Wednesday, 25 May 2022

Integrity agency funding

Debate resumed on motion of Mr DAVIS:

That this house:

(1) notes that:

(a) Ms Harriet Shing MLC, chair of the Integrity and Oversight Committee, has now twice intervened to block testimony to the Integrity and Oversight Committee from independent officers of the Parliament, the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission’s (IBAC) Commissioner, the Honourable Robert Redlich AM, QC, and the Victorian Ombudsman, Ms Deborah Glass OBE;

(b) this occurred concurrently with the Victorian Ombudsman’s inquiry into the politicisation of the Victorian public service and with the following three IBAC corruption investigations into the Andrews Labor government:

(i) Operation Watts;

(ii) Operation Sandon;

(iii) Operation Richmond;

(c) the Andrews Labor government has failed to adequately fund IBAC and the Victorian Ombudsman, with funding increases for IBAC being conditional on the completion of a review of their office and the Victorian Ombudsman only being provided with an additional $700 000 through a one-off Treasurer’s advance; and

(2) calls on the government to provide an immediate injection of funds for IBAC and the Victorian Ombudsman to ensure a lack of funding does not prevent the completion of these inquiries prior to the November 2022 state election.

Mr SOMYUREK (South Eastern Metropolitan) (15:33): It is very important that our integrity bodies are not only seen to be independent but actually are independent. The biggest risk of corruption not only in Victoria but throughout the world in every liberal democracy—in fact in every government throughout the world—is government corruption. When you are talking about risk of corruption in the body politic, you are talking about government. Therefore it is very important that our integrity bodies are not only seen to be at arm’s length but that there is a firewall between any government and the integrity bodies.

But what we have got in our state at the moment—not the fault of this government; it is a fault in the design of the integrity bodies—is integrity bodies that are anything but independent from government. What we have got is a system that is designed where the government elects the Commissioner and re-elects the Commissioner. What we have got is a government that elects and then re-elects the commissioners. What we have got is a government that controls the purse strings of IBAC and the integrity bodies. There are two oversight mechanisms for IBAC and the Ombudsman. One is the Victorian Inspectorate and the other is a parliamentary committee, the oversight committee, and what we have got is a government-dominated oversight committee. Again, it is not just this government. That is the way the system works. So what we have essentially got is a government with its foot well and truly planted on the neck of the integrity bodies through appointment, through funding and through the oversight mechanism. That is not the way it should be working. If you are talking about an Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission, it needs to be independent from the highest risk of corruption—that is, the government of the day, and again, not just this government but governments everywhere in the world.

That is a big problem. Why is it a big problem, what I have just explained? For the last two years I have been through an inquiry based on a TV program that was a sensationalist TV program, and what that program alleged was absolutely bad, bad corruption—in-depth, systemic corruption. It was a lie, but the public did not know it was a lie. The upper house referred the matter to IBAC, as it should have. The Premier referred the matter to IBAC, as he should have. But it was in the public interest for IBAC to come back very quickly, within a few months, and report on what they found, or release a preliminary report on what they found. Instead we are two years into the inquiry and there is nothing; there is absolutely nothing. I have had plenty of gag orders on me, but there is nothing in terms of what IBAC has reported back. That is a problem.

There is also the issue of IBAC only investigating one part—one subgroup, one small group—of a faction of the Labor Party, and that person is not a part of the Labor Party. I quit on 15 June 2020. Why is it doing a branch-stacking inquiry on me when the risk to corruption is from all other sections of the Labor Party? So that is odd.

I will tell you what else is odd. I am going to read you a complaint to the Victorian Inspectorate from a witness. She has got mental health issues. I am not going to mention her name, but let me just read this to you:

I suffer from chronic mental health problems, including several suicide attempts. In fact, because of the way I was treated by IBAC during its investigations I made two suicide attempts

I was lied to by them being advised that I will remain anonymous in all publications, manipulated in to making statements that were untrue and forced into several panic attacks during examination.

