Thursday, 9 June 2022

Appropriation (Parliament 2022–2023) Bill 2022

Second reading

Debate resumed on motion of Ms SYMES:

That the bill be now read a second time.

Mr DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan—Leader of the Opposition) (16:55): The Appropriation (Parliament 2022–2023) Bill 2022 is a bill which the Clerk might give me a copy of so I have got it in front of me. Thank you. I want to make just a few brief comments about this. This is a bill that is a standard bill that comes through every year. It appropriates resources for the Parliament and for independent officers and others. It is a very important bill. It does provide the independence from the general appropriation bill that is important, and I just put on record the opposition’s view that we did not want the bills debated concurrently for that reason—because they are actually separate bills, and I think the significance of separating them is important and the symbolism of separating them is important too.

I do want to indicate that the opposition does, as has been communicated in this chamber several times now, want to see improved funding for the Ombudsman and improved funding for the IBAC. If you turn to the schedule at the back of the bill, you will quickly see that aside from the Assembly and the Council, the Department of Parliamentary Services, the Parliamentary Budget Office and the Auditor-General, there is funding for the IBAC listed in schedule 1 on page 12. It shows a very modest increase from $53 294 000 to $54 896 000, and as the community will understand, that is not the large increase that the government has been rumbling around talking about. The increase in funding that is needed for the IBAC is significant. It does need to be in the order of $10 million. We have committed to that as a policy, and I should just lay out very clearly and directly the policy and the reasons for the policy of the opposition on this matter.

IBAC should not be crimped in its work to prevent corruption. It should not be nobbled by government, and that is what has been going on. I note the entreaties on the Ombudsman’s website and the reports and the IBAC’s commentary about the lack of funding over recent years. It is true that the government has tried to keep the tap tied very tight, keep the tap closed as far as possible, noting that without proper funding the IBAC would not be in a position to do the work that it needs to do. So we will seek to amend that schedule and put an additional $10 million onto the IBAC budget. In the case of the Victorian Ombudsman, we will seek to put $2 million onto the budget. Those amendments can be circulated if that is the will of the Clerks just at the moment. That would be appropriate.

Opposition amendments circulated by Mr DAVIS pursuant to standing orders.

Mr DAVIS: The chamber has canvassed at length some of these matters before. We believe it is important that the IBAC has sufficient funding. We believe it is important that the Ombudsman does too. We note that reviews of the office have occurred in both cases and Treasurer’s advances have been promised in certain cases, and funding that is contingent upon the completion of base reviews in the IBAC’s case is not the correct way forward in our view. In our view there needs to be a proper, more independent process. We do not think the Integrity and Oversight Committee has had the capacity to do that legislatively, and we have indicated that there should be reform. We have said that there is a New Zealand model which should be looked at closely in this context, although I am quite clear that the model cannot be exactly replicated because it is a unicameral chamber there, but it does point to a greater independence in long-term funding for the IBAC. We have also indicated publicly that in the case of the IBAC we would repeal or reverse the changes that were made in recent years that limited the IBAC’s ability to do the public hearings that it does from time to time need to do.

Additionally, I should make mention to the chamber—and people will probably be aware of this—that yesterday we introduced a bill which provides greater clarity for the Supreme Court about the Parliament’s views, if it is carried, and also provides a balance, protecting the rights of those on whom IBAC may make negative reflection but at the same time laying out a format which prevents the misuse of legal process to prevent or stymie or block in effect the tabling of reports in a timely way. The IBAC’s work is not only about the integrity of government and government departments but is also an important lead for the whole Victorian economy. We need the minimum of corrupt behaviour, and we need to give IBAC the resources to educate but also to prosecute where it needs—or to recommend certain steps in that direction—and to report to Parliament without being stymied.

The changes that are recommended in our amendments to this bill we think are important. We know that some in the chamber do not agree. Now, that is their right, but nonetheless we are clearly and strongly prosecuting the case for additional funding for IBAC and additional funding for the Ombudsman. It is not satisfactory to have those agencies unable to do the work they need to do or to limited in any way that is unreasonable in doing that work, so those amendments we think are very important. We think it is wrong that the Premier has not been up-front in a number of these matters. He has obviously been to IBAC at least twice and probably three times—a frequent flyer, you may say—and obviously there are issues with the Supreme Court. You can tell in the response of the IBAC Commissioner the concerns that are there with respect to the ability to table reports. It would be an absolute democratic bombshell if any of those major IBAC reports that are due to be tabled in the Parliament were stymied or blocked by legal proceedings that prevented the community seeing what was there. No, they should step back. The government should be pushing very hard for transparency on these matters. It should not be in cahoots with any groups or individuals to whom there may be negative reference made in very concerning IBAC reports.

