Tuesday, 13 August 2024
Bills
Parliamentary Workplace Standards and Integrity Bill 2024
Bills
Parliamentary Workplace Standards and Integrity Bill 2024
Council’s amendments
The SPEAKER (12:13): I have received a message from the Legislative Council agreeing to the Parliamentary Workplace Standards and Integrity Bill 2024 with amendments.
Ordered that amendments be taken into consideration immediately.
Message from Council relating to following amendments considered:
1. Clause 3, page 5, after line 29 insert –
“non-compliance report means a report prepared by the Commission under section 32A(1);”.
2. Insert the following New Clauses to follow clause 32 –
“32A Non-compliance with sanctions imposed by Commission
(1) Subject to subsection (2), if the Commission is satisfied that a person has failed to comply, within a reasonable time, with a sanction imposed under section 30, the Commission –
(a) must prepare a report of that failure; and
(b) may recommend that one or more sanctions be imposed on the person as if the Commission had made a finding of serious parliamentary misconduct by the person.
(2) The Commission must not prepare a non-compliance report unless the Commission has –
(a) given the person an opportunity to respond to the proposed report; and
(b) considered any response by the person.
(3) A non-compliance report must include the following –
(a) the details of the Commission’s finding that the person has failed to comply with the sanction;
(b) the sanctions (if any) that the Commission recommends be imposed on the person;
(c) any response by the person under subsection (2)(b).
(4) A non-compliance report must not include any of the following –
(a) information that is likely to lead to the identification of –
(i) an individual referrer without their consent; or
(ii) an affected person without their consent;
(b) a finding or opinion that a person is guilty of or has committed an offence;
(c) a recommendation that a person be prosecuted for an offence.
(5) The Commission must provide a non-compliance report as soon as practicable to the following –
(a) the individual referrer (if any) who made the referral for which an investigative report was prepared and the sanction was imposed;
(b) the person who is the subject of the non-compliance report;
(c) any other person or body to whom the Commission provided the investigative report under section 28(7) or (8).
32B Presentation of non-compliance report to Parliament – Privileges Committee
(1) Subject to subsection (2), if a Privileges Committee receives a non-compliance report, the Privileges Committee must –
(a) consider the report; and
(b) in the case that the report includes sanctions that the Commission recommends be imposed on the person who is the subject of the report –
(i) invite the person to provide within 30 days a written response regarding the sanctions recommended; and
(ii) consider any response provided within 30 days by the person; and
(c) prepare and cause to be transmitted to its House, no later than 10 sitting days after the period referred to in paragraph (b), a report that contains –
(i) the non-compliance report; and
(ii) the recommendations of the Privileges Committee regarding sanctions; and
(iii) an explanation for any differences between the recommendations of the Commission and the recommendations of the Privileges Committee.
(2) As soon as practicable after a Privileges Committee receives a non-compliance report, a Member of the Privileges Committee who has a direct or indirect interest in the subject-matter of the report, being an interest that could conflict with the performance of their duties as a Member of the Privileges Committee in considering the report, must –
(a) recuse themselves from the consideration of the report until the Privileges Committee has caused a report to be transmitted to its House in accordance with subsection (1)(c); or
(b) resign from the Privileges Committee.
(3) For the purposes of subsection (2), a direct or indirect interest in the subject-matter of a non-compliance report does not include being a member of the same political party as the person who is the subject of the report.
(4) A Privileges Committee must not reconsider or review any finding of the Commission in a non-compliance report.
Note
See section 112 for general requirements relating to transmission of reports to Parliament.
32C Presentation of non-compliance report to Parliament – Premier
(1) If the Premier receives a non-compliance report, the Premier must –
(a) consider the report; and
(b) in the case that the report includes sanctions that the Commission recommends be imposed on the person who is the subject of the report –
(i) invite the person to provide within 30 days a written response regarding the sanctions recommended; and
(ii) consider any response provided within 30 days by the person; and
(c) prepare and cause to be transmitted to the House of which the person who is the subject of the report is or was a Member, no later than 10 sitting days after the period referred to in paragraph (b), a report that contains –
(i) the non-compliance report; and
(ii) a statement of the actions that the Premier has taken in response to the non-compliance report; and
(iii) an explanation for any differences between the recommendations of the Commission and the actions taken by the Premier.
