Wednesday, 17 August 2022

Motions

Integrity and Oversight Committee

Debate resumed.

Ms TAYLOR (Southern Metropolitan) (12:55): This motion is yet another baseless attack from those opposite and yet another attempt to deeply politicise IBAC and the Integrity and Oversight Committee. Actions of a committee are taken following deliberation by the committee. Actions may not always be unanimous, but they are made by majority. Mr Davis is a longstanding member of this chamber, and he knows full well how committees of the Parliament operate. The chair is the only member empowered to make public comment about committee matters and is given that authority as part of the position of chair. Many allegations have been made about the actions of the IOC chair. These are unhelpful, inappropriate and divisive. It should be stressed that discussions and deliberations of parliamentary committees are privileged and confidential, as are documents exchanged in the course of committee work. They should not be referred to in whole or in part by any person, whether a member of the committee or not. The chair speaks on behalf of the collective.

Many allegations have been made about the actions of the chair when in fact these were actions that the chair took following the deliberations of the committee. The committee is not bound by rules of procedural fairness. In fact no committee of Parliament is bound by such rules. Even if procedural fairness were to apply, it would not apply to organisations or agencies. This committee has important work to do. The issue of witness welfare is paramount in circumstances where independent agencies have extreme powers. Although recent events have focused the eye on witness welfare, this is a longstanding issue when it comes to IBAC.

In 2018 the Victorian Inspectorate tabled Special Report: Welfare of Witnesses in IBAC Investigations containing findings that IBAC did not have sufficient policies and procedures in place to protect witnesses’ welfare during private examinations in 2015 and 2016. IBAC did not accept the recommendations of the VI’s report and the factual conclusions of the report and the VI’s conduct in relation to the own-motion investigation. However, at the time IBAC emphasised that its policies and procedures had been updated since 2016 and indicated that the issues underlying the recommendations would be considered. No-one and no agency is above oversight. IBAC has conducted itself in line with its powers to investigate allegations of corruption. In just the same way the IOC has conducted itself in line with its powers to hold reviews into such matters as witness welfare. Those opposite should be defending the role of Parliament and its committees, not undermining it as they are attempting to do right now.

IBAC, the Office of the Victorian Ombudsman, the Victorian Inspectorate and the Office of the Victorian Information Commissioner are well within their rights, as they should be, to say whatever they would like in relation to the matters that are within their remit. Parliamentary committees must operate within the framework which exists in the Parliamentary Committees Act 2003. It is essential that integrity agencies are able to undertake their work without interference or the perception of interference from any member of Parliament or indeed any committee. Section 7(2) of the Parliamentary Committees Act makes this clear. This is not new. This is something that impacts all parliamentary committees.

Sitting suspended 1.00 pm until 2.03 pm.

Mr DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan—Leader of the Opposition) (14:03): In reply, motion 819 makes it very clear that the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission’s submission to the Integrity and Oversight Committee drew significant concerns to the attention of the community, and there is no doubt that some of the concerns of the honourable Robert Redlich AM, QC, are now coming to the fore. I know that the IBAC have asked for their information to be on the website.

I listened carefully to what Ms Taylor said earlier. She misses the point, sadly, that this is a very serious matter. Mr Maas recently has gone out on a frolic. He was not privy to the earlier material given the newness of his position as chair. I also very, very strongly believe that Ms Shing has not covered herself in glory with these matters. The truth of the matter is that this is a very serious issue. In working hard to block the ability of the IBAC Commissioner to make legitimate commentary—I have very great confidence in his ability to manage his way forward, and I do not believe Ms Shing should have behaved the way she did in these recent hearings. I think the stinging criticisms there are concerning. I think any fair-minded person would be concerned. They would be very concerned to hear some of the points in the recent Age article which laid out the intervention of the Premier’s office and the direction of the Premier’s office to members of that committee. Ms Taylor talked about the role of parliamentary committees. Well, they are not to be directed by the Premier’s office, no matter how important the Premier feels he is.

House divided on motion:

Motion negatived.

Mr Atkinson: On a point of order, just to alert you, President, and all members, the door coming out of the new annexe building into the corridor to get here is jammed and you cannot get through. So I missed the vote because I could not get through the door.

The PRESIDENT: Thanks, Mr Atkinson, for raising the point of order, but unfortunately the count is done. The Clerk will follow it up.

Mr Davis: On the point of order, President, what action do we think we will take on that matter to make sure that this does not happen again?

The PRESIDENT: Already I have indicated to the house that the Clerk will handle this and will inform me. I will make sure that if there is a division everything is operating; otherwise you will be directed differently.