With those comments we will seek the amendments, and those amendments we believe would put IBAC and the Ombudsman in a better position to do the work they need to do. We obviously understand that there needs to be a longer term and more secure funding arrangement, and we have presaged that. There needs to be the reversal of the changes that were made recently that diluted the ability of the IBAC to do public hearings, and further, beyond that, we need to make sure that there is timely tabling of reports. It is wrong that there is that restriction and that the restriction appears to be unbalanced.

Ms PULFORD (Western Victoria—Minister for Employment, Minister for Innovation, Medical Research and the Digital Economy, Minister for Small Business, Minister for Resources) (17:04): I am very pleased to make some short comments this afternoon on the Appropriation (Parliament 2022–‍2023) Bill 2022, and I am very pleased also to see this bill including some record funding for those important integrity and oversight bodies that play such an important role in providing the Victorian community with every assurance about the manner in which decisions are made in their best interests and in their best interests alone. I would also like to take the opportunity to thank our parliamentary staff. I know that electorate officers, for their sins, often have the Parliament running in the office in the background during the day, so I might start with a shout-out to the electorate office staff across the 88 lower house members’ electorates.

A member interjected.

Ms PULFORD: It is 5 past 5; I reckon there are still plenty of them there. So hello to all of you from all of us here in the Legislative Council this afternoon and of course to our fabulous Legislative Council electorate office staff supporting the 40 of us here across five very, very large electorates. We recognise what you do, we recognise that the demands upon you have been quite extraordinary in recent times and we thank you for your service to the communities that you serve. The parliamentary appropriation bill appropriately separates from general government spending these things, and it is a hallmark of our system of government in this country that the role of the executive and the role of the Parliament are very clearly delineated.

In terms of the funding for our integrity agencies this year, I might also just add that we are providing $32.1 million to provide that funding certainty that of course is important for any organisation but also to increase the base operational capacity of the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission to ensure that it operates effectively and efficiently into the future. This funding responds to the base review that was announced last year. The funding is the full amount that IBAC sought, and it is held in contingency subject to the formal conclusion of that review. The 2021–22 funding outcome is elevated due to an allocation from the IBAC trust fund, which has not been part of their base funding. We are also providing $1.6 million over the forward estimates to establish an annual minor capital works budget to fund the Victorian Ombudsman’s tangible assets renewal to replace ageing IT equipment—laptops and servers and software solutions and things like that—which will improve system functionality and efficiency. It is supporting those integrity agencies so that they can do their very, very important job for all of us.

But if I could, I will just return to the staff that support us in the Parliament. I know we have got a bit of preselection season going on, with the parties selecting candidates where candidates have not yet been selected for the forthcoming state election. You might wonder how this is relevant to the bill, but bear with me a sec. I do not know if anybody else did this, but when I was first preselected I remember having a look at Hansard and thinking, ‘Oh, my goodness, they’re so articulate—all of them. This is going to be terrifying.’ And then only afterwards did I realise Hansard tidy up our ums and our ahs and make us all sound delightfully articulate and coherent, even when sometimes we are not 100 per cent those things. So we love your work, Hansard, thank you. Of course it is incredibly important to provide an accurate record of the proceedings of the place for all time. For those preselection candidates that might be looking at Hansard, do not worry: they will tidy you up a little bit too and make sure all your facts and figures are recorded dutifully but edit out some of your ums and ahs. Our clerks of course, our council committees office and our attendants look after us so well even when we sometimes stay here all night and all day into the next day, always with a smile and always so supportive.

The community engagement and education unit is really important. We have just had a federal election. I have an 18-year-old who voted for the first time, and all his mates voted for the first time. I am sure all members of Parliament from time to time wander into a school classroom and get interrogated about what we do, why we do it and how we do it. The community engagement work of the Parliament is a really, really important part of protecting and preserving our democratic institutions and making sure that young Victorians can understand how the decisions that affect their lives and their families’ lives and their community are made, and also importantly how they can participate in them. We have, of course, the procedure office over on the other side and the tours and customer service unit. Every time I overhear a tour, I think, ‘Golly, I must tag along on one of these’, because the people who conduct tours of this building know where all the bodies are buried and know all of the great secrets and stories of this exquisite but impossible-to-maintain building, and they add a really important dimension to the place.

