Wednesday, 11 May 2022

Premier

Mr DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan—Leader of the Opposition) (11:29): I move:

That this house calls on the Premier, the Honourable Daniel Andrews MP, to stand aside from all official responsibilities until the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission’s report on Operation Sandon has been tabled in Parliament and during this time not participate in any executive or administrative decision-making.

This is a very, very simple motion. It is a motion that is important because we want standards in our public life that mean that corruption cannot get going. We want to see our IBAC in a position where it can take the stands it needs and do the investigations it needs.

Indeed, the Premier has now made a habit of visiting IBAC. He has been for at least two inquiries that we know about, including the Operation Watts inquiry. We know the corrupt and grubby behaviour inside the Labor Party that is the matter in Operation Watts that has been looked at by IBAC with a number of public hearings. I note on this one that the Premier has also been called to IBAC but has not been called to a public hearing. He was called to a private hearing. I note also that the red shirts investigation by the Ombudsman going back into the last Parliament was a foundational investigation that exposed corrupt behaviour by the Labor Party, the theft of public money. The money was repaid when the Ombudsman blew the whistle, but the Labor Party did not pay the price that should have been paid for that corrupt and crooked behaviour.

At the same time we have seen more recently with Operation Sandon a series of very significant developments, significant developments where a range of individuals—Labor Party MPs, councillors and others—have been caught up in this Operation Sandon, and there have been a series of public hearings with respect to Operation Sandon. At the same time the Premier has been called to give evidence to IBAC as part of its Operation Sandon inquiry. We do not know because the Premier will not tell us the nature of that investigation, the nature of that questioning that occurred secretly at IBAC. We do know that he was questioned. We do not know the date he was questioned, we do not know the length of time, we do not know the nature of the questions, we do not know whether the Premier was merely there as a witness or whether the Premier was there as an object of direct investigation by IBAC. We do know that the government is very sensitive about this. The Premier will not give details about when he was investigated or when he answered questions, when he was at IBAC for questioning and when he was not. He has been tight-lipped, refusing to even give the basic details. He could have said, ‘I went to IBAC on the following days, and I gave evidence on the following inquiries in the following way’. He did not choose to do this. He is determined to block any question or any investigation on that.

We saw the fiasco, I can only call it, at the Integrity and Oversight Committee earlier this week, where the feed was cut, the government went to every step that it could to block questions to the IBAC Commissioner—and it appeared to all the world that he was very willing to answer. He was very willing to answer directly, and it appeared to all the world that in fact he wanted to answer and be quite clear on these points. I think it would have been to the benefit of the public if he had. Let me just say here that the IBAC Commissioner understands his act better than I think do most people in this Parliament or people in the community. He actually understands his act and the lines and the points in his act where he can be direct—where he can be direct and provide information to the public. He wanted to provide that information in the appearance and the response he was giving, but that was closed down—shamefully in my view, shamefully.

At the same time we know the Premier did go to Operation Sandon. He did give evidence. We do not know, again, whether it was him as a witness or him as a subject of investigation. No-one knows because the Premier will not tell us. But we know that Operation Sandon has a big smell about it. We know that money has changed hands. We know that a series of things have occurred there. There are a series of matters with Mr Woodman. There are donations, and there are a whole series of other points. The Premier, as we know, had a lunch at the Flower Drum—a very expensive lunch with Mr Woodman and others. We know that that occurred, and we know that there is a close link-up between the Premier and Mr Woodman. We do know all of those matters.

But all of this leads to the conclusion that there may well be very serious matters occurring here, and if the government, through the Premier, is making administrative or executive decisions that touch some of these planning matters, for example, is the Premier ruling out making decisions on planning where Mr Woodman is involved? The Minister for Planning might have official responsibility, but often those matters come to cabinet. The Premier could next week at cabinet be involved in discussing a planning application coming forward from Mr Woodman. Would anyone think that that is appropriate? There is a clear imputation that there may be corrupt behaviour, a clear link-up with the Premier, a longstanding link-up to Mr Woodman with the Premier, and at the same time a set of questions about whether he could this week or next week make decisions on planning where Mr Woodman’s interests are concerned. That would be totally inappropriate, in my view—totally inappropriate. It would be bordering on scandalous for that to occur, and I say that in the interests of the Victorian community the Premier should stand aside.

