Thursday, 22 June 2023

Bills

Public Administration and Planning Legislation Amendment (Control of Lobbyists) Bill 2023

Introduction

James NEWBURY (Brighton) (09:34): I move:

That I introduce a bill for an act to amend the Public Administration Act 2004 and the Victorian Planning Authority Act 2017 to provide more control over lobbyists.

The Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission handed down a very important report. They handed down a very important report in relation to Operation Clara. It was tabled in February earlier this year, and it revealed that lobbying behaviour in this state was not as it should be. And though the Premier used words that played down the importance of this report, what Victorians saw in plain-speaking language was corruption occurring in this state.

The coalition will be moving to clean up what the government should have cleaned up and has not cleaned up. The report found a number of important things, and I refer directly to those findings. The report found that a former Victorian minister, Theo Theophanous, improperly lobbied in favour of the proposal on behalf of the education city, including by misusing his position as a member of the board of the Metropolitan Planning Authority, which later became the Victorian Planning Authority. He failed to declare a conflict of interest and to comply with the requirement to register a lobbying client. In lieu of direct payment for his lobbying, he obtained benefits from the Australian Education City and its associates in the form of donations to his daughter’s campaign for election to the Victorian Parliament – a Labor member of this chamber. The Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission, after making those important findings, made four recommendations, and I will quote each of those recommendations, because it is important when considering whether this bill should be introduced that the house understands the recommendations of that report. On recommendation 1, IBAC recommends that:

The Department of Premier and Cabinet amend the … Remuneration Guidelines to specify:

a. a lobbyist (as defined in the Lobbyist Code of Conduct) is ineligible for appointment to a public entity board that has functions which relate to any matter, on which the lobbyist has represented the interests of third parties in a specific period (with reference to the NSW provisions)

b. the declaration of private interests template require that the declarant indicate if they are on the lobbyists register …

On recommendation 2, IBAC recommends that:

The Department of Premier and Cabinet revise the Lobbyist Code of Conduct to:

a. prohibit public entity board directors from engaging in lobbying activities on any matter that relates to the functions of the public entity

b. require that public entity board directors comply with integrity requirements, including conflict of interest provisions in relation to representations they have made prior to their appointment …

On recommendation 3, IBAC recommends that:

The Victorian Public Sector Commission revise the Code of Conduct for Directors to:

a. prohibit public entity board directors from engaging in lobbying activities on any matter that relates to the functions of the public entity

b. require that public entity board directors comply with integrity requirements, including conflict of interest provisions in relation to representation they have made prior to their appointment …

On recommendation 4, IBAC recommends that:

The Minister for Planning amend the VPA Act to specify that proceedings for a summary offence may be commenced within the period of three years after the alleged offence.

All of these findings are the core contents, the sole core contents, of the bill the coalition is proposing to introduce today. These are recommendations made by one of the most important integrity agencies in this state, findings of an inquiry that uncovered a level of corruption occurring in this state that no Victorian would have expected or accepted. No Victorian, certainly, would accept the behaviour, and to find out that they uncovered findings that relate to one of the members of this chamber is deeply concerning – and the practices and behaviour, frankly, of the Department of Premier and Cabinet in the way they operate integrity and oversight in the state. These are important recommendations that need to be introduced into this chamber in the form of this bill, and the coalition will be moving the bill this morning because Victoria needs to see sunlight.

Mary-Anne THOMAS (Macedon – Leader of the House, Minister for Health, Minister for Health Infrastructure, Minister for Medical Research) (09:40): The government will not be supporting the introduction of this bill, and the reason for that is because there are already well-established practices in place for the consideration of all reports that are made by our integrity bodies. So we will address this report in the way that we address any and indeed all of the reports that are made to government from those integrity bodies. I will take this opportunity, while I am on my feet, to again condemn those on the other side for the outrageous attacks on the member for Northcote that have been made in this house.

James Newbury: On a point of order, Speaker, the house is considering whether an important integrity bill be introduced into this place. We all were here when the Premier attacked a member of this place, but that is not the subject of debate and I would ask the Leader of the House to return to the issue.