There are our people in the Department of Parliamentary Services, whether they be our IT folks, keeping our emails safe from the hackers and the spammers; the building folks, who seem to have a work program that will endure for all time and have a really, really challenging job but also do it in a way that provides minimal disruption for the functioning of the Parliament during sitting weeks, committee hearings and the like, with work all around us; the information services folks; the HR people, who support us from time to time to make sure that we are looking after our teams and managing issues with people coming and going; of course catering—the scones are world famous, the sausage rolls are world famous and we thank you for your service; security; or financial management—really important. Having been here for nearly 16 years—and I know there are members in this place who have been here a good while longer than me and some newer ones that are here in this chamber for this debate this afternoon—I know we have continual improvement to these systems and modernisation of these systems, and that is all to make sure that we have really high standards of integrity and reporting around this sign-off of the expenditure out of our office budgets as well as of course the other financial management across the department.

Of course security has been a little more challenging lately. We have been through a really trying time. There have been people who have been, each for their own reasons, very upset by some of the things that have come to bear on the Victorian community through the course of the pandemic and pandemic management, and so there has been an additional call on the security folks to support us, particularly at some points through debate. I know members who have had to have dealings with our security team here have always appreciated their attentiveness, their care and their professionalism.

To the leaders of the department—the secretary, the deputy secretary and the chief information officer—it is a pretty thankless task, running the Department of Parliamentary Services, so I thought I would jump up and say a few words on this occasion where we provide the funding for your continued work and say that we recognise what you do and the way in which you do it and that it is appreciated by members in this place, even if occasionally we grumble from time to time. We are very grateful for the support we have to be able to represent the Victorian community, our own electorates and our parties and various issues, agendas and ambitions to the best of our ability, and we could not do it without you. So that all of that can continue, I would like to commend this bill to the house.

Mr ONDARCHIE (Northern Metropolitan) (17:13): I rise today to speak on the Appropriation (Parliament 2022–2023) Bill 2022. It provides funding in the next financial year out of the Consolidated Fund for the Parliament and all its various activities. One of the benefits of us passing this bill today is it gives each of us the privilege to serve our communities, and I think we should not disregard how important that is in terms of our opportunity to provide that level of community service to our local communities. I am to indeed privileged and honoured to serve as a member for my constituents in Northern Metropolitan Region.

I do have some concerns with this bill in that it probably does not provide enough funding to the Victorian Ombudsman and to IBAC. I know the minister who spoke before me touched on that, and it is something we will probably explore a little later in the day today. But I think making sure there is appropriate funding for these organisations, the Victorian Ombudsman and IBAC, is pretty important to some of the things that we could be doing.

In saying that, I do want to take the opportunity to say thank you to a number of people and groups who serve us so well in this place. It must be very difficult to deal with, particularly in the upper house or across the Parliament, 128 different individuals who have 128 different ideas and 128 levels of importance. So I would like to take this opportunity to thank a number of people.

The IT team, Chris Prasad and the team, when Luddites like me yell out, ‘Help, I’m not sure what’s happening with my laptop’, are there to fix it for us. Thank goodness for them, Chris and the whole IT team. To Hansard, who clean up some of my very awkward speeches so they make some sense and look good; to the catering team, who do us so well, in serving both people who come to visit us and also us; to the security team, who, as Minister Pulford indicated, have had an extraordinary 12 months in terms of the challenges—and for me personally they have done an extraordinary job helping with some personal matters as well; and to the property team, who keep this building, other buildings and our electorate offices in good nick, we give our thanks.

The fleet vehicles team—Helen Donaldson, you are a gem. How you deal with the various whims and desires of members of Parliament and their particular vehicles, colours and designs—I take my hat off to you. To Helen and the vehicles team, we say thank you. To the Legislative Council attendants, to Greg and that team, for the great job they do in supporting us in our activity so often, we give thanks, as we do to the clerks. To Andrew, the team and all the support people as part of that wider team, we give thanks. The table office and staff, who deal with our morning rushes—‘We need this urgently’—just seem to deliver right on time. Thanks to our HR people and to our accounts and budgets teams as well.

Often we ask our library staff for information and they look at us curiously like, ‘I’m not even quite sure what they’re asking for’, but they find a way of delivering that information to us. Our grounds team provide gardens that are so lovely for us and our visitors to be able to enjoy at the people’s house here. And particularly I might just note that, while they are not directly affected by this particular bill, the PSOs do an awesome job here in looking after us—an awesome job 24/7.

