Couzens, Jordan Crugnale, Lily D’Ambrosio, Daniela De Martino, Steve Dimopoulos, Paul Edbrooke, 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, Alison Marchant, Kathleen Matthews-Ward, Steve McGhie, Paul Mercurio, John Mullahy, Tim Pallas, Danny Pearson, 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, Belinda Wilson

Motion defeated.