Wednesday, 8 March 2023

Bills

Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission Amendment (Restoration of Examination Powers) Bill 2022

Second reading

Debate resumed on motion of David Davis:

That the bill be now read a second time.

Katherine COPSEY (Southern Metropolitan) (14:21): I rise to speak briefly on the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission Amendment (Restoration of Examination Powers) Bill 2022. It essentially relates to the ability of IBAC to hold public hearings. My colleague Dr Ratnam outlined the Greens position on this bill and the issues it raises in her contribution a few weeks ago, and I do not intend to repeat in detail the reasons why we support amendments to the IBAC legislation to make it easier for the IBAC to hold public hearings. Suffice to say that the Victorian Greens believe it is critical to the effective operation of the state’s anti-corruption body that it has the ability to hold public hearings where it is in the public interest to do so. We believe that the current test of exceptional circumstances is too high and acts as a brake on the effectiveness of IBAC and its work fighting corruption in this state. To that end, I now circulate amendments that have the effect of removing the exceptional circumstances test while keeping in place some of the other criteria that the bill before us would remove.

Amendments circulated pursuant to standing orders.

Katherine COPSEY: To be clear, the amendments I have just circulated are to replace the amendments Dr Ratnam circulated during her contribution. The change to the amendment removes the exceptional circumstances test in section 117(1)(a), as did the amendments circulated by Dr Ratnam, but it restores section 117(1)(c), that:

a public examination can be held without causing unreasonable damage to a person’s reputation, safety or wellbeing …

For this section to be restored, section 117(3B) and 117(4) also need to be restored in the act. The changed amendments better reflect the opinion of former IBAC Commissioner Robert Redlich on how to best achieve an outcome of giving IBAC greater ability to hold public hearings while assuring appropriate protections for witnesses. As Dr Ratnam previously outlined, no other Australian state has anything like the exceptional circumstances threshold in 117(1)(a), and so repealing this section brings Victoria into line with the system for holding anti-corruption public hearings that is adopted in other states.

I also note the opposition’s intention to move that the bill and our amendment be referred for inquiry by the Integrity and Oversight Committee. The Greens will support the referral. This bill and our amendments deal with issues that go to the heart of the effectiveness of Victoria’s anti-corruption regime, and an inquiry is appropriate.

Michael GALEA (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (14:23): I rise to speak on the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission Amendment (Restoration of Examination Powers) Bill 2022, and in doing so I rise to oppose the bill. At the outset, though, let me just say that integrity and oversight are absolutely vital to our democracy and to our society. I am glad that this government – the Andrews Labor government – in Victoria understands the importance of IBAC and supports our integrity agencies. Let me be clear from the outset that in an effort to address the misleading statements coming from those opposite, IBAC can hold public hearings under the current act. IBAC can utilise its public examination powers where necessary to undertake its function, to promote integrity and to expose serious and systematic corruption and misconduct. It is of course proper that the government and members on this side are committed to IBAC. We remain committed to IBAC, and also of course we remain committed to integrity as a matter of public interest that goes far beyond partisan politics.

Perhaps it could be argued that Mr Davis’s belief in integrity measures is mercurial. I know he sees IBAC as a political football with which to attack the government – free to pass around and kick aside whenever it is politically expedient to do so. Those of us on this side of the chamber do regard IBAC as an absolutely vital and fundamentally important integrity agency that we have in this state. I do acknowledge as well of course that it was in fact a previous Liberal government that founded IBAC –

David Davis: Absolutely.

Michael GALEA: It absolutely was, and this government continues to support and continues to strengthen IBAC as well.

Firstly, on the subject of public hearings, it is fair to argue, as some have, that public hearings can help to educate the community and other sectors on corruption and misconduct where it is investigated. However, it can also risk undermining the entire process, undermining investigations and undermining IBAC itself by raising the profile of investigations and exposing them to conflation, hyperbole and speculation that will not aid in promoting integrity or transparency. Public hearings doubtlessly can have a significant impact on individuals’ rights, with a cost to the privacy, reputation and welfare of the individuals involved, particularly where such investigations lead to a finding in favour of the individual. These may be an acceptable cost in matters of serious and systematic misconduct and corruption. That decision rightfully rests with IBAC and is based on its existing safeguards and the protections that are currently in the act. Removing these would be a rash undertaking.

Less generous people might even speculate that the opposition wish to change the act to allow them to use IBAC as a political tool. Public investigative hearings do not guarantee procedural fairness. Public hearings do not necessarily assist in a finding of corruption or misconduct based on the allegations surrounding speculation about the investigation. Importantly, public hearings do not guarantee public confidence in the process or enable the protection and promotion of integrity in our institutions.

