Wednesday, 22 March 2023

Committees

Select committee

Establishment

Georgie CROZIER (Southern Metropolitan) (11:31): I move:

That:

(1) a select committee of six members be appointed to inquire into, take public evidence as required, report, and make recommendations, by 28 November 2023, on:

(a) matters referred to in the letter, dated 15 December 2022, from the Commissioner of the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission (IBAC), the Honourable Robert Redlich AM KC, to the President of the Legislative Council and the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly, including but not limited to:

(i) appropriate protocols and procedures to ensure the independence of performance audits of integrity agencies by the Integrity and Oversight Committee (IOC) and safeguards to prevent potential improper interference by committee members;

(ii) the adequacy of the legislative framework for integrity agency performance audits under the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission Act 2011 and the Victorian Inspectorate Act 2011;

(iii) protocols for the handling of correspondence and reports passing between integrity agencies and the IOC;

(iv) whether it is appropriate for the IOC or an independent performance auditor to seek access to information relating to current IBAC operations;

(v) whether procedural fairness should be afforded to integrity agencies by the IOC;

(vi) the structure, composition and operation of the IOC;

(b) the adequacy of IBAC’s funding and its effect on IBAC’s capacity to discharge its functions relating to serious police misconduct and public sector corruption;

(c) the appropriateness of provisions in IBAC’s legislation that limit the ability of IBAC to undertake public examinations;

(d) options for improving arrangements for the oversight of IBAC’s operations by Parliament, the determination of IBAC’s budget and IBAC’s legislative charter;

(2) the committee will consist of two members from the government nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Council, two members from the opposition nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Council, and two members from among the remaining members in the Council as agreed to by these members;

(3) the members will be appointed by lodgement of the names with the President no later than 4:00 pm two business days after the Council agrees to this resolution;

(4) the first meeting of the committee must be held no later than 4:00 pm on the eighth business day after the Council agrees to this resolution;

(5) the committee may proceed to the despatch of business notwithstanding that all members have not been appointed and notwithstanding any vacancy;

(6) four members of the committee will constitute a quorum of the committee;

(7) the chair of the committee will be a non-government member and the deputy chair will be a government member, and in the absence of any such nominations for the deputy chair, the position may be filled by another member of the committee;

(8) the committee will advertise its terms of reference and call for submissions and all such submissions received by the committee will be treated as public documents unless the committee orders otherwise;

(9) the committee may commission persons to investigate and report to the committee on any aspects of the inquiry;

(10) the committee may commission persons to provide advice, including legal advice, to the committee on any aspects of the inquiry;

(11) the presentation of a report or interim report of the committee will not be deemed to terminate the committee’s appointment, powers or functions; and

(12) the foregoing provisions of this resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the standing orders and sessional orders or practices of the Council, will have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the standing or sessional orders or practices of the Council.

I am pleased to be able to rise and speak to my motion that is to be debated, because it is an incredibly important one and it goes to the heart of what is required in this state to get to the bottom of corruption in this government. The levels of corruption that have occurred are well documented, but what we do not know is the extent of that corruption. What we have seen over the last few years is a government that refuses to acknowledge the extent of it and will do anything to cover up corruption. We have seen that again today with the backflip and the deals done by the government with the Greens and the minor party Legalise Cannabis. This government will stop at nothing to cover up corruption in this state, and that is absolutely shameful.

This motion is to enable this Parliament, this house, to do its work on behalf of the people. It is to establish a select committee made up of members of the government, of the coalition and of the crossbench so that we can get to the bottom of what is occurring, so that we can clean up the corruption in this state. How do people have any faith in the administration if the government itself will not agree to those measures? I say that because what we know is there has been interference and there have been concerns raised – by the very body, the very agency, that is here to ensure that corruption does not occur in this state – obviously in the letter provided to you, President, and the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly from the former commissioner of IBAC Robert Redlich, a man of very distinguished character and enormous experience with the judiciary. I think the shameful and appalling comments by the Premier about someone who has held this position within the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission –

Nicholas McGowan: His own appointment.

Georgie CROZIER: Exactly, his own appointment. But even more significant is the work he has done with the judiciary and to assist in enabling laws and good governance to occur in this state. There have been disgraceful comments by the Premier, who again confirmed today he has not even read the letter. Well, I guarantee somebody has read it to him. The guy has got a history of bending the truth, and I think we are a bit fed up with it. I certainly am. And if he has not read the letter, then that shows you a failure of duty as a leader of this state to understand exactly what the former commissioner is concerned about. Why hasn’t he? Why hasn’t he read the letter yet? I find the Premier’s arrogance is just going to the next level. I do not know how he can walk the corridors here and think that this is okay. I honestly find it extraordinary.