If Operation Sandon comes down and it clears him, that is one thing. If it does not come down and clear him, it will mean all of these decisions, especially planning decisions, will be under a cloud. People would be asking: was that decision made in that period where the Premier was under a cloud, where the Premier had been called to IBAC twice, including particularly with Operation Sandon, and was he making decisions under a cloud of investigation? People would be asking that question. The safest course for the community is for the Premier to step aside and for the Premier to be quite clear that he should in that way clear the air, make things quite direct and make the decisions of government beyond reproach.

There is another question in terms of Operation Richmond. There is a question floating around. The Premier will not answer this. Has he been asked to visit Operation Richmond and the investigations that are going on with the links to the United Firefighters Union (UFU)—the series of doubtful links, grubby links that we know about from other discussions in this chamber and elsewhere? The IBAC is looking closely at some of these through Operation Richmond. Has the Premier been to IBAC on this? He needs to come clean and answer that question. Has he? What was the basis of his visit, if indeed he did visit Operation Richmond? Was he the subject of questions in terms of his own behaviour, or was he merely a witness to the side on matters of fact and matters around that? He will not answer those questions, so we need to know exactly what is going on. I think the community is entitled to know. Victorians are entitled to know.

He is after all the Premier of Victoria. He is the head of the cabinet. He is the head of the government in Victoria, and he is making decisions day by day which touch all of these areas. If he is under investigation by Richmond on the UFU, how on earth can we have confidence in decisions about emergency services? How on earth can we have confidence in decisions about firefighters? How can we have confidence about decisions made on the CFA if the Premier is under investigation for the links and the deals and the grubby relationship with the UFU? We need to know. The community is entitled to know. Has the Premier been to IBAC on the UFU matter, on Richmond? Has he been there? He will not answer that. I mean, I would say the Premier is now fast taking on the status of a frequent flyer at IBAC—a frequent flyer. Very few people go to IBAC once in their life; he has been twice that we know of recently.

He has been under investigation by the Ombudsman. Remember what the government did on the red shirts investigation? They blocked the investigation; they would not allow it to happen. Huge amounts of money—public money—were thieved, stolen, ripped off from Victorian taxpayers and used to influence the election, and the Premier and the lower house members of this Parliament would not cooperate with the Ombudsman.

I say it is a very, very serious matter that the Premier, with two IBAC investigations, is now a frequent flyer at IBAC. Is he under investigation on a third matter? He needs to come clean. Is Operation Richmond something that he has had to go to IBAC on? Why on earth can’t he at least be honest about this? Why can’t he be direct and just say, ‘Look, yes, I’ve been there. There was a matter under investigation, and it was on this date I spent an hour and a half’—or 2 hours or 4 hours—‘there under investigation’?

We have seen the Premier under these sorts of circumstances. We saw him with the Coate inquiry and the obfuscation and the bizarre amnesia that broke out with the Premier at the Coate inquiry. He could not remember who had ordered the hotel quarantine. No-one could remember. People recognised that suddenly this bout of amnesia broke out right across the top echelons of government.

A member: Ten bureaucrats.

Mr DAVIS: Ten bureaucrats. There must have been something terrible in the water that meant that 10 people could not remember who ordered the hotel quarantine arrangements. What an extraordinary set of matters. That is the way the Premier treats inquiries: he treats them with contempt. That is the way he treats Victorians: he treats them with contempt. And that is the way he is treating Victorians now. He needs to come forward, he needs to be honest and he needs to explain the visits he has made to IBAC—all of them. In my view—and I think this is a very important point—he needs to step aside so that no government administrative or executive decision is tainted by the investigations and the potential corruption around the Labor Party on these matters.

Nothing in emergency services should be decided by the Premier at this point. If he is under investigation by Richmond, he should not touch anything in emergency services. He should not be present in the cabinet room when the CFA is discussed. He should not be present in the cabinet room when the Metropolitan Fire Brigade is discussed. He should not be present in the cabinet room when emergency services are discussed, like ESTA. If he is under investigation directly for Richmond, he should not be touching or involved with any emergency services decision. That decision would be tainted.

In the case of planning, planning decisions often are discussed at cabinet, as they should be. Land use decisions have a huge impact on communities. They have a huge impact across a wide front. But suppose a planning decision in the City of Casey came forward to cabinet and was discussed at cabinet. Would it be appropriate for the Premier to be expressing a view or for the Premier to be directing traffic on a planning decision in or around the City of Casey when he has been to IBAC on the Sandon matter reflecting on and dealing with the City of Casey? Would it be appropriate for him to make a decision or to influence a decision on a matter that touches the municipality when he has been to IBAC on a corruption matter? How extraordinary that people would be arguing that he can just jolly his way forward, making important executive and administrative decisions and influencing decisions across the whole of government, whilst he is under investigation by IBAC. If he is not under investigation by IBAC, he should tell us that, but he will not tell us that.