I was manipulated and forced to lie by the Examiner.

I have apologised to Mr Somyurek—

she has—

for the untruthful statements that were placed into my mouth whilst suffering severe mental health including Panic attacks and suicidal thoughts throughout the examination that he—

that is me—

made me sign membership forms. THIS IS NOT TRUE!!!!

I was falsely accused of protecting “Mr Somyurek” when I actually was obligated and sworn in by law to tell the truth. When i said it was Ms … Stalder—

the person that unlawfully recorded—

that coordinated and as chief of staff for Mr Byrne manipulated all staff to get signatures , the IBAC member insisted that I was lying. I would like to state again i worked for Mr Byrne for 10 years not Mr Somyurek during these things. On a few occasions as stated below, and in my hearing i was guided by and forced to say what was wanted to be heard by IBAC which was not the truth; what I tried to say things, IBAC was not interested. They only had interest in what I could be got to say about Mr Somyurek.

I was misdirected whilst having a panic attack by the Examiner with Commissioner in attendance to say particular sentences such as Mr Somyurek made me sign forms. i advised it was Ms Stalder and Mr Byrne who did this. Ms Stalder and Mr Byrne threatened me with losing my job if I could not provide the numbers in members.

I was also told directly when speaking all truth to stop protecting Mr Somyurek which led to a breakdown midst interview, even though I stated that I was not protecting anyone as I’m sworn under oath. I was manipulated to say statements that were not correct or misinterpreted … This made me feel mentally unhealthy and thinking about suicide.

I can confirm she attempted to commit suicide after her IBAC hearing.

So what have we got here? We have got an integrity body that is completely out of control. It is waterboarding witnesses that have got mental health issues, that are suicidal. Why? Because they are trying to get someone. This is outrageous behaviour. We have got a bunch of thugs who are running our integrity agencies at the moment. Who does that? Who coerces, who thugs a mentally ill young woman—and they knew that; she had a psychologist present—into making untrue statements? Who does that? IBAC. Why? The question is: why? What agenda do they have? This is the problem. When you have got a system that is designed with a design that gives all the leverage to the government of the day, when weird things happen like this you begin to wonder what is going on. Are there corrupt arrangements in place? You cannot get a battleaxe to a young woman who is suicidal and make her lie under oath. She is telling the truth, and IBAC is saying, ‘We don’t believe you’. Who does that?

We have got a massive problem with this IBAC. We have got a problem with our system as well. We have got a problem with IBAC. And when you also get one part of the ALP who are still members of the ALP being investigated and you get someone who is not a member of the ALP, has not been a member for the duration of this inquiry, being investigated, you have got to call it for what it is. It is one of three things: there are corrupt arrangements being entered into by IBAC or they are plain stupid or incompetent. That is all I can say about IBAC. This has gone to the Victorian Inspectorate, and I expect the Victorian Inspectorate will use the powers that they have to investigate, again, IBAC.

Mr GEPP (Northern Victoria) (15:42): I rise to speak on motion 775 under Mr Davis’s name. I want to say from the outset that I will not stand here as some sort of defender of Ms Shing, because she does not need defending. She is a strong, independent woman who is more than capable of standing on her own two feet and stands behind the decisions that she makes. I am not going to stand here and be a defender of the Premier, because he too is a very strong individual more than capable of defending himself. But what we cannot cop in this debate is when we hear words bandied around, words such as ‘integrity’, ‘honesty’, ‘truth’, ‘scrutiny’, ‘cover-up’, ‘corruption’ and then of course—

Ms Crozier interjected.