In saying that, none of us could function as we do without the support of our own electorate office staff. They take the bulk of the calls, they take the bulk of the inquiries that come through and they make sure that we are fit, ready and organised for our parliamentary sessions and our time with our constituents. So personally—heartfelt—I could not do what I do in this job without my wonderful team. I am truly blessed by them all. To Nadine, to Phil, to Nick, to Jacky, to Goldy and to Fiona, bless every one of you individually for the way you support me and allow me to carry out the job on behalf of each of us for our constituents. I commend the bill to the house.

Mr QUILTY (Northern Victoria) (17:17): I will be brief.

Mr Ondarchie: As brief as me?

Mr QUILTY: Probably briefer. This bill sets out the new budget for the Parliament and related spending. Most MPs pay close attention to it because it is where our salaries come from, but there is another reason why it is important. The Appropriation (Parliament 2022–2023) Bill 2022 is where the money for most government oversight comes from. It includes the funding for IBAC and the Ombudsman. Both agencies are set to receive increases of about 3 per cent, which after inflation is likely to be a real cut in both cases. The IBAC chief tells us that they only have the resources to investigate 2 per cent of matters that are referred to them. Meanwhile the Ombudsman tells us that Victorians have launched a record number of formal human rights complaints.

The government tell us that they are under more scrutiny than ever, but what they mean is they are under more pressure to be transparent. They are still trying to sweep the entire pandemic under a rug. They hide behind cabinet in confidence, they refuse to explain or identify the reasoning behind the public health directions and they continue to maintain token transparency measures solely to give an impression of legitimacy. This government is going to spend $85 billion of taxpayers money, and it expects you to believe that it cannot afford $0.1 billion to check that it is all above board. IBAC and the Ombudsman together account for only 0.09 per cent of the budget—less than one-tenth of 1 per cent. We cannot afford the spending in this budget, and we definitely cannot afford to leave that spending unchecked. Every dollar spent at the discretion of a minister or a bureaucrat is an incentive for corruption. Every ounce of power held by those ministers and bureaucrats is another incentive again. State spending is skyrocketing, and use of government power is reaching new heights in Victoria, but the only things not getting more funding and power are the agencies that investigate the government. The best way to reduce corruption is to reduce government spending, reduce government power and create more and stronger checks against government authority. This budget does not do that. The Liberal Democrats believe strongly in government transparency and accountability. We very rarely call for increased government spending, but we will always do so when it comes to funding the integrity agencies.

Mr RICH-PHILLIPS (South Eastern Metropolitan) (17:20): I am pleased to make some remarks this afternoon on the Appropriation (Parliament 2022–2023) Bill 2022. I would like to start, as other members have, by thanking the staff of the Parliament, the Department of the Legislative Council and the Department of Parliamentary Services and the broader parliamentary staff for all the work that they do in supporting the work of members of Parliament, and I would also in particular like to thank my own electorate office staff, Sophie and Laura, for their ongoing support and hard work in helping me represent the 550 000 constituents of the South Eastern Metropolitan Region.

This bill we are dealing with this afternoon has at its core funding for the Parliament and funding for the independent integrity agencies. It funds the departments of Parliament, it funds the Parliamentary Budget Office and it funds the Victorian Inspectorate, the Auditor-General, IBAC and the Ombudsman. The bill is carved out from the general appropriation in recognition of the need for those institutions to be seen to be independent of government. Of course the bill is still a government bill. It still goes through a government budget process. But there is the need to create a perception of financial independence.

Mr Davis in his contribution spoke about the concerns the coalition has with the level of funding that has been provided to some of the integrity agencies and the intention to move a suggested amendment seeking to increase the funding for those integrity agencies. As we have heard, those agencies play a very important role in public administration in this state, and the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission in particular as a new agency, an agency that was established just eight years ago, has a very important role to play in the fabric of public institutions in this state. It is an unusual institution, IBAC. It is an institution which has very broad coercive powers and is not bound by the ordinary rules of evidence, and the reason for that is to provide it with the capacity to undertake inquiries, to go through an inquisitorial process and to understand what is happening in the public sector and what is happening with public sector corruption.

But it is important to keep in mind it is not a judicial process. It is not the judge and jury. If issues are identified through IBAC processes, if corruption is identified through IBAC processes, it is then a matter for the courts to determine whether there is guilt and whether there are offences or not. So while it has that evidence-gathering process, it does not have the role of determining guilt. In saying that, that highlights why it is important when establishing bodies such as IBAC that the legislation is made soberly and is made judiciously to ensure the powers are there to undertake an inquisitorial process, an evidence-gathering process, but also to ensure there are appropriate checks and balances.

