Wednesday, 17 August 2022

Motions

Integrity and Oversight Committee

Mr DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan—Leader of the Opposition) (11:54): I move:

That this house:

(1) notes:

(a) the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission’s (IBAC) submission on 15 July 2022 to the Integrity and Oversight Committee (IOC), which voiced ‘grave concerns’ about the procedure the committee followed, accused the committee of subjecting IBAC to ‘profound procedural unfairness’ and branded the chair of the IOC, the Honourable Harriet Shing MLC, as ‘unresponsive’ and claimed that she was responsible for ‘disappointing shortcomings’;

(b) that on 9 May 2022, Ms Shing ordered that the audiovisual feed of a public hearing of the IOC be cut, effectively shutting down the hearing and preventing the IBAC Commissioner, the Honourable Robert Redlich AM, QC, from making his views known;

(2) regards Ms Shing’s treatment of an independent integrity agency as unreasonable, undemocratic, unacceptable and part of an Andrews Labor government attack on IBAC;

(3) further notes that the same high-handed approach has been continued by Mr Gary Maas MP, the new Labor chair of the IOC; and

(4) expresses its serious concern at the actions of Ms Shing and Mr Maas and calls on Ms Shing to publicly apologise to Mr Redlich.

The story of the Integrity and Oversight Committee has become very well known. We have become more familiar with the steps that have been taken by that committee under the tutelage of its chairs, first Ms Shing and now Mr Maas, and it is clear that the committee is not acting in the way that it should.

It is clear that the government majority on the committee has embarked on a particular course, and indeed the chair of that committee has on a number of occasions now—first being Ms Shing and now more recently, and I will come to the recent material shortly—taken a set against the IBAC and against providing procedural fairness and the opportunity for the IBAC Commissioner to put his case. It is clear that on the occasion, the infamous occasion, of the feed cutting by Ms Shing the IBAC Commissioner was seeking to make commentary. It is clear that he was prepared to make commentary, and it is clear that he was more than capable of understanding the legal lines where he needed to step to make sure that he did not cause concern for any individual case or any individual investigation matter that IBAC may have had underway. I have a high degree of respect for Mr Redlich and a high degree of respect for his competence and his integrity and his ability to make those judgements cautiously, thoughtfully and in the interests of the agency and the investigations that he is undertaking. I have no doubt he would not have said anything that would have compromised an investigation or anything that would have been untoward. So in those circumstances Ms Shing should not have cut the feed, and I think that that is now seen as a reprehensible step that occurred at that time.

I also make the point very clearly that the press coverage that we have seen on a number of these matters has, I think, concerned many. The committee should be a very genuine supporter of the independent agencies but should also scrutinise the independent agencies properly but respectfully and within reasonable bounds in such a way that they do not limit the ability of the agencies to do their work. So I say the position going forward has now become very clear. The Premier of course has inevitably jumped in to push back and say that, no, Ms Shing was fabulous and she had the highest integrity. Well, I have to say I disagree with that. In my view, this is a matter of great concern. These agencies have got a very important role, and we need to make sure that they are protected. That is the purpose of this motion—to make it clear that the chamber has a view and that the chamber is concerned about what is occurring here.

To read in the newspaper on the weekend that two Labor MPs were apparently briefed, with their strings pulled from the Premier’s office, and were intervening on matters of this nature and that directions were being issued from the Premier’s office to members of that committee I think is of huge concern. That alone would be regarded as reprehensible, I think, by most people. My point is that this is a very simple motion to get across the point of the chamber. It rehearses the history, and I ask for the chamber’s support for this. And, look, there is an opportunity for Ms Shing to make amends.

Business interrupted pursuant to sessional orders.