Let us remember the role and purpose that IBAC fulfils: IBAC investigates allegations of corruption and misconduct, and in doing so it promotes integrity and public confidence in our public institutions through its investigations. To fulfil this purpose IBAC balances the potential infringement on the rights and welfare of those being investigated. These protections and safeguards ensure that IBAC does not descend into or become a perceived witch-hunt. Such a move would not promote integrity and does not promote confidence in our public institutions or in IBAC itself. Victorians expect better than a trial by media. They expect more than what the opposition wishes IBAC to become.

I would like to circle back to a key element of this bill, and that is obviously a part mentioned in the title itself. This is the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission Amendment (Restoration of Examination Powers) Bill. I believe that the dictionary definition of the word ‘restoration’ – I do have a quote here – is quite instructive. It says ‘restoration’ is:

the act or process of returning something to its earlier good condition or position, or to its owner …

To achieve a restoration to a specific position by definition requires that the condition previously existed. It is not for me to give a history lesson on the Baillieu government to Mr Davis, especially as Mr Davis was a minister of said government, so I am sure he does remember that in 2011, when the then government established IBAC, enshrining the obligation that IBAC must consider on reasonable grounds that conducting a public examination would not cause unreasonable damage to a person’s reputation, safety or wellbeing, that was a reform implemented by Mr Davis’s own side. As the name suggests, these amendments will restore IBAC’s examination powers – but of course you cannot enact a restoration to a condition that did not exist. That is to say that the powers of IBAC to investigate and examine are of course still intact. It would be more accurate to say that IBAC has been strengthened by this government.

This bill does not seek to restore a power that IBAC no longer has. IBAC has the power to investigate and to examine. This bill, rather, attacks the safeguards and protections – the framework for balancing the consideration of the impacts of a public investigation or hearing on individuals or other persons involved against the public interest for a public hearing. It seems that when the opposition are railing against the protections and safeguards that the Liberal government introduced in 2011, they seek to walk back the protections that they themselves introduced in the first place. As I mentioned before, I do give that previous Liberal government credit. Those protections were introduced with good reason and are a good measure to ensure IBAC’s investigative powers are well balanced and effectively and efficiently carried out.

The Integrity and Oversight Committee’s report on the performance of the Victorian integrity agency in 2020–21, which was tabled in the previous Parliament in October last year, focused on the welfare of witnesses. The IOC examined witness welfare due to the devastating impact and unintended consequences of a public IBAC inquiry we witnessed a year ago, an inquiry related to some rather unfortunate activity that took place in the south-east of Melbourne. The former IBAC Commissioner the Honourable Robert Redlich AM KC made a public submission to the Integrity and Oversight Committee’s inquiry into integrity agency management of witness welfare. In it he described the requirement as:

… a good criteria. It is a protective criteria, which enables the integrity agency to focus on whether or not unreasonable damage to reputation or unreasonable damage to welfare will occur …

As a result of the IOC report on witness welfare, the new IBAC regulations, which commenced on 4 February, included the prescription of a range of services, including Beyond Blue and Lifeline, to provide crisis support, suicide prevention and mental health and wellbeing services for individuals subject to confidentiality notices.

The strength of Victoria’s anti-corruption framework concerning public investigation hearings, which this bill seeks to undermine, is highlighted by the Commonwealth’s adoption of a similar approach in the establishment of the national anti-corruption commission. The former Prime Minister Scott Morrison, known to be perhaps simultaneously the minister for a number of other ministries as well, promised the Australian people a national anti-corruption commission. After 1000 days there was no action taken. It took the election of a Labor government in May of last year for there to be a legislated national anti-corruption commission – one which, I repeat, has the same, or similar, confidentiality provisions as the Victorian IBAC. Only Labor governments deliver, and I commend the Albanese government for delivering reform after years of inaction by the Liberal–National coalition government.

I do bring up the national anti-corruption commission, because like IBAC, the national anti-corruption commissioner must be satisfied that exceptional circumstances exist and that it is in the public interest for there to be public hearings. The Commonwealth bill encourages the commissioner to consider protections, including the extent to which the corrupt conduct is serious or systematic. Clause 4(1) of Mr Davis’s bill seeks to repeal the equivalent section of our robust legislation. The Commonwealth bill also encourages the commissioner to consider any unfair prejudice to a person’s reputation, privacy, safety or wellbeing. Again, this clause of Mr Davis’s bill seeks to repeal the equivalent section of Victoria’s legislation.