We have seen in New South Wales what happens when you get it wrong. We have seen case after case in the New South Wales jurisdiction. We had the debacle of the Margaret Cunneen situation. We have had so many other debacles in New South Wales where adverse findings were made against people, accusations were made against people, only for them to be found to be untrue. That is something, in setting up IBAC in Victoria, the previous coalition government was very conscious of—the need to avoid that, the need to have a proper structure for IBAC which avoided those miscarriages we have seen in New South Wales—while ensuring there was a framework that would allow proper investigation of corruption activities in this state. We do not want to go down the path that New South Wales has been down. Its ICAC has harmed its own credibility, but it has also done a lot of damage to people that have been falsely accused of things in that jurisdiction. So in considering the framework of IBAC in Victoria and in considering any changes to that framework we need to be as sober and judicial in consideration as the Parliament was with the original establishment of IBAC back in 2013.

Another matter I would like to touch on this afternoon is in relation to the Parliament itself, the way in which the Parliament is working and whether the Parliament is effectively doing its job for the people of Victoria, because this bill is essentially about funding the institution of Parliament and those other integrity bodies. Earlier this morning I referred to the Evidence Based Policy Research Project, which is a piece of work undertaken out of New South Wales to look at the way in which legislation around Australia is put together, the way in which the policy process is followed for legislation to be produced across jurisdictions. The model that was used in order to undertake this assessment was to engage separately two think tanks—a right-wing think tank, the Institute of Public Affairs, and a left-wing think tank, Per Capita Australia—to between them agree on a selection of legislation across Australia to assess. Each year they look at 20 pieces of legislation. Each of those think tanks look at the way in which legislation was developed, the process that was followed by government in developing legislation and the process that was followed by Parliament in considering that legislation to determine whether there was a proper, evidence-based approach to policy development and legislating. Each of those think tanks assesses the 20 bills across the Australian jurisdiction and gives them a rating out of 10. Then the way in which the final report is put together is that the ratings of each of the two think tanks are effectively averaged.

What is interesting in looking at the samples of legislation which have been considered in the most recent report is that both the left-wing think tank and the right-wing think tank generally reached the same conclusion as to the effectiveness of the policy development process that was pursued in each of the individual pieces of legislation. Unfortunately the findings of the most recent report, referring to legislation in 2021, were that Victoria was at the bottom of the rankings. Of the four pieces of legislation which were considered from Victoria, which were the legislation on drug courts, the legislation on the conversion practices ban, the legislation on public drunkenness and the legislation for the constitutional fracking ban, the policy process leading to that legislation for two of those was regarded as mediocre and for the other two it was regarded as inadequate. That is the bottom ranking of all the jurisdictions that were considered in this report. The commonwealth was considered. I think the bulk of legislation, 10 of the bills, considered were out of the commonwealth and a sample out of New South Wales, Victoria and Queensland. Across the commonwealth, New South Wales, Victoria and Queensland, Victoria had the lowest rating on the policy development process that led to those pieces of legislation. It is simply not good enough that legislation being developed in Victoria ranks so poorly in terms of the process that has been followed.

As a consequence of this report, and similar models undertaken over the last four or five years, the New South Wales Parliament has actually moved to take remedial steps. Last month the Legislative Council in New South Wales moved amendments to their standing orders, seeking to introduce a new mechanism for the assessment of bills when they come into the house, requiring the member introducing a bill to identify whether it has been subject to or is accompanied by a statement of public interest.

The intent of a statement of public interest—similar to the statement against the human rights charter that we have in Victoria—is to outline to the house, when a bill is introduced, the process it has gone through in its development. The framework for a statement of public interest is that it should identify the need of the bill; what policy need the introducer of the bill is seeking to address by way of legislation; what the objectives are of the legislation, couched in terms of public interest; what options were considered against the legislation; what alternatives to that legislation or alternatives to legislation altogether were considered prior to the bill being brought to Parliament; what analysis had been undertaken of the particular legislative framework that is being introduced; what the process was for putting the legislation in place and then enacting the legislation and whatever mechanism was introduced by the legislation, and what process had led up to that legislative phase; and what consultation had been undertaken—what stakeholders were consulted and what the views were of those stakeholders on the piece of legislation.

The intent of this step in the New South Wales Parliament is to add robustness to the legislative process. When you look at the way in which we consider legislation in this place, so often those are the types of questions that are raised in a committee of the whole consideration, but they are rarely questions which are adequately answered, and they are rarely questions which, by virtue of the dynamic environment of the committee of the whole, can be given adequate considered answers in the way in which a written statement, tabled with a bill at the time the bill was introduced, could.