Mr GEPP: Oh well, you know, Geppy, make sure you are spot-on here. You have got to go to the dictionary. Let us look up the dictionary and let us make sure that we are certain, that we are actually applying these words correctly. I did not get past ‘integrity’, because I must admit, after I hit the print button I started to chuckle when I read this, particularly when I compared this meaning to the mover of the motion:

adherence to moral and ethical principles; soundness of moral character; honesty.

the state of being whole, entire, or undiminished …

a sound, unimpaired, or perfect condition …

Then I compared that definition to the contribution that I heard from Mr Davis, and I thought, ‘Okay, let’s run the ruler over that’ as it applies to Mr Davis. And—bah-bow—we come up just a tad short, just a little bit short. When we go back and we have a look at the history of Mr Davis—and I could only go back so far; Google can only go back so far. It will not go back to—oh, we have got a point of order. We do not like it!

Mr Davis: On a point of order, Acting President, it seems the member is going to go on a frolic, and I ask you to bring him back to the quite direct motion.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Mr Melhem): I think I have heard enough. Resume your contribution, Mr Gepp. There is no point of order.

Mr GEPP: Thank you, Acting President. Let us just highlight a couple of things, because Mr Davis likes to prance around this place as if he is some sort of moral compass for the place. Well, God help us if that is the case, because we would have to rewrite the standing orders book; we would have to rewrite the entire rule book. There was an Age report back in 2005, on 18 November—

Mr Davis: On a point of order, Acting President, the member is heading out on a frolic on matters that are not connected with this motion at all.

Mr GEPP: On the point of order, Acting President, Mr Davis talked at length during his contribution about integrity, about truth and about scrutiny. He referred to the Premier on numerous occasions. He called the Premier and the government corrupt. He opened the door. Mr Somyurek has just talked for 10 minutes about matters completely unrelated to the motion. I would suggest to you that I am entirely in order.

Ms Crozier: On the point of order—

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Mr Melhem): I am ready to rule on the point of order unless you want to add to it. There is no point of order. I just remind the parties—Mr Gepp is right—Mr Davis ventured to all these subjects in his contribution and other members have. I ask that Mr Gepp be heard in silence.

Mr GEPP: Thank you, Acting President. So it was mentioned on 18 November 2005 by Mr Michael Kroger from the Liberal Party, who was talking about a then unnamed frontbencher—but of course he then subsequently named him. He said that that person, the senior upper house frontbencher, had been accused of branch stacking and was spending too much time shoring up his own numbers for his own preselection and was not taking his job on. But of course this theme continued.

Ms Shing interjected.

Ms Crozier: Well, actually the motion is about you, Ms Shing, and how you have blocked testimony to the Integrity and Oversight Committee, and it is in a very specific motion that is very important to the integrity of this whole parliamentary process and the committee process. And on a point of order, Acting President, I would ask you to bring Mr Gepp back to the crux of what this is about. It is talking about the way that Ms Shing blocked the testimony of the Commissioner and the Ombudsman—very, very important issues.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Mr Melhem): I think I have heard enough. There has been a lot of debate, and the mover of the motion had moved on to why there was a contribution, including branch stacking. When members on both sides open up and have contributions that go to areas that might not necessarily be in a motion, I cannot stop an individual member from venturing in the same way. So can I ask that for the next 3 minutes and 40 seconds Mr Gepp be heard in silence without further interruptions, if possible.

Mr GEPP: They successfully cut out between 2005 and 2018, so I will just fast-track to 2020 and 2021. Let us just focus on the two years of this bloke’s behaviour—this bloke’s drunken behaviour. When representing this Parliament up in Bright his behaviour was called into question—oh, he does not like it?

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Mr Melhem): Mr Gepp! Order!

Mr Davis: On a point of order, Acting President, you well know and the member well knows that if he wants to attack people on substantive matters he can bring a motion to that effect.

Mr Leane: Further to the point of order, Acting President, it has just been well documented, and Mr Davis has admitted to being drunk at public events and being quite handsy and inappropriate, so I think that Mr Gepp is actually not going outside anything that is true.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Mr Melhem): Thank you for those contributions. Mr Gepp, can you go back to the motion.