The SPEAKER: Order! I understand your point of order. I ask the Leader of the House to come back to the introduction of the bill and the debate before the house, which is a procedural debate.

Mary-Anne THOMAS: Thank you very much for your guidance, Speaker. I was indeed talking about the introduction of the bill because it was in relation to this bill that the outrageous, scandalous and indeed completely untrue comments were made in relation to the member for Northcote. But again, I rise to let the house know that the government is opposing the introduction of the bill on the basis that we already have well-established processes for the management of and response to reports from integrity agencies.

Michael O’BRIEN (Malvern) (09:42): I do not understand why the government would not be opposing the introduction of a bill to give effect to recommendations made by the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission. IBAC is supposed to be the integrity watchdog in this state. The Parliament has already seen correspondence from the former IBAC Commissioner Robert Redlich saying that he was concerned that members of the government were undermining IBAC, and now we see that the government is trying to block the implementation of IBAC recommendations.

Members interjecting.

Michael O’BRIEN: The Leader of the House says, ‘No, we’re not’ –

The SPEAKER: The Leader of the House will come to order.

Michael O’BRIEN: The bill that the member for Brighton is seeking to introduce directly implements IBAC recommendations in Operation Clara. There is a lot of sensitivity, I detect, on the government side because we do know it was a Labor mate, Theo Theophanous, who was the subject of Operation Clara. It was Theo Theophanous who was exposed by the IBAC investigation for misusing his position on government boards, which he had been appointed to by this government.

Tim Richardson: On a point of order, Speaker, the member for Malvern knows that he cannot be going that far into character assassinations on the member for Northcote and others. He should be sticking in the lane of what the member for Brighton put forward, but instead the member for Malvern in his relevance deprivation is straying very far from the content –

The SPEAKER: I ask the member for Malvern to stick to the procedural debate before the house.

Michael O’BRIEN: We need to implement this bill and we need to do it now, because corruption in this state can no longer be allowed to flourish and there are people here –

A member: That is not a point of order, Speaker.

Michael O’BRIEN: She has already ruled on the point of order.

The SPEAKER: Order! Member for Malvern, did you want to raise a point of order?

Members interjecting.

Michael O’BRIEN: She has ruled on the point of order.

The SPEAKER: Member for Malvern, on the procedural debate before the house.

Anthony Carbines: How did that go at the last election? Increased majority over here – how did you go?

Michael O’BRIEN: I increased my majority too, thanks, Carbs.

The SPEAKER: Member for Malvern, I will sit you down.

Michael O’BRIEN: The touchiness of members opposite is extraordinary. Why are they so opposed to the member for Brighton bringing in a bill to implement recommendations of the broad-based anti-corruption commission to clean up lobbyists in this state, to clean up Labor mates in this state? Because Operation Clara showed it was the position which Mr Theophanous had been appointed to by this government on the Victorian Planning Authority that was misused by Mr Theophanous to lobby on behalf of Australian Education City. And instead of payment, what did he seek? In lieu he sought contributions to his daughter’s election campaign. This is a matter of public record, and it is appalling. For this reason we need to implement these recommendations now. Who knows how many other Labor mates are sitting on boards at the moment who are also acting as lobbyists and are doing dodgy deals to line their own nests, to line their own pockets at the expense of the public.

This bill needs to come in now. Where is the delay? The IBAC recommendations could not have been clearer, could not have been simpler to introduce. I mean, even the opposition with our limited resources have been able to craft a bill to implement the IBAC recommendations. With all the resources of government, with all the tens of thousands of public servants, the government has not been able to bring forward a bill to this house to implement the IBAC recommendations. You have to ask: what are they waiting for and what have they got to hide? This could be done tomorrow. In fact it can be done today, and we call for it to be done today.

We know this government has a major phobia about supporting anything put forward by the opposition, be it bills to keep Paul Denyer in jail or be it bills to implement IBAC recommendations, but this is too important to be swept under the carpet. This bill should be introduced today, it should be debated today, it should be passed today, because we cannot afford to have corruption continue to flourish in this state. Victorians are tired of a government that puts themselves and their mates’ interests ahead of every other Victorian.

