Wednesday, 3 May 2023

Integrity and Oversight Committee

Performance of the Victorian Integrity Agencies 2020/21: Focus on Witness Welfare

Nina TAYLOR (Albert Park) (10:10): I am very pleased to speak on the Integrity and Oversight Committee (IOC) Performance of the Victorian Integrity Agencies 2020/21: Focus on Witness Welfare report of October 2022, respecting the very critical role that our integrity agencies play, and at the same time of course how difficult it is for witnesses as well in any scenario. One cannot overestimate the challenging role that witnesses play, and unlike the opposition I am not going to have a minority report as my claim to fame. I mean, that is kind of a little – I do not know: ‘Wow, I did a minority report; I’m fantastic.’ If you want to say that, you can say that in the Parliament, but I am not sure that that is incredibly meaningful of itself. But anyway, have a go – put it out there.

Coming back to the report, the report reviews the performance of the agencies during 2020–21. You might wonder why I am reviewing this element, because I think it is always good to come back to the core function of these committees rather than going on these little political tangents. Let us come back to the central focus and what is actually incumbent upon those who participate in these committees. Focusing on their management of the welfare of witnesses and others involved in their investigations, it represents the culmination of the IOC’s monitoring and review activities with respect to witness welfare management, which began with the committee’s establishment in 2019. I want to commend the rigour of the committee. In preparing the report the committee closely examined the integrity agencies’ annual reports for 2020–21. The agencies also appeared before the committee at public hearings, provided written submissions and answered questions on notice regarding their performance during the reporting period and their management of witness welfare. Finally, the committee received written submissions and other responses from interstate and international integrity agencies, non-integrity organisations with expertise and experience in witness welfare and members of the public relating to the agencies’ management of witness welfare – and of course it is nice that it was noted by the committee that it appreciated all the contributions to its review.

I should say on the one hand, while the committee did identify important areas for improvement, the agencies’ policies, procedures and practices nevertheless, as it stated, reflect a serious commitment to ensuring the welfare of persons involved in their investigations. So we can see a reciprocated respect, and that is obviously very important in this context when such important investigations are being undertaken. Just as an example, the Victorian Ombudsman’s witness welfare policies, procedures and practices were deemed by the committee to be well informed by mental health expertise and reflected the agency’s vast experience in dealing with disadvantaged and vulnerable persons. Moreover, it was reflected that the VO had a deep understanding of the distinctive impacts of coercive powers on witnesses – fair enough too, because as I was saying from the outset, it is really difficult to be a witness in any situation. The committee, however, recommended that witnesses who are subject to coercive powers that are more likely to have negative impacts on their welfare be given direct access to the VO’s employee assistance program, without the need for a referral from the agency. So you can see an example of some of the very productive and constructive thoughts and recommendations that have come out of this report, which I am sure are respected and will in all likelihood be followed through, I imagine, as a result of the culmination of the incredible work that has gone into putting this report together.

I should acknowledge the work of the committee secretariat through this review: Sean Coley, committee manager; Dr Stephen James, senior research officer; Tom Hvala, research officer; Holly Brennan, complaints and research assistant; and committee administrative officers Maria Marasco and Bernadette Pendergast. Having undertaken and been part of committees myself, I know the rigour that is required. I know how stressful it can be and the respect that is required amongst all committee members and the difficulty, as I said, when you are in this particular nuanced situation, of actually investigating the management of witness welfare as well. So I commend all those who contributed to this report.