(2) Subsection (1) does not apply in respect of a non-compliance report that is related to an investigative report received by the Premier under section 28(8).
(3) The Premier must not reconsider or review any finding of the Commission in a non-compliance report.
Note
See section 112 for general requirements relating to transmission of reports to Parliament.”.
3. Clause 41, lines 1 and 2, omit “investigative report or summary report” and insert “reports”.
4. Clause 41, line 4, omit “or a summary report” and insert “, a summary report or a non-compliance report”.
5. Clause 41, lines 6 to 7, omit “or a summary report” and insert “, a summary report or a non-compliance report”.
6. Clause 45, page 62, after line 13 insert –
“(da) monitoring compliance with sanctions imposed by it and issuing reports in respect of non-compliance;”.
7. Clause 49, page 65, line 7, omit “5” and insert “10”.
8. Clause 49, page 65, line 9, omit “5” and insert “10”.
9. Clause 49, page 65, line 15, omit “5” and insert “10”.
10. Clause 49, page 65, line 17, omit “5” and insert “10”.
11. Clause 52, line 14, omit “or 51(1)” and insert “, 51(1) or 58(1)”.
12. Clause 58, line 15, omit “The” and insert “Subject to section 52, the”.
13. Clause 58, lines 32 to 34, omit all words and expressions on these lines.
14. Clause 61, page 73, after line 2 insert –
“(fa) a function under section 32A (preparing and providing a non-compliance report);”.
15. Clause 83, page 94, line 29, omit “reports and” and insert “reports,”.
16. Clause 83, page 94, line 30, after “reports” insert “and non-compliance reports”.
17. Clause 83, page 95, line 1, omit “reports and” and insert “reports,”.
18. Clause 83, page 95, line 2, after “reports” insert “and non-compliance reports”.
19. Clause 139, line 6, before “In” insert “(1)”.
20. Clause 139, after line 8 insert –
‘(2) After section 21(1) of the Parliamentary Committees Act 2003 insert –
“(1A) Not more than half the members of the Integrity and Oversight Committee may be members of a political party forming the Government.”.’.
21. Clause 141, line 27, before “or” insert “, the Integrity and Oversight Committee”.
That the amendments be agreed to.
The government has accepted the amendments to this bill that were passed in the Council. As the Premier has always said, this is Parliament’s bill, and the government has consulted extensively, including with all parties, to get the model right. We have taken on board many suggestions since consultation began on the bill last year to ensure that we do get it right. This will be the first Parliamentary Workplace Standards and Integrity Commission of its kind anywhere in Australia, a standalone legislated parliamentary commission which covers MPs, ministers and parliamentary secretaries.
We have accepted proposals by the Greens which provide the commission with the function to monitor compliance with sanctions that it imposes for parliamentary misconduct and have included two additional amendments to give full effect to the commission’s new function. This new function will allow the commission to seek information to determine if someone has complied with a sanction it has imposed. If the commission is satisfied that the person has failed to comply within a reasonable timeframe, it will be required to prepare a noncompliance report, which it must provide to either the Privileges Committee or Premier, depending on whether the person who was sanctioned was the Premier, an MP, a minister or a parliamentary secretary. The commission will be able to recommend further sanctions in line with a finding of serious parliamentary misconduct in its noncompliance report. Parliament and the Premier will have their own discretion to monitor compliance with sanctions imposed for serious parliamentary misconduct, improper conduct, detrimental action, failure to comply with an investigation request without a reasonable excuse and any sanction for noncompliance. If someone fails to comply with these sanctions, they may be referred back to the commission, as this could be considered a failure to uphold parliamentary standards and integrity. Parliament may also decide to refer them directly to the Privileges Committee.