Mary-Anne Thomas interjected.

Michael O’BRIEN: Well, the Leader of the House may think that an election victory is licence for corruption. Let me tell you, Joh Bjelke-Petersen won a few elections, and how did that wind up for him and his government? Your government, Leader of the House, will go exactly the same way.

The SPEAKER: Order! Member for Malvern, through the Chair!

Michael O’BRIEN: And if you want to arrest that decline, one way to do it is to support the member for Brighton’s bill and let this bill be introduced today.

Nina TAYLOR (Albert Park) (09:47): I think it is important that we do remember that we do have integrity bodies that are well established with principles in place – governance and transparency and other protocols – in order to be able to assess matters that are important to the state of Victoria, and it is not for individual MPs to go on a flight of fancy in the chamber according to whatever might suit the political agenda of the day. I think we do need to have respect for those bodies, and we allow them to do the job that they do so well.

In relation to Operation Clara, I should say that the government will support in principle each of the recommendations and stands ready to make any further necessary changes. And so I should further say that our government could have gone further on matters very personal with Mr Wakeling –

Members interjecting.

The SPEAKER: Order! I am having trouble hearing the member for Albert Park.

Nina TAYLOR: but of course we elected not to do so. But I can see that those opposite are quite inclined to go as low as they can in a very personal way with families as well. So, you know, these things can be shared, can be duplicated. But you will see –

James Newbury: On a point of order, Speaker, this is a procedural debate not an opportunity to sledge, and I would ask you to ask the member to return to the motion.

The SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order. I am having trouble hearing the member for Albert Park, so I do not actually know what she is saying.

Nina TAYLOR: Yes. I am glad that the member for Brighton has remembered –

Members interjecting.

The SPEAKER: Order! I am still having trouble hearing the member for Albert Park. The house will come to order.

Nina TAYLOR: I am glad that the member for Brighton has suddenly realised that this is a procedural debate. I might have tapped into something that they are a little bit uncomfortable about, because they can dish it out but cannot take it back, and they might want to take a leaf out of our side of the chamber when it comes to matters digging into very personal spaces, as I said before, with Mr Wakeling and otherwise.

Brad Battin interjected.

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Berwick!

Nina TAYLOR: If that is where you really want to go, well, that is your choice.

James Newbury: On a point of order, Speaker, the member knows not to make reflections other than by substantive motion, and I would ask you to bring the member back to the motion.

The SPEAKER: Order! Like I said, I am having trouble actually hearing the member for Albert Park, but I do ask the member for Albert Park to speak to the procedural motion before the house.

Nina TAYLOR: Yes. And thank you, Speaker, for reminding me of that point. I think it is good across the chamber if that due respect is paid by those opposite as well. I was merely making the point that if they want to stoop as low as they purport to be stooping, then they had better be prepared that there might be a bit of a balancing in that regard – dishing it out but cannot take it. It is important that they recognise that there are integrity bodies in place and show a little bit of respect for those bodies and for the governance and other elements which are being enforced, as they should, and then we can actually have a debate which is of a calibre that is appropriate for this chamber.

Tim READ (Brunswick) (09:50): I am happy to make a contribution to this debate on the Public Administration and Planning Legislation Amendment (Control of Lobbyists) Bill 2023 introduced by the opposition. It is rather concerning how reluctant the government is to debate, let alone pass, an anti-corruption bill. It has been over four months since the Operation Clara report was released. The government have had over a decade to reform the regulation of lobbyists and they have not done so, so they can hardly be upset when another party has a go at it. The Greens would be delighted to see this government step up and do anything on integrity, even just debate the issue, but so far all we have had from them are vague notions that something might happen after the Operation Sandon report gets handed down. That is a cunning plan, because if we have to wait until every integrity report on this government gets handed down, we could be here for a while.