This bill seeks to remove procedural fairness safeguards designed to protect individual rights, including the obligation that IBAC considers on reasonable grounds that the public examination would not cause unreasonable damage to a person’s reputation, safety or wellbeing and that the conduct examined constitutes either serious corrupt conduct, systematic corrupt conduct, serious police personnel misconduct or systematic police personnel misconduct. Lowering the threshold for public examinations risks potentially serious harm to an individual’s reputation, safety or welfare.

The bill would also reduce oversight by removing section 117(5)(a) of the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission Act 2011. Removing this section would enable IBAC to create a public expectation of a public examination in advance of the Victorian Inspectorate’s assessment, the result being the undermining of the Victorian Inspectorate’s safeguarding role. Currently, IBAC must not make a public announcement of its intention to hold a public examination for an investigation unless IBAC has notified the Victorian Inspectorate, which is a sound provision of the current act.

The Victorian Inspectorate is an important independent safeguard, ensuring that IBAC uses its significant coercive powers to compel witnesses to provide evidence responsibly. This change would seriously risk reputational damage to both agencies where the Victorian Inspectorate considers the public examination unwarranted. The bill would undoubtedly lead to adverse effects regarding the application of examination in private as it would see the repealing of section 117(3A)(a) of the IBAC act, removing the ability of IBAC to hold any part of an examination in private on application by a witness. The effect of these proposed repeals would be that the IBAC could only hold parts of public examinations in private if it decides to according to its own-motion power, the risk being that if an application is not made to IBAC about any potential issue then the examination will remain open to the public unless IBAC becomes aware of the issue itself.

I also note that this bill will repeal the section of the IBAC act which sets out that IBAC are not required to provide advance copies of a report to the government if they consider circumstances make it inappropriate to do so. Seemingly members opposite want to have the government receive advance copies of a report, even if the commission against corruption believes it would be inappropriate. Perhaps members opposite believe that it would be handy if they were on the government benches – maybe one day Matthew Guy will come back for a third run. When they are next on the government benches they might think that might support them and might help them. That might be why they are supporting this change, which would undermine the independence of the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission.

The Andrews Labor government is committed to ensuring that our integrity bodies have the powers necessary to operate effectively and efficiently. It is vital to these organisations – most importantly IBAC – to operate in a fashion that not only guarantees public confidence in the process but also provides strong protections and safeguards and undertakes scrutiny and oversight whilst promoting integrity in our institutions. I believe that well-intended and well-designed changes to the IBAC act and similar integrity acts warrant very serious and sober consideration. The changes in this bill have not gone through the appropriate consultation and will not achieve the intended purposes as stated. It will not strengthen IBAC’s examination powers and it will not effect a so-called restoration; rather it runs the risk of bringing a media circus to all IBAC inquiries.

Further, what this bill will do is erode the protections provided to those under investigation, undermine the safeguards already in place and jeopardise the public confidence in IBAC – and I do refer again to the very unfortunate example of someone who did take their own life being subject to a confidentiality order under IBAC investigation in recent years. No matter what the circumstances, no person should be in a position where they feel that is the best course open to them – no matter what they have done or are alleged to have done. It is for these reasons, again, that Robert Redlich made those recommendations to the Integrity and Oversight Committee’s inquiry in the last Parliament. I would like to finish on that note because it is an important thing to make note of. It is for those and the other reasons that I have mentioned that I do oppose this bill and do not commend it to the house.

Jaclyn SYMES (Northern Victoria – Attorney-General, Minister for Emergency Services) (14:39): I have just got a few things to run through in relation to Mr Davis’s private members bill – a bit of deja vu here; there are a few IBAC bills that Mr Davis is proposing. I think they are identical to ones that we did in the last Parliament, but here we go again because I do not think much has changed. I think I did make this statement in relation to the other bill on the notice paper that I spoke on last sitting week or the sitting week before: I see the political attractiveness of wanting to support a bill that is being touted as a vehicle for greater integrity and increased transparency, but this bill does not achieve any of those objectives. It is reckless, and it is not at all going to produce outcomes that are of benefit to Victoria’s integrity system.

I would like to point out at the outset that the government does not oppose public hearings. They have their place, and of course the substantive act does not preclude IBAC from holding public hearings. We all know that; we have seen some in recent times. Public hearings have their place when the hearing is in the public interest. It of course is entirely appropriate for that to be available for public viewing, but this cannot be lost at the expense of proposing an exercise to facilitate a miniseries.