The commission must afford procedural fairness regarding noncompliance reports. This amendment provides that the commission must not prepare a noncompliance report unless the commission has given the person an opportunity to respond to the proposed report and has considered any response by the person. A noncompliance report must include certain details, including the details of the commission’s finding that the person has failed to comply with the sanction; the sanctions, if any, that the commission recommends be imposed on that person; and any response by the person to the proposed report.
The government house amendments provide for an additional amendment that will outline that a noncompliance report must not include information that is likely to lead to the identification of an individual referrer or affected person without their consent, a finding or opinion that a person is guilty of or has committed an offence, or a recommendation that a person be prosecuted for an offence. This additional amendment will ensure that noncompliance reports are prepared in the same way as investigative reports. The commission must provide a noncompliance report as soon as practicable to the following: the individual referrer who made the referral for which an investigative report was prepared and the sanction was imposed, the person who is the subject of the noncompliance report and any other person or body to whom the commission provided the investigative report. The government amendments will also ensure that the bill clearly reflects the commission’s function to monitor compliance with sanctions imposed and to issue reports in respect of noncompliance.
More generally, the bill has been drafted so that all investigative reports will be tabled in Parliament, except when it is not in the public interest to do so. This is intended to encourage people who have had a sanction imposed to comply with the decision.
The government has accepted the Liberal amendment to the Integrity and Oversight Committee’s oversight of commissioner appointments so that the committee’s unanimous support is required before any acting appointment can be made. I might leave the member for Malvern to expand a little bit more on that if he so chooses.
In terms of qualifications of commissioners, the Legislative Council voted to amend clause 49 of the bill to require that a person is not eligible to be appointed as a commissioner if the person has held certain offices, such as a former state or federal MP, a member of a registered political party or a lobbyist, in the last 10 years. This is an expansion of five years on that which was introduced. In the spirit of ensuring that this bill be passed as soon as possible, the government supports this change.
The government has worked with every party on this bill and a number of independents to ensure that the model is right and that all feedback has been taken on board. Significant changes were made following the input of many MPs from right across the chamber, and we think that the model set out in the bill is the appropriate one to enhance the standards of accountability and integrity in Parliament. I commend the bill as amended to the house.
Michael O’BRIEN (Malvern) (12:20): I appreciate the words of the Leader of the House in relation to the Liberal and National amendments, which I will refer to shortly, but it is a shame that the members for South Barwon and Ringwood are not in the chamber to hear about this great upgrade to parliamentary standards and integrity that this bill is expected to introduce, because they are certainly two of the members who are responsible for this. I could go into former speakers and deputy speakers who have brought that high office into disrepute, and I am glad that I can say former speakers and deputy speakers, not incumbents.
This is a bill that has been effectively brought about because of Operation Watts, which was an investigation into the Labor Party’s inappropriate misconduct and bad behaviour from Labor MPs. Let us not sugar-coat it: this is a direct response to Operation Watts, which did not deal with Liberals, Nationals, Greens or independents; it dealt with the Labor Party and the corrupt culture at the heart of it. Let us understand exactly where this bill has sprung from: it is from the recommendations of the joint Victorian Ombudsman and IBAC operation Operation Watts.
There are some amendments in this which we support, because we moved them. We have increased from five years to 10 years the period under which somebody is disqualified from being a parliamentary integrity commissioner if they have been a candidate, a member of a political party, a member of Parliament, a lobbyist or a councillor. We think that is appropriate. With great respect to all of our retired colleagues, I think that after five years, arguably, people are still too close to the institutions of politics to be seen by the community as being sufficiently independent.
We have also supported an amendment moved by the Greens in the other place, which is to enshrine in legislation that the chair of the Integrity and Oversight Committee should be a non-government member and that that important committee should have a non-government majority on it. That is the current practice. I should say it is the current practice because the government only agreed to that change as a means of heading off an upper house inquiry into correspondence where again Labor members of Parliament were trying to go after the former head of IBAC Robert Redlich. So a good outcome came about because of a dirty deal that the government did to try and head off an upper house inquiry into further misconduct by Labor members of Parliament.
