Wednesday, 21 September 2022

 Mr DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan—Leader of the Opposition) (12:16): My question is to the Attorney-General. Minister, the IBAC annual plan released yesterday shows that this year’s IBAC budget has been cobbled together using $7 million as a Treasurer’s advance and $3.5 million of IBAC’s own money, which in essence means more than $10.5 million is unsecured funding. To make matters worse, IBAC have been forced to go cap in hand for a further $1.4 million from the Treasurer. I therefore ask: why did the Andrews Labor government not properly fund the important work of IBAC and the work it does in uncovering corruption and misconduct under your government’s watch?

The PRESIDENT: I was struggling with the issue of funding, Mr Davis, but I call the Attorney-General.

 Ms SYMES (Northern Victoria—Leader of the Government, Attorney-General, Minister for Emergency Services) (12:18): President, you are certainly correct to give due consideration as to whether Mr Davis has directed his question to the correct minister, particularly as he is the Shadow Treasurer, I think, and would know that, with the way he has crafted his question, it is not a matter that you should put to the minister that has administrative responsibility for the IBAC Commissioner but not financial responsibility, particularly in the way that he actually brought into the question the Treasurer’s advance.

Having said that, I would put on record that the base funding of the IBAC Commissioner’s office has doubled if not tripled—no, doubled—since 2015. There has been significant investment provided to the IBAC Commissioner in addition to base funding, and that is often reflective of the important project work that the IBAC Commissioner might undertake, whether it is in relation to a specific IT upgrade or indeed responding to the Royal Commission into the Management of Police Informants, for example—an element of funding that needed to go to a particular role. So there has been significant funding, and some of the figures that I might bring to the attention of the house, because it is record funding under our government, are that the Victorian budget in 2022–23 provided IBAC with $32.1 million in additional funding and an $8.6 million ongoing uplift to its annual base funding, which fully met the base funding that was sought by IBAC. IBAC’s total annual funding, as I said, is double what it received in 2015–16 and by the end of the forward estimates has an annual funding increase of $31.3 million.

We do of course continue to work closely with Victorian integrity agencies to ensure that they have the resources and indeed the powers that they have to undertake their work. When we came to government we inherited a system that was not functioning well. They like to put on record that they are the creators of IBAC, but if it were not for the amendments and the support and the legislative reform that this government has introduced, we would have a very different integrity system. It is different now to what existed only eight years ago. We will continue to work closely with our integrity agencies. As has been demonstrated in your question in relation to a Treasurer’s advance, when they come and make a case to government in relation to specific roles that they want to perform it is a matter that they bring to the attention of the Treasurer, but very often it comes up in relevant conversations with me, despite the fact that I do not have ministerial responsibility for their budget.

 Mr DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan—Leader of the Opposition) (12:21): When you read the IBAC annual plan you would have to conclude that the minister is in a parallel universe. It is clear from that plan that IBAC is not properly funded, given its base funding is still in the low $60 millions. I therefore ask: is it the Andrews Labor government’s intention to starve IBAC of proper funding as a way to nobble its troublesome inquiries on corruption inside your government?

 Ms SYMES (Northern Victoria—Leader of the Government, Attorney-General, Minister for Emergency Services) (12:21): Absolutely not.