This bill is designed to apply to real people, but the way that it applies has no regard to those people, their lives or who they are, because it has no regard for those people’s privacy, their reputation or the impact public hearings can have if they are not managed in the appropriate way. I do contend that this bill is purely driven by political motivation. It is a stunt. With due respect to a lot of fine journalists, this is designed to facilitate a platform for trial by media. These are important matters – matters of integrity. Matters that the IBAC commission investigates of course are important matters, but it is not necessarily always appropriate for them to be on public display, particularly if they are matters of allegations that are yet to be proved and indeed may be proved not to be the case.

Turning to the clauses of the bill, clause 4(1) proposes to repeal subsections 117(1)(c) and (d). This is really about substantially reducing the threshold for public examination and removing consideration of whether public examinations can be held without causing unreasonable damage to a person’s reputation, safety or wellbeing. I think many speakers have reflected on the impact that hearings and interrogations can have on individuals. I know that the Integrity and Oversight Committee did a recent report on witness welfare, which I would draw to the house’s attention just to highlight the very sensitive nature of some of these matters. It is a big call for a member of Parliament or political parties to hold a position that there should be legislation that dismisses an individual’s safety and wellbeing, and I would contend that that is exactly what this bill is proposing to do.

I do welcome that the Greens have reconsidered this and are proposing to amend their amendment to no longer support such a harsh approach. It is also worth noting – I think Mr Galea did note – that after much consideration and debate, the Commonwealth National Anti-Corruption Commission Bill 2022 has adopted the same approach as the current Victorian legislation when it comes to wellbeing and reputation considerations.

Clause 4(2) of the bill seeks to remove sections 117(3A)(a), 117(3B) and 117(4) of the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission Act 2011, which provide IBAC with the discretion to hold any part of an examination in private upon application by a witness. The effect of the removal of these subsections is to substantially narrow the protections afforded to witnesses. The approach, while convenient for the opposition, will only serve to jeopardise witness welfare and safety. It has the potential – in fact the real potential – to actually reduce IBAC’s capacity to receive information about potential issues, because if you remove the ability of a witness to make an application to have a hearing heard privately, it then will rely entirely on IBAC becoming aware of potential issues by other means. So you are potentially prohibiting or discouraging people from being open and frank by virtue of being granted a private hearing, whereas if they are in a public hearing and they are just answering questions that are put to them, it may not produce information that would otherwise benefit that investigation.

Clause 4(2), again, of the bill seeks to remove subsection 117(5A). Currently the act provides that the IBAC must not make a public announcement of its intention to hold a public examination for the purposes of an investigation unless it has notified the Victorian Inspectorate. This is a really important safeguard. One of the purposes of having an inspectorate is to provide appropriate oversight of IBAC. IBAC has significant coercive powers. They can compel witnesses to provide evidence. But it is good to have checks and balances in these systems, and to undermine the role of the VI – to effectively say they do not matter – is not a piece of legislation or a policy position that we think is worthy of support.

When organisations are given the breadth of powers to compel witnesses, when they have coercive powers, it is absolutely essential that there is an independent monitoring mechanism to oversee such powers. I think there are many examples of where this Parliament has supported oversight mechanisms, and to seek to wind that back in this legislation would be at odds with that well-established position. Clause 5 of the bill seeks to remove section 162A of the IBAC act, which provides that IBAC must give an advance copy of a report to government before it is tabled in Parliament. I am a bit perplexed by this clause, Mr Davis. It is unnecessary, and I would be interested in you responding to that in your summing up. I do not really understand what you are trying to do here, because section 162A of the IBAC act already provides a provision for IBAC to not provide an advance copy at its discretion if it determines that it would be inappropriate to do so. This section reads:

The IBAC is not required to give an advance copy of the report under subsection (1) if the IBAC considers that in all the circumstances it would be inappropriate to do so.

So I think your clause is completely unjustified, and I would be interested in your thoughts about why you have put it in there. I think it is unnecessary, and probably worse is that if it was to become law, which I have already indicated it is very unlikely to do, it would create a misalignment between our two integrity agencies, because there is an identical clause in the Ombudsman Act 1973 and I note that your bill is not proposing to remove it from the Ombudsman Act. So we would have two integrity bodies that were misaligned, and I do not think that is good government or good policy either.

