Thursday, 10 December 2020

Questions without notice and ministers statements

Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission funding

Mr M O’BRIEN (Malvern—Leader of the Opposition) (14:01): My question is to the Premier. Premier, you assert that you have not cut the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission’s funding this year. On page 384 of budget paper 3 the funding for IBAC in 2019–20 is $46.6 million, yet the funding for IBAC in 2020–21 is $42.2 million. How is this not a cut?

Members interjecting.

The SPEAKER: Order! The Minister for Health will come to order. The Leader of the House! Order! When the house comes to order.

Mr ANDREWS (Mulgrave—Premier) (14:02): I am certain the Leader of the Opposition has asked this question before, and I could simply refer him to my earlier answer, but in so doing let me just make the point that there was a financial year when the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission did not spend all of their allocated money. The Treasurer would have been perfectly within his rights to recall that funding as an underspend—that is a feature of the Financial Management Act 1994, it is a feature of budgeting. It does not happen often, but it does happen. That did not occur. That money was able to be retained and expended in a subsequent year. We have provided in this year’s budget the funding that was sought by IBAC, and we have locked that funding in plus indexation, and the Leader of the Opposition is simply wrong.

Mr M O’Brien: On a point of order, Speaker, the funding for this year is $4.4 million less than last year. I am simply asking the Premier to admit the truth that there has been a cut.

The SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order.

Mr ANDREWS: I will not be waiting around and ever conceding that the Leader of the Opposition is the arbiter of the truth; let me be certain about that. The Leader of the Opposition is at best confused and at worst doing what he has done every day of this year—play politics with everything.

Members interjecting.

The SPEAKER: Order! I ask members not to shout across the chamber—on both sides.

Mr M O’BRIEN (Malvern—Leader of the Opposition) (14:03): IBAC has an active investigation into branch-stacking activities in the Australian Labor Party. Former Labor minister Adem Somyurek told the Legislative Council this morning that the Premier was personally involved in ALP branch stacking. Premier, why should Victorians not see your funding cuts to IBAC as an attempt to ensure this investigation never gets to you?

The SPEAKER: Order! I just remind the Premier to answer the question as it relates to government business.

Mr ANDREWS (Mulgrave—Premier) (14:04): If only I had perhaps more than 1 minute to answer this question. The first point I would make to the Leader of the Opposition is the honourable Attorney-General made the reference to IBAC, so that might well speak to the motivations of the government in getting to the bottom of what has occurred. Now, loath as I am to go into details of IBAC investigations, I do feel obliged as part of the second point I will make to say that is not the only investigation that IBAC is currently conducting. I am sure if there were 100 investigations—

Members interjecting.

The SPEAKER: Order! I do not want to have to shout above the chamber so that I can ask people to be quiet to be able to hear the Premier. I know there are limited numbers in the chamber and I have tried not to remove members from the chamber while we are going through this period of social distancing, but I will remove members from the chamber—from any position in the chamber—if they continue to shout across the chamber at each other. I need to be able to hear the Premier’s answer so that I can determine issues of points of order if they are raised.

Mr Walsh: On a point of order, Speaker, if the Premier showed you the respect of actually facing you when he spoke instead of turning his back on you, you might be able to hear him.

The SPEAKER: Order! That is not a point of order.

Mr ANDREWS: So I refer the Leader of the Opposition to the answer to the substantive question. I would refer him to the point that I just made about the reference by the Attorney-General to IBAC in terms of the matters that the Leader of the Opposition raises. And the third point I would make is that it would not matter if there were 100 IBAC investigations—there is one that the Leader of the Opposition will never mention—will never mention—because it is into him and his colleagues.