This is a measure the New South Wales Legislative Council has recently given consideration to. It is a way of ensuring that Parliament is more robust in its consideration of legislation, by requiring the introducer of a bill to be more robust in the consideration they give to legislation before bringing it to the house, and I think it is something that should be given consideration in this Legislative Council. This is a house of review—this should be a house of review. This house operates very differently to the other place where, by virtue of being the house of government, government bills are essentially rubberstamped through, irrespective of who is in government. This is the house where scrutiny should take place. The house attempts to do that on some occasions, but we do it without a lot of the detail which should be provided with legislation and without the detail that a statement of public interest would provide to the house up-front when legislation is introduced.

The coalition obviously is not opposing this bill, which is to provide funds for the parliamentary departments, but I do note that we should always be looking at ways in which we can improve the operation of Parliament and we can always be looking at ways of how we can improve our scrutiny of legislation to ensure that it is appropriate. The New South Wales Parliament Legislative Council is now leading with its introduction of statements of public interest, and I think there is a good opportunity there for the Victorian Legislative Council to catch up and introduce some new initiatives to ensure we do a better job in scrutinising legislation for the people of Victoria.

Ms TIERNEY (Western Victoria—Minister for Training and Skills, Minister for Higher Education) (17:34): I also add my voice in thanking all of the staff here at Parliament and back in our electorate offices for the work that they do day in and day out. I would encourage anyone that is listening that has not actually visited Parliament to do so, because it is a particularly interesting place—for all sorts of reasons, but most importantly for the people that work here. You do not have a clue really, until you come here, or understand all the different types of work that are undertaken by a whole range of different business units, including Hansard—who, everyone has indicated, makes us read really well, and that is absolutely true. But it is also catering, it is the library, it is the Clerks, it is our attendants, it is the gardeners, it is security—you name it.

Everything that you could possibly think of actually operates here in our community called the Victorian Parliament, and it is not until you do one of those all-night stints when there is a break and you see the queue for coffee that you get some idea about all of the people that work outside of this chamber that enable us to actually get about the business of what Parliament is all about—and that is what we are about to do again in a moment in relation to dealing with the bill that is before us. So again, can I thank everyone that is here in this house now and at other times but also our electorate officers, who absolutely do a mountain of work in our electorates talking to constituents, resolving issues and promoting issues that need to be dealt with and have solutions found for. I thank you for all of your work regardless of which political colour you might work for.

In terms of the bill before us this evening, as people have indicated, it is the legal authority for the appropriation of monies from the Consolidated Fund to Parliament in respect to this financial year, including ongoing liabilities incurred by Parliament such as employee entitlements that may be realised in the future. So it is pretty important to a whole range of workers that are connected to the operation of this Parliament. It covers the Department of Parliamentary Services, the Auditor-General, the Parliamentary Budget Office and the three integrity bodies—IBAC, the Victorian Inspectorate and the Ombudsman.

The total appropriation for bodies funded under this bill has increased by $4.6 million, from $264.1 million to $268.7 million. Consistent with previous years, Parliament received an exemption from the general efficiency dividend, which applies to other government departments. That includes increases in the total funding for all of the integrity agencies: $8.4 million for the Victorian Inspectorate, up from $7.7 million in 2021–22; $18.8 million for the Auditor-General, up from $18.3 million; and $20.2 million for the Ombudsman, up from $19.6 million. There will also be a separate increase of $0.7 million in response to the Ombudsman’s request to manage urgent activities in the coming financial year. Since 2015–16 the Ombudsman’s funding has grown by 61 per cent. There is $54.9 million for IBAC, up from $53.3 million last year. This is before the additional funding to acquit their base review outcomes, which will add a further $7 million this year to this total once the review process is finalised. The additional funding totalling $32.090 million over four years and $8.609 million ongoing was announced in the 2022–23 budget for IBAC to meet new and increasing demands, deliver on its expanded oversight role, address gaps in capability and capacity and find sufficient efficiencies in its operating model and structure to optimise its performance as the leading integrity agency. This funding allocation equals the amount sought by IBAC in its bid during the budget process. IBAC has received the largest funding increase of any integrity agency since this government came to office. By 2025–26 their funding will have almost doubled—that is, 96 per cent-plus since 2015–16.

This year’s appropriation bill also includes funding for the Parliamentary Budget Office to manage costs associated with the upcoming general election. In 2021–22 $0.9 million was announced, representing a 28 per cent increase in the PBO’s funding for the 2022 state election, higher than funding provided to the PBO for the last state election in 2018. This funding has been rephased to cover the 2022 calendar year at the PBO’s request.