No government or political party is immune from scandal, but most, whatever their colours, take some level of actual responsibility about effecting meaningful change in response. By ‘actual responsibility’ I mean taking remedial action and imposing consequences, not the Premier’s practice of just announcing that he takes responsibility and then moving on and doing nothing else. This is why other states in Australia are onto their fourth or fifth generation of integrity reforms, whereas Victoria is still, according to integrity experts, the clear laggard.

The bill put forward for debate is modest in scope, simply implementing the four recommendations of Operation Clara. Essentially IBAC has written the bill for the government. Effectively, all it seeks to do is prevent people holding positions on public boards when they are also lobbyists in relevant areas. It is important that we debate this bill, because IBAC found a shocking level of political corruption by the former Labor minister Theo Theophanous while he was a board member of what is now called the Victorian Planning Authority, the VPA. Theophanous improperly lobbied in favour of a consortium known as the Australian Education City, AEC, to build a project in East Werribee, the plans of which look like they have been lifted from season 2 of Utopia. IBAC found that Theophanous failed to declare a conflict of interest or register the AEC as a client on the Victorian Register of Lobbyists. But because we have the weakest laws in the country, I suspect this is not uncommon in Victoria.

Debating and then passing this bill would also prevent more serious corruption of the sort identified by IBAC in this case, in which Theophanous tried to advance his private lobbying business by telling clients he had access to staff and information within the VPA, Theophanous sought payment from the AEC and in lieu of receiving payments for his lobbying activities he obtained other benefits – namely, a $10,000 political donation and other in-kind campaign work and donations carried out for Labor’s campaign in Northcote. Despite resigning from the board of the VPA, Theophanous is unrepentant, which should not fill us with confidence, given how many ex-ministers are handed positions on the boards of public entities post career.

Debating this bill would be a good way to start Parliament’s response to this behaviour. It is true and important to say that IBAC found that there was no evidence that the current Labor member for Northcote was aware of her father’s actions. That is despite the remarkable appearance of thousands of dollars in her campaign budget. But it is also true that the member for Northcote directly benefited in monetary terms –

Mary-Anne Thomas: On a point of order, Speaker, this is a narrow procedural debate, and I ask that you bring the member for Brunswick back to the point. I also note that the report was very clear that the member for Northcote has done nothing wrong. She is a strong and effective member for Northcote.

The SPEAKER: Order! I ask the member for Brunswick to come back to the procedural motion before the house.

Tim READ: Debating this bill would give the Labor member for Northcote an opportunity to condemn the kind of corruption from which she benefited in monetary and in-kind terms and hopefully give us some assurance that she has donated the proceeds of this corruption.

Tim RICHARDSON (Mordialloc) (09:55): We should be adjourning this debate off, because this is the tactic that we see from the coalition – rather than contributing to substantive legislative reforms that are on the government business program today, that have been put forward on mental health and wellbeing and on drugs, poisons and other controls, they have gone home for a political stunt. They have gone home before the winter break to once again not follow the procedures of this house. And while old mate O’Brien over there, the member for Malvern, might turn around – 16 per cent, mate; you would not say it outside, would you?

Members interjecting.

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Mordialloc will come to order! The member for Eildon can leave the chamber for half an hour.

Member for Eildon withdrew from chamber.

James Newbury: On a point of order, Speaker, this is a tight procedural debate, and the member is straying and making a number of reflections on members in the chamber. I would ask you to bring him back.

Tim Richardson interjected.

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Mordialloc will come to order. Your point of order has been made, Manager of Opposition Business. The member for Mordialloc will stay on the procedural motion before the house.

Tim RICHARDSON: As I was saying, in the procedures of this house and also when reports land, whether they are from integrity, from IBAC, from the Ombudsman or from parliamentary committees, there is a well-worn path towards how they make their way here on legislative reform. Sometimes that can be six months in response. It is a substantive process to get to any legislative reform and program, so to then cut corners and have a precedent that says that, based on the feelings that they have or attacks on particular members of Parliament, ‘We’re going to bring legislative reform’ is a very strange precedent to set. Acknowledging your procedural ruling, the member for Brunswick strayed right into character assassination. It is not procedural at all to start reflecting on members.