Mr GEPP: The motion is about integrity, and integrity should be applied across the chamber and exercised by all members. What we have got is the hypocrisy of Mr Davis opposite, who has such a glass jaw that now his lack of integrity and his behaviour is being put on the public record he does not like it—he does not like it at all. We have two recent examples. One was when we were in Bright holding a regional sitting, and the behaviour of Mr Davis in the Bright Brewery and the offence taken by the workforce there when he was abusive, when he was violent, when he was drunk—

Ms Crozier: On a point of order, Acting President, I know Mr Gepp is loving the sound of his own voice, but this is really very important. This is about the Integrity and Oversight Committee of this Parliament, with very serious agencies involved, and how it was blocked by the chair. That is what this motion is about. That is what this integrity is about.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Mr Melhem): There is no point of order.

Mr GEPP: I have no doubt they will jump to their feet again because I have not even got to the multicultural dinner. Do not let me stray there, for goodness sake, because that is where he inherited the nickname, after the South Australian cricketer, ‘Handsy’. That is where he was when he was too close, too personal, and people took offence at it. The then Leader of the Liberal Party did not chastise him: ‘I’ll put him on his last warning’. It is as if you were talking to a six-year-old: ‘You’re on your last warning, young man, before I send you to your bedroom, not to come out’. This bloke has got form. He has no integrity. He has no-one in his party who is applying scrutiny to him.

This is a political stunt, Ms Shing is quite right. She has acted in accordance with the Parliamentary Committees Act 2003. She has done everything by the book, appropriately, out on the public record. Any suggestion by those opposite that anything else has occurred is an out-and-out lie, frankly.

Very quickly, my last comment is in relation to Ms Burnett-Wake, who sought to introduce a personal relationship that a member of this chamber had with somebody outside. That is very, very dangerous territory—very, very dangerous territory—and you on that side should be ashamed for raising it. You should be ashamed.

Mr BARTON (Eastern Metropolitan) (15:53): This is a serious matter, so I went and sought some advice from the very integrity agencies we are talking about and also the Law Institute of Victoria, and I have concluded this motion is very concerning. It essentially seeks to undermine and inappropriately fetter the independence of our parliamentary committee system, a system that is a critical function of this Parliament and fundamental to our democratic process. The Integrity and Oversight Committee, in accordance with the Victorian constitution and the well-established doctrine of the separation of powers, acts independently, as do all our parliamentary committees. Parliamentary committees should not be subject to external influence or political control. As a member of the Economy and Infrastructure Committee and the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee, I know well the importance of these committees in independently holding government and the public sector to account. I also know that committees are required to function and operate in accordance with parliamentary law and custom and the Parliamentary Committees Act 2003.

In relation to the matters referenced in part (1) of the motion, the Integrity and Oversight Committee has provided a clear statement clarifying the details of the hearings that have been conducted in relation to witness welfare in recent weeks. Under section 7 of the Parliamentary Committees Act 2003, the committee is prohibited from investigating any matters being investigated by an agency, including reviewing any decision by an agency to investigate, not to investigate or to discontinue to investigate a matter. Further, it is prohibited from reviewing any findings, recommendations, determinations or other decisions in relation to particular matters, including complaints to agencies and agency investigations.

The committee has no power to interfere with or overturn integrity agency determinations with respect to individual matters. Under section 7 the committee is prohibited from disclosing any information which may prejudice any criminal proceedings or criminal investigations; prejudice any investigation conducted by IBAC, the Victorian Inspectorate or the Victorian Ombudsman; or breach any secrecy or confidentiality provisions in any act. I agree that it would be entirely inappropriate if the committee were to become or be seen to become a platform for any person involved in an investigation to relitigate any aspects of such investigation. This would fundamentally change the nature of the committee and allow investigations to become exposed to political interference.