The funding for the Council and the Assembly has increased by 3.3 per cent each, in line with the increase in the number of enrolled voters, as per the determination of the Victorian Independent Remuneration Tribunal.

Funding is also provided to upgrade Parliament’s legacy and end-of-life broadcasting equipment for both houses of Parliament. Updated technologies will also be implemented to enable members and their staff to remotely participate in proceedings in emergency situations. So in a nutshell the government will not be supporting the suggested amendments that have been put forward by Mr David Davis, and I look forward to further discussion in the committee stage.

Motion agreed to.

Read second time.

Committed.

Committee

Clause 1 (17:41)

Mr DAVIS: I am just going to make a number of comments on this purposes clause and explain our position, and then we can move to the clauses and just simply vote on the amendments that are proposed by the opposition. As I have outlined, we consider the independent agencies very important. Others in the chamber have laid out the importance of the Council and the Assembly and the committees and so forth. I do want to just note our strong support for the Parliamentary Budget Office and the policy that we have released on the budget office, ensuring that it is properly resourced into the future. We will not on this occasion be seeking to amend the support for the Parliamentary Budget Office, but I do want to just place on record our view of the importance of that office, which was our commitment in government—and it took the new government a long time to bring a PBO into existence.

But with respect to the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission, in schedule 1 on page 12 we would seek to add another $10 million to the estimated support for 2022–23. I listened closely to the minister’s points—there is this large review process, this base review and other steps. We think the money should be there and legislated, not hanging on a thread, not in a position where the IBAC Commissioner can be cajoled or pushed or leant on, or perceived to be, because the funding has not actually been provided. What you read in budget paper 3 is not what is actually being allocated; what is being allocated is in the schedule, and it is plain to see on page 12. It is $54 896 000. So others in this chamber who have made commentary suggesting adequate budget increases are referring to the processes that are occurring, the funding that may come through, the funding that is dependent on the Treasurer’s sign-off, a Treasurer who himself may be subject to IBAC investigation—let us be clear, a Treasurer who himself may be subject to IBAC investigation. That is why we do not think that is a satisfactory process, and if the money is to be allocated—and the intimation is $7 million per year; we are saying it should be $10 million per year—why not allocate it right now by amending the figure in the schedule? Why not do it now? Put it beyond doubt, put it beyond question, put it beyond the pulling of strings by ministers, treasurers or others in the government. Why not make it clear?

The same applies to the Ombudsman. We say $2 million. The Ombudsman has been provided with some Treasurer’s advances. Again I point out the processes that are involved here. A Treasurer’s advance is where agencies request funding. There is obviously need for that on certain occasions. If there is a flood and the money is needed, then people apply for resources to go out and do what is required and provide the support. We all understand that, but in this case it is an integrity agency that is investigating the government. It is looking at politicisation of the public service—a reference from this house—and at the same time we are asked to take it on trust that what is in budget paper 3 will flow through to the Ombudsman. We say again: put the money in this schedule and then it is there and it is beyond doubt. It is not dependent on the good graces or the honesty or integrity of government officials or a Treasurer; it is legislated. We say legislate it. Put it in the schedule, put it beyond doubt, put it beyond the capacity of a government in the coming months before the election to influence any agency, to hold back money because they want them on the go-slow.

We already know that the IBAC is facing pressures from court processes which prevent it tabling reports. Let us be super clear about this: we need a better process long term. That cannot be fixed today, but what can be fixed today is to put $2 million into the Ombudsman’s column and $10 million into the IBAC column and then they have got the resources and they do not have to grovel or grease or slime up to the government to get the money that enables them to do the work that the community wants them to do. That is what we think should occur.

I make the point that a number of people in this chamber, and I include a couple of independents here, have not understood that what is going on here is the government is seeking to keep these agencies on a thread, keep them on a string, keep them just so, so that they cannot go too harshly against the government in the lead-up to the election. That is what is going on here, and I say legislate the money.

Ms TIERNEY: I think most people’s comments are probably directed more around IBAC and the Ombudsman’s office, and that certainly has been the case in terms of the contribution that we have just heard. I did deal with some of this in my summing up, but I think it is important that in terms of the Ombudsman’s office the provision of output funding for that office has increased by $0.6 million due to the funding profile initiative, sustainable base funding for the Victorian Ombudsman. This decision included providing the VO with 2.5 per cent indexation on its funding from 2022–23 onwards, at a total of $3.0 million over three years and $2.0 million ongoing.

