Wednesday, 8 March 2023

Production of documents

State purchase contracts

Debate resumed.

John BERGER (Southern Metropolitan) (14:08): Before question time I got up to saying that these decisions are kept at arm’s length from the ministers. They involve market testing with an open tender, with both large and small banks invited to participate. But before question time I never had the opportunity to acknowledge the fantastic and articulate contribution of my colleague Mr Batchelor. I found it a shame that he could not make his contribution without interruption. He pointed out what was really going on here with the opposition. That is, they spent much time detailing what this motion purports to be about, but what it is about is impugning the good name of the Assistant Treasurer. A team ran this process, and there was an independent probity auditor engaged throughout the process. As you can imagine, government departments run these processes at arm’s length from the ministers. It is important to keep in mind that they are independent bodies.

Going back to Ms Crozier’s contribution and the motion she has moved: it is an accepted principle – a principle that is accepted on all sides of Parliament – that sometimes the government may withhold documents when disclosure would be contrary to the public interest. This is done under the concept of executive privilege. But keep in mind that with these briefs departments are often kept at arm’s length from ministers. I want us to keep that in mind: the government receives legal advice, including from the Victorian Government Solicitor’s Office, to inform its decisions in order to claim executive privilege.

I also want to bring this back to a larger matter around the targeting of the Assistant Treasurer in the last few days. I recognise Ms Crozier’s contribution just before, in which Ms Crozier noted that the Assistant Treasurer has made an apology and has accepted this was an error of judgement. But as my friend in the other place the Assistant Treasurer has said repeatedly, he has always acted appropriately under the circumstances. As I have said, the government will always support the integrity of government decisions, something Ms Crozier touched on earlier, and I am glad we can agree on this. As the ministerial code of conduct was referenced, the Assistant Treasurer has made it clear that he has always followed the rules and that there has never been a breach.

This motion, which is about retrieving documents, has become about the Assistant Treasurer, and I think it is a real shame, particularly after the way the previous debate was approached, a debate on amendments about road safety. It was approached in a collegiate manner, a way in which differences were resolved in good faith.

David Ettershank interjected.

John BERGER: We may disagree on specifics, Mr Ettershank. I look forward to constructively working with you on issues going forward. It is a shame to see that such a tone has changed dramatically. I want to echo the contributions of my colleague Mr Batchelor, who said that the opposition is trying to find some smoke, to smoke something out, to smear the good reputation of the Assistant Treasurer. As Mr Batchelor said, efforts may be better spent elsewhere.

The opposition over the past few weeks have been fixated on the Assistant Treasurer, and now they are weaponising the standard of practice of government. I want to end this by saying that it would not be appropriate to comment on the merits of individual government decisions to claim executive privilege in respect of documents. I want to say that ministers have always acted appropriately, as he himself has said. And I want to say that the government has always been transparent and will always uphold its obligations to the Parliament to provide responses to motions whenever they are passed. But there is a principle that is accepted on all sides of Parliament that sometimes the government may withhold documents when disclosure would be contrary to the public interest. Let us improve the spirit of this debate and work collaboratively for the good of all Victorians. I thank the house.

David DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan) (14:12): This is actually in itself a very straightforward motion. It is a documents motion under a particular order – 10.01 – and lays out a requirement for the Leader of the Government to table a series of particular briefs and tender arrangements. These are very straightforward matters.

There is a stench around this government. There is a stench around the Assistant Treasurer. He has made a set of decisions in his sworn role in which he is required to act without fear or favour – that is his ministerial oath; then there is the code of conduct – but the truth is that is not what he has done. He has made a series of decisions that have deeply compromised him – decisions on matters that go directly to government activities and shareholdings that he has. Who on earth thinks it is acceptable for him to be sitting in judgement on contracts where he awards contracts to banks in which he holds shares? That is as close to corruption as I think you can get. It is actually appalling that he is doing this. Why is he making these decisions? Why has he not recused himself from these matters? Why has he not made the proper declarations?

These are all legitimate questions. He has not satisfactorily answered those questions, and in fact every day it goes on it is clearer and clearer that he simply does not understand. He seems to have a blind spot, an inability to see that he cannot be sitting in judgement on contracts and arrangements where he has a direct and personal financial interest. This is not a trivial interest. You are not talking about someone who holds five shares or something. You are talking about someone who holds thousands and thousands and thousands of dollars worth of shares, and he is making contractual decisions to award contracts to companies he has got shares in. For goodness sake! It is crooked. It is right up there, and he should go.

That of course is not what the motion is about today. What the motion is about today is the delivery of documents to the chamber. It is a very straightforward motion. It is a motion where this chamber has the powers to call for documents and people. It has the powers of the House of Commons in 1856 through the award that set up our constitution originally, and those powers mean that we can actually press if necessary to achieve the delivery of those documents. That is an important check, it is an important balance on the executive and it is an important oversight and transparency mechanism for the executive – the power to call for people and documents.

Those who are new to the chamber might want to ask the papers office for a copy of the Bret Walker legal opinion. The chamber obtained an opinion from the eminent constitutional lawyer Bret Walker, a New South Wales-based lawyer. For the benefit of new members, he ran the famous Sydney Water case. That went all the way to the High Court, and the High Court decided that the Legislative Council in New South Wales, which arguably has slightly less powers than our chamber, had clear powers to call for documents and people. In that case they wanted the Sydney Water documents – all of the documents around Sydney Water’s mismanagement of the safety and quality of water in and around Sydney. It was an entirely logical set of steps that they followed, and the High Court upheld that. It is useful I think for new members to understand where those powers come from. They come directly from the ancient powers of the House of Commons through the establishment of Victoria and our constitutional arrangements in 1856.

On this occasion Ms Crozier has moved a very straightforward motion. We have got a minister who is up to his neck in it. He has got his hands deep in the tin, and he is hauling out cash. We can see what he is up to, and it is absolutely disgraceful. This motion does not deal with that. All it deals with is the transparency on some of these matters. These documents should be provided to the chamber and they should be provided to the chamber quickly. The reality is that we will see what the Leader of the Government does. We will see whether the Leader of the Government seeks to hide and block the release of these documents. I think it would be reprehensible if she did, but she may take the view that it is better to be open and honest and transparent. She may take the view that it is better to get the bad material out there and at least stop the slow process whereby the Assistant Treasurer’s reputation is being slowly destroyed because he seems not to understand that he cannot award contracts to firms that he has a significant ownership component in. It is actually right on the edge. He should go.

Georgie CROZIER (Southern Metropolitan) (14:17): Just in summing up, I note the government’s good efforts to support the Assistant Treasurer, but the facts are the facts. There is, as Mr Davis described it, a real stench around this. There are very big question marks over the Assistant Treasurer and how he has acquitted himself in this matter, and what we are asking is for these documents to be released so that we can see those briefings that did take place. There are many question marks that remain over the Assistant Treasurer, and I think as each day goes on Victorians are seeing just how dodgy it is and the soft corruption around what has gone on around that cabinet table. He cannot explain: did he recuse himself when these decisions were being discussed around that cabinet table at the executive level? There are a whole range of other questions he is unable to answer. All he says is, ‘I’m sorry.’ That is not good enough. It is not good enough in the interests of a strong democracy. It is not good enough in the interests of transparency and accountability for good government. That is the problem with this government. It does not understand the moral obligation it has to the citizens of Victoria around good government. I say to the chamber that this is an important motion to support. It is just asking for these documents to be released; that is what the motion calls for. I urge the chamber to support this motion.

Motion agreed to.