We have got important work to do this week. We have got the Mental Health and Wellbeing Amendment Bill 2023 that is a substantial amount of legislation. So many members on this side of the house have contributed. We actually ran out of speakers on that side, not because we exhausted the list. No, they literally are not fronting up on behalf of their communities, so maybe for the Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Amendment (Authorising Pharmacists) Bill 2023 they will. I know the member for Lowan carried the team. That is fair enough. There were a lot of contributions from the member for Lowan, and 60 minutes of contribution during that time, but then to waste time, waste government business time, I tell you what –

James Newbury: On a point of order, Speaker, I understand why the member does not want to debate the motion before the house, but the motion is a procedural debate not a reflection on whether or not the Premier has never spoken on a second reading.

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Mordialloc was referencing other bills before the house. I think that is part of the procedures of this house, therefore I will not allow the point of order. The member for Mordialloc is to stick to the procedural motion before the house.

Tim RICHARDSON: The context of why or whether something should be adjourned off is about the time that we spend in this place. It is about the contributions and what is important. This is not to say that the report that has been put forward is not important. As the member for Albert Park said, the recommendations will come forward, and the government will approach that in the time and under consideration but not with character assassinations coming in here based on what is going right or what is going wrong at one particular moment from the opposition. It is about that structure and putting that forward rather than character assassinations, as the member for Brunswick absolutely strayed into.

We have got to get on with the mental health and wellbeing bill and the drugs, poisons and other controlled substances bill and give members an opportunity to actually front up on behalf of their communities and start talking on behalf of them on what these bills mean rather than wasting time. We have seen this, and I do not know whether we need to consider this more – procedural motions – but we have seen it consistently, for hours upon hours. Obviously, the member for Sandringham had his moment in the sun the other week really impacted because he did not get to do his Shadow Treasurer speech in time, because the member for Brighton was filibustering and not allowing the intellect of the member for Sandringham to burst through and shine. I know there is a bit of bayside rivalry but give him a go – let him have a go. Do not let procedural motions get in the way of the business of this house. We have got to get on with it. Let us get back to the substance of government business.

Assembly divided on motion:

Ayes (29): Brad Battin, Jade Benham, Roma Britnell, Martin Cameron, Annabelle Cleeland, Chris Crewther, Gabrielle de Vietri, Wayne Farnham, Sam Groth, Matthew Guy, Sam Hibbins, David Hodgett, Emma Kealy, Tim McCurdy, Cindy McLeish, James Newbury, Danny O’Brien, Michael O’Brien, John Pesutto, Tim Read, Richard Riordan, Brad Rowswell, Ellen Sandell, David Southwick, Bill Tilley, Bridget Vallence, Peter Walsh, Kim Wells, Jess Wilson

Noes (53): Juliana Addison, Jacinta Allan, Daniel Andrews, Colin Brooks, Josh Bull, Anthony Carbines, Ben Carroll, Darren Cheeseman, Anthony Cianflone, Chris Couzens, Jordan Crugnale, Lily D’Ambrosio, Daniela De Martino, Steve Dimopoulos, Paul Edbrooke, Will Fowles, Matt Fregon, Ella George, Bronwyn Halfpenny, Katie Hall, Paul Hamer, Martha Haylett, Mathew Hilakari, Melissa Horne, Natalie Hutchins, Lauren Kathage, Sonya Kilkenny, Nathan Lambert, Gary Maas, Alison Marchant, Kathleen Matthews-Ward, Steve McGhie, Paul Mercurio, John Mullahy, Tim Pallas, Danny Pearson, Pauline Richards, Tim Richardson, Michaela Settle, Ros Spence, Nick Staikos, Natalie Suleyman, Meng Heang Tak, Jackson Taylor, Nina Taylor, Kat Theophanous, Mary-Anne Thomas, Emma Vulin, Iwan Walters, Vicki Ward, Dylan Wight, Gabrielle Williams, Belinda Wilson

Motion defeated.