There is unfinished business in relation to the Privileges Committee. The proposal that the Privileges Committee in both chambers should have a non-government chair and a non-government majority was a direct recommendation of Operation Watts, and the government have said they need more time. We will take them on their word. We will make sure they actually do that further work. I will put it on record that this is something we have said: we are committed to implementing the recommendations of Operation Watts. The government have said they are committed to implementing the recommendations of Operation Watts and that it is one piece of unfinished business. The government has said it needs more time. Well, the government has more time, but tick-tock, the clock is ticking.
In relation to the important question of legal cost, which is not in the legislation but is a matter that has caused some concern to members because of course ministers of the Crown arguably have access to Victorian Managed Insurance Authority coverage for legal costs in relation to actions undertaken as ministers, it would be completely unfair and would be completely unjust if ministers received a level of coverage for legal costs that is not equally available to other members of Parliament, be they government backbenchers, be they opposition members, be they crossbenchers or be they members of other minor parties. The government’s view was that this needed to be dealt with as a policy response, not through the legislation. There have been some constructive discussions between me and my side of politics and the government. I do thank Ms Andrea David, who has been very helpful, from the Premier’s private office. I have found her to be very across the brief and very good to deal with. Perhaps some government members could learn from her, because she is really good to deal with.
As a consequence of those discussions I do have in my possession a letter signed by the Premier, the Honourable Jacinta Allan MP, dated 1 August 2024 in relation to these matters of legal costs. There is still some little bit of work to be done to iron out a couple of remaining questions, but we do take in good faith that the Premier, having provided us with this letter, will follow through and will ensure that there is a level playing field. While I will not quote the whole of the letter due to the time and other matters the house needs to get to, I will quote this one part of the letter from the Premier to me. It says:
I confirm that, notwithstanding any changes are made to the policy at that time, the approach of maintaining the same level of coverage for all members of parliament, regardless of whether they are also ministers and parliamentary secretaries will not change.
I think it is very important that there be a level playing field. Whether everyone has costs covered or no-one has costs covered, all we ask for is that there be a level playing field, that every member of Parliament is treated equally and fairly and that there be no special privileges accorded to ministers over officers of the Parliament, backbenchers, shadow ministers, government backbenchers or anybody else.
It is a shame that it has come to this. It is a shame that the bad behaviour of members of the Labor Party principally has led to Operation Watts and has led to this need for the Parliamentary Workplace Standards and Integrity Bill 2024 to be put before the house, but it is where we are. With that, I hope that the bill succeeds in improving standards and improving behaviour. I hope that the sanctions never have to be used, because we can actually lift our game collectively and behave ourselves, because the public of Victoria, the hardworking Victorians, the taxpaying Victorians, deserve no less than for their members of Parliament to be up to the normal standards we would expect in any workplace, and we arguably are subject to higher standards, being elected members of Parliament. With that, we support the amendments and we wish the bill success, although we do hope that it does not have to be used as much as it has needed to be in the past.
Ellen SANDELL (Melbourne) (12:27): The Greens will also be supporting this amended bill. I would like to thank all of those who worked on this bill. It has been a very long time coming. It is finally here – thank goodness. Also I would like to thank those who supported the Greens amendments to strengthen this bill and strengthen the integrity system in Victoria. As others have mentioned, this bill is being reintroduced because amendments were moved in the Council, and the most substantive of those amendments were the Greens amendments to legislate the requirement for there to be a non-government chair permanently and a non-government majority on the joint Integrity and Oversight Committee (IOC). This is one of Parliament’s most important and powerful oversight committees. It is a committee that oversights a lot of our integrity agencies here in Victoria, and it is long overdue that it be not controlled by the government of the day, which it is supposed to oversight and keep checks on. So it is a very important integrity reform that I think will do us well in Victoria into the future.
I have to say it is a little bittersweet to be speaking on this bill today, because on one hand the Parliament has passed a bill that sets out to improve the parliamentary workplace standards of Victorian MPs, with the Greens amendments to the IOC, and also ensure that three of the six joint investigatory committees will now be sufficiently independent of the government of the day so they can provide proper, rigorous oversight of the government’s decision-making and appointments to those committees, and all of that is a good thing. But on the other hand the bill again starkly illustrates the lack of genuine commitment of the Labor and Liberal parties to improving political integrity in this state.