In performing its duties, the Integrity and Oversight Committee therefore has very clearly established parameters in law, under which it is required to act, ensuring the committee complies with these requirements, particularly in relation to the public hearings and the fundamental role of the chair of the committee. I have spoken in this place on numerous occasions about the importance of appropriate oversight of government decisions and actions. Transparency and independence are critical to the functions of this Parliament. What this motion does is the exact opposite. It seeks to undermine the independence of our parliamentary committee, cast doubt on the actions of the independent integrity agencies and insert political direction into the actions of these independent bodies. In terms of funding, I am advised that both IBAC and the Ombudsman’s office have received the funding that they requested in this year’s budget, so I ask myself: what are we trying to fix here with this motion?

Mr DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan—Leader of the Opposition) (15:57): In reply I want to be very clear. Mr Barton says, ‘What are we trying to fix?’. Well, I invite him to look at schedule 1 in the Appropriation (Parliament 2022–2023) Bill 2022. It makes it very clear there is a very modest increase only in the IBAC funding. It makes it clear there is only a very modest increase in the Ombudsman’s funding.

A member interjected.

Mr DAVIS: No, have a read. Let us be clear. The money that is potentially available is not being appropriated in the budget. It is not being appropriated in the budget—you have got to be quite clear about this. I want to also be clear that as much as the Labor Party might squirm and wriggle, the truth is that Ms Shing ought not to have closed down those hearings. She ought not to have closed down those witnesses. I actually have more faith in the IBAC Commissioner and his ability to step a careful line, as he is required to do. I make the point that Ms Shing did this for purposes of cover for the government. It is also true—

Ms Shing: On a point of order, Acting President, again, if Mr Davis wishes to make specific allegations about my actions, he should do so and have the courage to do so, departing from his cowardice, by way of a substantive motion.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Mr Melhem): I actually uphold the point of order, unless Mr Davis is repeating what he said in his contribution. I appreciate if you made that in your general contribution it would be quite okay, but I think for the right of reply I would remind you to go back to just summing up instead of venturing into it.

Mr DAVIS: I would indicate that earlier I did indicate that I had a different view from Ms Shing and that in fact Ms Shing, in my view, ought not to have closed down those witnesses.

A member interjected.

Mr DAVIS: That is my view, and I think it is the view of many in the community.

Ms Shing: Further to the point of order, Acting President, I listened very carefully to Mr Davis’s contribution earlier today. He was somewhat more careful in the way in which he framed his initial contribution, and he is somewhat looser now in the way in which he is characterising conduct by me, which if he is prepared to be something other than a coward will involve a substantive motion and not in fact an allegation made on the fly while he is trying to summarise this particular motion. He has extended the reach of what he said initially, and he knows it.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Mr Melhem): I think I dealt with that in my ruling earlier, so Mr Davis to resume his contribution for his 3 minutes.

Mr DAVIS: I want to be quite clear. There needs to be a clear injection of funds into IBAC, a $10 million injection.

Members interjecting.

Mr DAVIS: No, there is not going to be a $10 million injection—there is not.

Members interjecting.

Mr DAVIS: No, they did not. You read what is in the actual—

Ms Shing interjected.

Mr DAVIS: Well, they are under threat. Let us be quite clear that they are under threat because the government is holding a funding instrument over them. How inappropriate to be holding an office review and holding the funding as contingent. That is one of the problems with this government: it is holding these matters of funding as a sword over the Ombudsman’s office and as a sword over the IBAC office. That is the reality, and they have made it very clear that they will only provide the money if these agencies play ball. What they want to do is put pressure on these agencies.

Now, I have faith that the agencies are strong and can stand up to them. But having said that, if they do not have the resources to do the work they need to do, the work will happen more slowly. The work will happen much more slowly, and that is what this government wants in this circumstance. It wants to get through to November without the release of many of these embarrassing corruption reports that go to the heart of the government’s corrupt activity. It is clear that the government ought not to be acting this way. A government that was supporting our integrity agencies would have provided the money no matter what. That is not what this government has done, and that is what the schedule shows. The schedule shows that the money is not being provided without strings attached, and I say the government ought not to be behaving in this way.

House divided on motion:

Motion negatived.

Sitting suspended 4.08 pm until 4.28 pm.