My view is that on the Watts matter he may well be under investigation by IBAC, but my view is that on the Sandon matter he almost certainly is under investigation by IBAC. If the reports in the Australian are even remotely correct that he was handed mobile numbers and asked to make calls, and if he is having lunches at the Flower Drum with a developer that is actually the centrepiece of this, I think the likely thing is that he is one of those—he will not tell us different—who is being directly investigated for corruption. Now, he may be cleared—I cannot look in and see what IBAC will decide—but if he is not cleared, if he is the subject of investigation and he is not cleared, how extraordinary that he has been allowed to career along making decisions, directing traffic, making administrative and executive decisions across a wide front in planning when he is under investigation for potentially corrupt behaviour.

I do not want to say too much more. I have been very clear about the problem. I think the fact is that there is a cloud over the Premier. I do not remember a previous Premier going twice to IBAC and potentially a third time—and he will not rule that out. Let us hear that. When was the last time a Premier went twice to IBAC on two different matters and on one of them almost certainly was one of the subjects of the investigation? So he needs to stand aside. If the Sandon report comes forward and it clears him, well, that is an entirely different matter. He should go back and resume his activities. But if it does not clear him, well, all of these decisions are being made under a cloud of investigation for corruption. What an extraordinary circumstance. I say this is the prudent way forward—it is a very prudent way forward—and the Premier should exercise the step in the public interest to step aside.

The PRESIDENT: Members, we have in the gallery a former member of this house, Mr James Purcell. Welcome.

Ms TAYLOR (Southern Metropolitan) (11:47): I rise to speak against Mr Davis’s motion, which is a desperate attempt without basis. IBAC has an important function. Investigations are an integral part of IBAC’s functions relating to corruption and police misconduct. There are longstanding rules of sub judice that members of Parliament should not run a commentary on matters being considered by a commission before it reports. This motion should not be passed, and the chamber should not depart from longstanding convention and undermine the work of IBAC.

On this side of the chamber we are focused on reforms to give IBAC powers to support its role, which has been demonstrated over and again in recent years: measures in the Justice Legislation Amendment (System Enhancements and Other Matters) Act 2021 to allow IBAC and other integrity agencies to continue conducting inquiries and investigations over audiovisual links and embed modified service requirements; the Integrity and Accountability Legislation Amendment (Public Interest Disclosures, Oversight and Independence) Act 2019, which improved Victoria’s public disclosure system; and the Justice Legislation Miscellaneous Amendments Act 2020, which gave IBAC the power to arrest a potential witness suspected of corrupt activity if IBAC believes that person is at risk of leaving Victoria. Our reforms have given the IBAC and the Ombudsman budget independence from 1 July 2020, which means their budget bids are not assessed through a single minister.

The Victorian budget 2022–23 provides IBAC with $32.1 million in additional funding and a $15.8 million boost in base funding for the Victorian Inspectorate. Total funding for Victoria’s three key integrity agencies has increased significantly, with a 92.7 per cent increase between 2015–16 and 2025–26, or an additional $45.8 million in funding allocated over that time.

Mr HAYES (Southern Metropolitan) (11:50): Is it any wonder that democratic disillusion is at an all-time high? It is an indictment on today’s politics that a government’s tight-knit relationship with property developers has led us to a motion where we are seriously considering asking a Premier to stand aside. At this stage facts about the Premier’s examination by IBAC are limited and the circumstances merely speculative. We do know that developer John Woodman had privileged access to the Premier during an eye-watering $10 000 dumpling feast. I hope the dumplings were worth it, Mr Woodman. I hope they were laced with gold; I suppose that was the intention, but whether it came about I do not know now. As reported in the Australian, that $10 000 was just the tip of the iceberg, with IBAC estimating that Mr Woodman donated about $970 000 to both major parties between September 2010 and 2019. That is nearly $1 million. It is my view that this type of cash for ministerial access should be illegal. It highlights serious concerns about corruption, lack of transparency and unethical practice in Victorian and, more broadly, Australian politics and talks very much to residents’ lack of success in getting any changes to the planning scheme if developers can contribute that sort of money to both major parties.