Let me explain, because make no mistake, the passage of this bill does not actually change the fact that Victoria remains what the former Victorian Ombudsman described as the national laggard when it comes to integrity matters. In terms of transparency, for example, Victoria continues to have the worst FOI system in the nation. We have the most FOI applications, the slowest responses and the most requests denied in full, and this is in large part because the Labor government is also coming dead last in terms of its proactive release of documentation and even refuses to release documents when ordered to by this very Parliament. When it comes to the strength of our anti-corruption commission, something that was also canvassed with this bill in terms of amendments the Greens put forward, IBAC is at best the equal worst in the nation with South Australia in terms of having the weakest jurisdiction to investigate all forms of serious corruption.
I think that that is something that is below the standard that Victorians expect. In terms of political lobbying oversight Victoria fails to even show up to the starting line. It still does not even have lobbying laws on the statute books, let alone laws that are sufficient or lead the nation in any way.
Finally, perhaps most pertinent to this bill and the amendments to this bill, we should consider how well this Victorian Parliament operates in terms of upholding its democratic functions and the oversight function of the executive, which is a really important function of the Parliament, because as we know, this Parliament is actually the least democratic in the country and one of the least democratic in the entire Westminster system. This chamber here –
Ellen SANDELL: I hear the member for Albert Park saying, ‘What?’ She has not been in this place as long as me, so I will give the member for Albert Park a little lesson on this chamber. This chamber, she may not be aware, is actually the only place in the Westminster system that has no non-government business time. That means that backbenchers like her, opposition members and crossbench members cannot actually bring matters to be voted on and debated in this chamber, including bills, and essentially we have almost no consideration of legislation in detail; it has only happened a handful of times in my 10 years in this place. That means that Victorians are being denied their proper democratic representation in Parliament and our Parliament is being prevented from holding the government of the day to account.
I have to say, all of this has been well known for a long time, including by the opposition, and that is what makes what happened in this place two weeks ago with the passage of this bill in the other place quite bizarre. I guess we all expected the Labor government to renege on its commitment to reforming our integrity systems in full, in particular its commitment to reforming the privileges committees to remove government dominance as recommended in Operation Watts by IBAC. We have seen quite a few broken promises from this Labor government recently, so I guess we were not too surprised when they broke their promise on this.
But what I was surprised about and what was quite bizarre was the opposition, the Liberals and Nationals. They talk a huge game when it comes to parliamentary accountability and integrity in this Parliament. Two weeks ago, at the same time this bill was being debated in the other place, the Liberal–National parties walked out of question time, supposedly in protest about the lack of government accountability to the Parliament and its failure to answer questions. The Liberals and Nationals walked out of this Parliament, so when the real opposition, the Greens, put forward amendments to actually change the system, to actually reform Parliament’s integrity systems, to reform Parliament’s privileges committees and to reform our budget estimates process, which is one of the least effective in the world, to make it free from government dominance so ministers would have to actually answer questions and be accountable to the Parliament, we obviously expected that the Liberals and Nationals, who were protesting outside about the government not answering questions, would actually support these amendments, because what we proposed in those amendments was that those on the opposition and non-government benches, the crossbenches, would no longer be blocked from fully holding the government to account.
What we proposed was that we would have a more open and accountable government and executive. If our amendments had passed, it would have meant that the opposition could drag ministers before PAEC for example, our Public Accounts and Estimates Committee. They could have actually brought ministers before that committee and held inquiries into the things that they seem so concerned about, such as budget blowouts on major transport projects. If the Liberals had supported our amendments – the rest of the crossbench supported them – we would have had the numbers to reform the PAEC system, which would have meant we could have a system where ministers would be required to come before our budget estimates process and committee to actually answer questions. We do not have that now. We do not have that, because the Liberals and Nationals did not have the guts to reform the system, because they think that one day maybe they will be in government and they do not want to be held to account when they are. Well, I do not know if they are going to be in government anytime soon.