I know that the Greens have got some amendments. In the amendments that have been put by the Greens they propose an amendment to repeal section 117(1)(a) of the act or the requirement for IBAC to consider exceptional circumstances prior to a public examination which stands to put witnesses and, again I would say, their welfare at risk. The change to the amendment removes the exceptional circumstances test as previously proposed and in line with what is being proposed by Mr Davis but restores section 117(1)(c), which states:

a public examination can be held without causing unreasonable damage to a person’s reputation, safety or wellbeing …

I had my office develop a bit of a comparison between Mr Davis’s bill and the Greens’ amended amendment, and effectively they are just both attacking section 117 of the act. Different bits have been struck out in the different proposals. There just seems to be a bit of a disagreement between the Greens and the coalition in relation to how to best dismantle the protection of witnesses, which is my general assessment of what both parties are trying to do. But what we do have is a private members bill put forward by Mr Davis which seeks to remove most of section 117 – there are more black lines in Mr Davis’s version that in the Greens’ version – and then amendments from Dr Ratnam which seek to put some of what Mr Davis has removed back in –

Samantha Ratnam interjected.

Jaclyn SYMES: Yes. Some are in, some are out. You are still trying to strike out parts of section 117 – different parts to him. For anyone that wants a cheat sheet, this is quite useful to work out what you are trying to do versus what these guys are trying to do. Fundamentally they are competing sets of amendments, and it just seems as though you guys cannot agree. And now, because you cannot agree, ‘Let’s just send it to a committee, who might be the arbitrator to decide whose amendments’ – in my view – ‘are least worse’, which is a pretty awful situation to put the Integrity and Oversight Committee in, and I do not think either the amendments or the bill are good policy.

I would point out, Dr Ratnam, that you have stated in previous debates on this private members bill:

… IBAC can only hold hearings when allegations are clearly unusual and distinctly out of the ordinary, which in my opinion does not exactly clarify the situation.

Even when exceptional circumstances are defined, we are still none the wiser as to why the presence of unusual circumstances is necessary to hold public hearings.

I would argue that exceptional circumstances provisions for public hearings are necessary, because we are talking about allegations, and allegations are just that. An allegation is not a determination or a finding of guilt, and the threshold for allegations to be investigated in an inquisitorial system is much lower than the threshold for a matter to be heard in open court in an adversarial system, and I think it is really important not to confuse the two.

Public hearings do increase the risk of inference of guilt being drawn by the public, and once it is out there, often regardless of the end result, it tarnishes that person’s reputation potentially for life. It is really, really hard to get the truth rectified through social media. You can put someone’s name in and the allegations can come up, and despite the fact that they have been disproved later on, they are still out there for everybody to see and follow that person around potentially like a shadow for a very long time.

I do, as I have said, acknowledge that there are many members in this place that may wish to be seen to support a bill on integrity matters. It is easy to say, ‘I support measures that increase integrity,’ but scratching the surface, I do not think, should lead anybody down a path of supporting flawed legislation or indeed flawed amendments. That is not to say that the government are not open to considering sensible and well-founded improvements to integrity and oversight, but we certainly are not in a position to support proposals that in our view are damaging and will result in adverse outcomes, particularly for individuals that are perhaps the subject of investigations. Just because there is an allegation against you does not mean that you should not have your welfare considered.

Victoria’s anti-corruption framework in relation to public investigation hearings, specifically our requirement for the commission to consider exceptional circumstances, has been the subject of a lot of debate. It is also something that has been adopted in the establishment of the national anti-corruption commission by the Commonwealth. I note that the Commonwealth’s legislation has very similar, if not identical, protections, and they received bipartisan support from the crossbench and the opposition in the federal Parliament, because I think that they acknowledged that matters of integrity and trust in government should be considered above just simple politics.

As I have said, the house has debated the merits of exceptional circumstances before. Public examinations can significantly limit individuals’ rights and have serious costs for their privacy, reputation and welfare. The act in its current form – that is, the substantive act – properly balances individuals’ rights and welfare while ensuring that IBAC can discharge its vital function: to investigate and expose corrupt conduct and police misconduct. The private members bill and the Greens amendments both put individuals’ reputations and welfare at risk. The government for that reason will not support the bill, will not support the amendments and indeed will not support the referral that I believe will be put in a motion, perhaps by the speaker after me. We do not support the bill because we believe that the whole sideshow and fiasco of an attempt to amend the IBAC act should be completely rejected by the chamber today, and I expect there will be a few votes to test some of that shortly.