While this type of conduct by the government stinks, under current legislation, supported by both major parties, it is not considered unlawful. Funnily enough it was only last month that I tried to move in this very chamber that we crack down on our corrupt political donations regime, specifically addressing the issue of privileged access by way of fundraising and ticketed events, which would cover this event. Of course the government voted against it; they love the status quo. And of course the opposition voted against it as well; they love the status quo too. I would have more sympathy for the opposition’s position on this issue if they had supported me with my motion to ban political donations. By my barometer, we have seen a lot of examples of what I and the community see as corruption of the political process—the politicisation of the public service, the super profits deal with developers and the branch-stacking fiasco, to name a few. These issues erode public trust in democratic politics.

In terms of the specific motion before us today, we have arguably seen signs of corruption by this government, but we are yet to see concrete proof of corruption that could be considered illegal under current laws. And we have both of the major parties to blame for this situation. There may be further information to come out in regard to the Premier’s involvement in the current corruption investigation—which brings me to another issue. On IBAC’s website it says:

The IBAC Commissioner may decide to hold public examinations when:

…

• it is in the public interest …

Now, what is in the public interest? If these matters had been made public, it could well have increased transparency, which is desperately needed. The Premier could provide that transparency if he so desired. And on the note of transparency, I absolutely condemn the shambles at the Integrity and Oversight Committee hearing the other day. When the Victorian public finally had the opportunity to receive some clarification from the IBAC Commissioner himself on this very topic, the chair ordered the public feed to be cut. What kind of message does the government think this sends to the community? Once again, it erodes public faith in our institutions, and such censorship treats the community with contempt. We as members of Parliament have been left completely in the dark in regard to the Premier’s involvement in this investigation, but more importantly the Victorian community has been left completely in the dark also. They deserve better. It underscores the need for serious reform. It underscores the need to abolish political donations or fees for privileged access to our ministers, make ministerial diaries public, clean up the mess, ban political donations and put caps on electoral spending. The current system is a pigpen and leads to the erosion of democracy, and the major parties are rolling in it.

Ms CROZIER (Southern Metropolitan) (11:56): I am very pleased to be able to rise and speak to Mr Davis’s motion, because we have seen in Victoria over the last few years a lack of transparency, a lack of honesty and a real secrecy around the Andrews Labor government, and no more so than by the Premier himself. He is a man who is quick to deflect and to blame and to really spit the dummy when it suits. He puts on his political hat and goes hard, but he really is at the heart of this motion and integrity in terms of what this state needs. This state needs somebody that has got integrity. Daniel Andrews does not—he does not. That is why this motion is so important.

When you look at what has happened around the country with other premiers who have been before anti-corruption commissions, you see what they do with great integrity. Barry O’Farrell, a former Premier of New South Wales, resigned in 2014 owing to a massive memory fail in not disclosing a bottle of wine that he had received. Now, that massive memory fail came out through the anti-corruption commission process, and he resigned. We have seen this Premier have a massive memory fail on more than one occasion. Mr Davis mentioned the Coate inquiry. Well, before the Coate inquiry it was not just the Premier who had a massive memory fail, it was 10 bureaucrats, three ministers and the Premier—‘I couldn’t recall, I couldn’t remember’. How many times did those bureaucrats and members of the Andrews Labor government utter those words to that inquiry? What a farce it all was, and what a disgrace it was for Victorians who have suffered because of the policy failures of this government. And now we have reports—well, fact—that the Premier has been quizzed by IBAC.

Mr Davis: Twice.

Ms CROZIER: Twice that we know of. But he will not disclose if it has only been twice. Well, why won’t he disclose if it has been more than two times? Why won’t he be up-front with Victorians? Because he has something to hide. Because he is a man who is steeped in deception and disingenuousness and, quite frankly, does not believe in what integrity means to a decent society. I find it absolutely extraordinary. Operation Sandon’s public hearings were focused on:

the transparency and integrity of planning and property development decision making within Victoria, including but not limited to, the provision of donations and in kind assistance to candidates at State and local government elections that may give rise to actual or perceived corruption

Now, we have heard what has happened; we have heard that in the public domain from a number of people. It was the Premier who was having dumplings with Mr Woodman at the Flower Drum. That is on the public record. When we go and have a look at Operation Watts, again, the scope of those public hearings was to investigate:

Whether public officers, including Victorian Members of Parliament, are engaging in corrupt conduct while in public office by directing ministerial and electorate office staff to perform party‐political work during times when those staff are paid from public funds to perform ministerial or electorate work.

Well, we know that happened—red shirts.

Business interrupted pursuant to sessional orders.