It was pretty remarkable, actually, and pretty incredible that the Liberals and Nationals said no to more integrity, said no to more transparency in the Victorian Parliament and voted down amendments to require ministers to actually answer non-government members’ questions and be more accountable on their portfolios to committees. So when they are crying crocodile tears about accountability and transparency, let us remember – the Victorian public will remember – that when it came down to it, when they had the chance to actually reform the system, to actually do something about integrity, to actually maybe do their jobs a little bit more effectively, they chose not to do so. In doing that, they showed that all their talk and bluster on integrity, on democracy and on accountability is just show. Their walkouts, their protests, their points of order – they are all just actually make-believe. In voting down the Greens’ amendments to make all governments – not just the current government but all governments – more accountable, the Liberals and Nationals told Victorians directly and unambiguously that they would not be any better if they were elected to government.
We know that all of this protest from the opposition really is just theatre. They have no intention of changing the system. They were supposedly so upset about it that they had to storm out of Parliament. The Liberals and Nationals literally voted against change. So let us remember this when the Liberals next complain about the Speaker or let us remember this when the Liberals and Nationals complain about the lack of answers from a minister, the waste on a government public project or the corruption of Labor ministers: they had the chance to do something about it and they chose not to. They voted against Parliament holding the government more accountable for these things.
The opposition is no different from the Labor Party. They formed a joint ticket to block more integrity in this Parliament. The Greens amendments were supported by the entire crossbench from a huge spectrum of politics, from the left wing to the right wing, but the reality is that Labor and the Liberals were on a joint ticket to block real integrity reform to improve accountability, and they were on a joint ticket against getting better outcomes for Victorians.
To be honest, it is really no wonder the two-party system is rapidly dying. We have got the primary votes of Labor and the Liberal parties sliding downwards, and it is really no wonder when they are trying to lock people out of this place and block change to our broken politics.
The opposition can get up and storm out of Parliament all they like. Maybe next time there will be no point coming back, because this bill proves that it is only the Greens who actually want the highest political integrity standards in Victoria, only the Greens who actually want more parliamentary scrutiny and accountability in government and only the Greens who actually put up the amendments and actually vote for those amendments. Everybody else is just pretending.
Nina TAYLOR (Albert Park) (12:38): I think it is important when we are looking at this very important legislation to note that the government has accepted amendments to this bill passed in the Council – just to state factually – and as the Premier has said, this is Parliament’s bill, and the government has consulted extensively. In spite of some of the inferences that were put forward just now, I have to say the government has genuinely and in good faith consulted extensively. I can say that as members on our side of the house we certainly take it very seriously and certainly integrity is an incredibly important aspect of representing our communities. When I talk about consultation, I mean with all parties in an earnest effort to get the model absolutely right. And we have taken on board many suggestions since consultation began on the bill last year to ensure we get it right, because we are obviously existing in the imperfect space of human beings – although the Greens political party are absolutely perfect! Every one of them has never made a mistake in their life, and that is absolutely brilliant! However, coming back to the bill, this will be –
A member interjected.
Nina TAYLOR: As I said, they are absolutely perfect human beings, with no errors, no emotionality whatsoever! They are perfect human beings! If only we could live up to those lofty standards. But nevertheless I persist.
Nina TAYLOR: Yes, apart from when they incite some pretty bad behaviour in the community, which we have seen to date.
This will be the first Parliamentary Workplace Standards and Integrity Commission of its kind anywhere in Australia, and I think there is something to be said for that. I do commend all the consultation that has been undertaken.
Members interjecting.
Nina TAYLOR: Well, you could take the most negative inference, or you could take the fact that this is a really important step forward for Victoria and perhaps other states will follow suit. It is a standalone legislated parliamentary commission which covers MPs, ministers and parliamentary secretaries such as me.
We have also accepted the Greens amendment which provides the commission with a function to monitor compliance with sanctions that it imposes for parliamentary misconduct and included two additional amendments to give full effect to the commission’s new functions, so you can see the iterative elements to the development of this very delicate but important legislation. This new function will allow the commission to seek information to determine if someone has complied with a sanction it has imposed.