Trung LUU (Western Metropolitan) (14:53): I move:

That debate be adjourned until the Integrity and Oversight Committee have inquired into, considered and reported, by Thursday 30 November 2023, on the matters raised in the amendments circulated by Ms Copsey to the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission Amendment (Restoration of Examination Powers) Bill 2022, and as part of their investigation the committee must:

(1) examine arguments for and against expanding the capacity of the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission (IBAC) to hold public hearings and, in particular, whether the ‘exceptional circumstance’ provision under section 117 of the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission Act 2011 excessively restricts the capacity of IBAC to hold public hearings;

(2) consider whether other jurisdictions have reached a more appropriate balance in respect of public hearings; and

(3) report on recommendations for the best practice legislative framework for the conduct of public hearings.

This is just a simple bill. It is basically to restore powers back to IBAC and enable them to perform their duties, and what they were originally designed to do was independently investigate allegations of corruption and exploitation of powers. Simply stripping the commission of the key power to hold public hearings was a defensive move by Premier Daniel Andrews and his government to shut down future and forthcoming examinations of Andrews government ministers by IBAC.

I particularly found it appalling that such actions were allowed to occur. From experience of investigation and gathering evidence, what I say regarding this bill is it will bring back balance in respect to public hearings and support the framework of accountabilities. It is a tool for investigation agencies such as IBAC to ensure that all evidence is fairly and objectively gathered. By not allowing IBAC the power to exercise a public hearing, you are actually taking away the tool of transparency for the body to examine and gather crucial evidence. You mentioned compelling someone to give evidence. How do you compel someone who is saying, ‘I cannot recall. I cannot recall the last two months or last week’? You are not compelling anything at all.

And lastly, in relation to transparency you talk about welfare. If you act in your best interests, have nothing to fear and act in good faith, transparency will come out in a public hearing.

Members interjecting.

Trung LUU: No, that is right. A public hearing is meant to allow a person who has had allegations made to have his or her say about what has transpired. If we are actually seeking out corruption, we cannot expect to handcuff investigators, blindfold examiners and expect IBAC to present the truth and accurate findings if the majority of the evidence has been omitted. What I say in relation to this bill is it just gives us, the public, the opportunity to see what has been alleged and for the person to have a say in answer to all the allegations.

Harriet Shing interjected.

Trung LUU: It is. It talks about the person who has had allegations made and it mentions welfare. Whose welfare are you actually referring to? It is hiding behind the closed door. So it brings back the balance of respect to a public hearing.

In closing, this bill will bring back good practice relating to investigations and it will root out all of the corruption, which we and those in public office are sworn to uphold. It brings back transparency and fairness for individuals. Conducting things behind closed doors – basically you are trying to hide things. What I say is this bill is basically about good-practice legislation for the public.

Jaclyn SYMES (Northern Victoria – Attorney-General, Minister for Emergency Services) (14:58): I think I pre-empted this motion and said that the government would not be supporting the referral to the Integrity and Oversight Committee. I do not need to go through that again but just put on record that the government will be opposing this referral.

David DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan) (14:58): It is a very modest referral that has been moved by Mr Luu. It is the appropriate committee in the Parliament to look at these matters. Sensible amendments have been moved by the Greens that should be looked at. The bill can be looked at in the context of those amendments and the broader principles. It will provide an opportunity for proper evidence to be heard, further evidence to be heard. Former commissioners and those who are knowledgeable in this area will put forward useful and sensible suggestions to a public forum in the committee to actually thrash through many of these matters. There is a legitimate debate about where the line is drawn with public hearings, and that legitimate debate can be had at the Integrity and Oversight Committee. That is the appropriate place for it to be debated, and when that committee comes back with its recommendations this house can make further decisions.

Council divided on Trung Luu’s motion:

Ayes (24): Matthew Bach, Melina Bath, Jeff Bourman, Gaelle Broad, Katherine Copsey, Georgie Crozier, David Davis, Moira Deeming, David Ettershank, Renee Heath, Ann-Marie Hermans, David Limbrick, Wendy Lovell, Trung Luu, Sarah Mansfield, Bev McArthur, Joe McCracken, Nicholas McGowan, Evan Mulholland, Rachel Payne, Aiv Puglielli, Georgie Purcell, Samantha Ratnam, Rikkie-Lee Tyrrell

Noes (15): Ryan Batchelor, John Berger, Lizzie Blandthorn, Enver Erdogan, Jacinta Ermacora, Michael Galea, Shaun Leane, Tom McIntosh, Harriet Shing, Ingrid Stitt, Jaclyn Symes, Lee Tarlamis, Sonja Terpstra, Gayle Tierney, Sheena Watt

Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.