There were no new initiatives for the VO as part of the budget because no budget bid was lodged by the entity. However, as I said in my summing up, there is a Treasurer’s advance of $700 000, and it will be approved for urgent and unforeseen activities that the Victorian Ombudsman may face over the coming financial year. The VO’s funding will be boosted to a level equivalent to—I will check this figure—$75.50 per Victorian public servant in 2022–23. This is higher than New South Wales, which provided its equivalent agency with $71.90 per public servant equivalent. The VO continues to be exempt from the general efficiency dividend that I mentioned before. The VO does not receive any appropriation for additions to the net asset base, and as I said in my summing up, there has been a 61 per cent increase in VO funding since 2015–16. Also this matter of course was raised at the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee when the Treasurer was before PAEC, and the Treasurer laid out exactly what the situation was, including the commitment to the $700 000.

With respect to IBAC, again, similarly, this was raised at PAEC and in other areas as well. The Treasurer again was very forthright about the money that will be provided to IBAC. The money that has been set is not an arbitrary figure. The $32.1 million held in contingency, with $8.6 million ongoing, fully implements the base review findings—that is, provides 100 per cent of what was asked for. There is not a problem with this funding amount, and we believe that the amendment that is being proposed undermines the thorough processes that IBAC itself has undertaken in order to properly ascertain the level of funding that would be required to meet its demand needs. IBAC, as I said in my summing up, has received the largest funding increase of any integrity agency since this government came to office. IBAC will receive around $217 per Victorian public servant in 2022–23 compared to $78 per New South Wales public servant for their ICAC.

No question put pursuant to standing order 14.15(2).

Clause 2—no question put pursuant to standing order 14.15(2).

Clause 3 postponed.

Clauses 4 to 7—no question put pursuant to standing order 14.15(2).

Schedule 1 (17:53)

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Mr Davis is to move his suggested amendment 2, which tests his suggested amendments 5 and 6 completely and partially tests his amendment 4.

Mr DAVIS: I move:

2. Suggested amendment to the Legislative Assembly—

Schedule 1, line 17, omit “54 896” and insert “64 896”.

Dr RATNAM: Can I just seek clarification that this is the substantive suggested amendment around IBAC funding? Just to clarify, I would like to speak to that amendment should that be the case.

Mr DAVIS: Yes.

Dr RATNAM: Thank you. I would just like to make some brief comments in support of Mr Davis’s suggested amendments. The importance of integrity across government and in our Parliament cannot be overstated. As we saw in the recent federal election campaign, it is an issue the community takes very seriously. IBAC and the Ombudsman are key integrity agencies that keep a check on governments and government agencies. We appreciate the government’s briefing on having given both IBAC and the Ombudsman the funding they have requested, but we also know that IBAC only investigates 2 per cent of police misconduct allegations. With more funding for IBAC we could see and investigate more police misconduct, because police should not be investigating police. Furthermore, the Ombudsman and her office could do so much more to help people in the community navigate the complexities of government systems with more funding. With more funding the Ombudsman could help more public housing tenants get a better deal from the state, for example. Therefore we will be supporting these suggested amendments.

Ms TIERNEY: The government has already put its position in relation to this and other suggested amendments proposed by Mr Davis.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: The question is that Mr Davis’s suggested amendment 2 be agreed to. This tests his amendments 5 and 6 in full and partially tests his amendment 4.

Committee divided on suggested amendment:

Suggested amendment negatived.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Mr Davis, I invite you to move your suggested amendment 3, which tests your suggested amendments 7 to 8 and the remainder of your suggested amendment 4.

Mr DAVIS: I move:

3. Suggested amendment to the Legislative Assembly—

Schedule 1, line 18, omit “20 177” and insert “22 177”.

Ms TIERNEY: The government has already put its position in relation to this.

Committee divided on suggested amendment:

Suggested amendment negatived.

No question put pursuant to standing order 14.15(2).

Postponed clause 3—no question put pursuant to standing order 14.15(2).

Reported to house without amendment.

Ms TIERNEY (Western Victoria—Minister for Training and Skills, Minister for Higher Education) (18:05): I move:

That the report be now adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.

Third reading

Ms TIERNEY (Western Victoria—Minister for Training and Skills, Minister for Higher Education) (18:06): I move:

That the bill be now read a third time.

Motion agreed to.

Read third time.

The PRESIDENT: Pursuant to standing order 14.27, the bill will be returned to the Assembly with a message informing them that the Council have agreed to the same without amendment.