I am not seeking to artificially protract the debate; I believe that the matter has been thoroughly transacted. Nevertheless I thought it was important to speak to the bill at hand because of the importance that it should hold in terms of seeking the best possible outcomes for integrity in this Parliament.
Peter WALSH (Murray Plains) (12:42): I rise to make a brief contribution as well. I would like to start that off by thanking the Shadow Attorney-General and all those that worked with him to make the changes to the bill that we are now debating in the house that have come back from the upper house, particularly the one around making sure there was actually support across the Parliament for the appointment of the parliamentary integrity commissioners. As the bill was originally structured, effectively the executive government of the day could carry the day and appoint those commissioners at their own will. I think the changes that the Shadow Attorney-General and others pushed for mean that there is going to be across the Parliament support for those parliamentary integrity commissioners, and I think to work in the spirit of the bill it was important to make that happen, as were some of the other changes that have been talked about.
I just want to touch on what the member for Melbourne was saying. The member for Melbourne talked about crocodile tears, and she took the words out of my mouth. The member for Melbourne has crocodile tears about what has happened with integrity in this state. Can I remind the member for Melbourne it was actually a Liberal–Nationals government under Ted Baillieu that introduced IBAC here into Victoria, but it was the Labor Party, with the support of Greens preferences to elect the majority of their members to the Parliament, that actually watered down that particular legislation. So the member for Melbourne may have crocodile tears about what has happened to the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission in this state, but it is the government that they supported to be elected that actually made those changes that watered down IBAC. I might remind the member for Melbourne that they might think about whether they are just going to blindly give their preference to the Labor Party every time there is an election to do the things that they do around those particular things. Particularly the Greens did work with the Labor government to support the government to supposedly have an inquiry into Robert Redlich in return for the chair of the Integrity and Oversight Committee. Again, a grubby little deal was done between the Greens and the Labor Party around that.
Integrity is an interesting term, and I suppose no discussion in this house about integrity would go without us letting Patch and Ted out of the ministerial car for a walk. If you think about integrity, I think the real low point that I can remember in here, apart from all the other issues that have been raised by the Shadow Attorney-General about former Speakers, former Deputy Speakers and former ministers, was the transporting of Patch and Ted from Melbourne to Trentham in a ministerial car. That to me just went to the utter hypocrisy of the Labor Party; the taking for granted of the office of minister and putting two dogs in a ministerial car to drive them to country Victoria was just beyond the pale.
Brad ROWSWELL (Sandringham) (12:45): I also rise to address this bill and the amendments before the chamber. I do so as a former deputy chair of the Parliament’s Integrity and Oversight Committee and someone who has had a deep interest in these matters for some time. I was not going to speak on these amendments, but when I heard the member for Melbourne on her feet and when I heard some Labor members of Parliament on their feet I just could not but help myself, frankly, to get up and to say something on the record.
Let it not be forgotten that under the former coalition government the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission was established, and let it not be forgotten that under this government, this Labor government – Andrews now Allan Labor government – with the support of the Greens, IBAC as an important integrity and oversight institution in this state has not only been undermined but had its resources cut. That is simply a matter of fact. It is true that the Greens are in the pocket of Labor and Labor are in the pocket of the Greens when it comes to this. I reference the Age:
Multiple Greens sources, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said while the party wanted Labor to take integrity issues more seriously, MPs were treading carefully because their supporters wouldn’t want them to assist in anything that could eventually contribute to the downfall of a left-wing government.
And there you have it. There you have it in black and white: the Greens in the pocket of Labor when it comes to integrity in this state; Labor in the pocket of the Greens when it comes to integrity in this state. They put themselves first, before the Victorian people. They put themselves and their own political interests before the interests of integrity and before the interests of the Victorian people. Shame on them.
The SPEAKER: I ask members not to bang the table when they are making their contributions.
Motion agreed to.
The SPEAKER: A message will now be sent to the Legislative Council informing of them of the house’s decision.