The Honourable Robert Redlich AM KC said to you, because it was addressed to you, President:

If you wish to discuss these issues with IBAC, the incoming Acting Commissioner, Deputy Commissioners and Chief Executive Officer of IBAC would be pleased to meet with you.

I wonder if that will happen or if it has happened.

But let us return to the substance of the letter and why this motion that I have brought before the house is important. The matters raised in the letter go to the very heart, as I said, of what should be achieved. The letter looks at issues around protocols and procedures to ensure the independence of performance audits of integrity agencies by the Integrity and Oversight Committee and the safeguards to prevent potential improper interference by committee members. We know that interference happened. A now minister of the Crown, when the Commissioner was being interviewed, cut the feed. If that is not interference, what is? That is a deliberate attempt to interfere in the process.

The letter also raises concerns around the adequacy of the legislative framework for integrity agency performance audits under the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission Act 2011 and the Victorian Inspectorate Act 2011. It is very clear in this letter that there were concerns raised by the former Commissioner Robert Redlich. The letter says:

However, given its interactions with Callida Consulting throughout the audit, IBAC had significant concerns about the interference by the IOC’s Audit Sub-committee in the work of the auditors. IBAC first became concerned at a meeting on 14 June 2022, when Callida provided IBAC with alarming advice that they had been directed by the IOC Audit Sub-committee to ‘find dirt on IBAC and data that is not readily publicly available’.

If that does not go to the heart of integrity and the level of corruption and interference by members of this government –

Nicholas McGowan: They make Nixon look good.

Georgie CROZIER: They make Nixon look good, yes, Mr McGowan. It just shows you the lengths that this government will go to to cover up corruption in this state.

Nicholas McGowan interjected.

Georgie CROZIER: The Premier’s office are up to their necks in it, I have no doubt, Mr McGowan. I have no doubt. Callida Consulting also advised IBAC, according to Mr Redlich, that the IOC had given Callida a direction to remove certain parts of the report; for example, any references to IBAC funding or comments about IBAC’s cooperation with the audit. Again I say: at what level of interference will this government stop? We know that IBAC needs additional funding. We have been talking about the need for IBAC to have the funding that they need. They cannot do their work without that. The government has been arguing for years that that is not the case, but here it is in Mr Redlich’s letter.

The other issue that Callida Consulting advised IBAC about is that the IOC advised Callida that if the directed changes were not made, the report would not be approved and released. It is just extraordinary that this government would go to those levels. I quote from the letter:

What is most concerning is that it appears that the Chair and majority of the IOC Audit Sub-Committee seemed intent on casting IBAC in a negative light for what we can only assume were political reasons relating to the work undertaken by IBAC.

Again, I say this is extraordinary. This is why a select committee is required to get to the bottom of these allegations.

Clearly Robert Redlich has no confidence – it is clear that the letter is about the stacking of the IOC, with government members chairing it. We saw the disgraceful behaviour by the former chair, who is now a minister, and what she did when he was providing evidence to this committee – ‘cut the feed.’ I think that will be a legacy that Ms Shing will have to live with, because that was an extraordinarily alarming level of interference just because she did not like what he was going to say.

The flaky excuses by the government today about their reasons for not enabling this also demonstrate their lack of willingness for this Parliament to do its job. And I say again, this Parliament has a duty to the citizens of Victoria to ensure that good government is carried out. Under this mob that is not occurring, and it was Robert Redlich in this letter that blew the whistle on that, because he laid it out. He has laid it all out. He went to points about the witness welfare inquiry. I note that there were certain recommendations in the minority report, conclusions that my colleagues Brad Rowswell as the deputy chair and the Honourable Kim Wells made, where they wanted:

… all evidence and achieved a balanced understanding from analysis and dialogue with both Victoria’s integrity agencies and the witnesses that appeared before them. It is, sadly, a missed opportunity …

And:

Throughout the course of this inquiry, Opposition members have become aware of Labor Government members being directed by operatives within the Premier’s Private Office … Opposition members of this Committee believe that the work of the IOC should be removed from party politics, as the work of this Committee is undertaken on behalf of the Victorian Parliament and people.

They have integrity in this report. The government has no integrity when it comes to corruption and the IBAC, and sadly we know that the welfare of witnesses was a massive concern for so many.

I note from Mr Redlich’s letter as well that the IBAC complained to the then chair, but that seemed to fall on deaf ears. Well, no wonder why, because as I have just read out there was that very close association with the Premier’s private office. Mr Redlich went on to say:

During the public hearing conducted by the IOC on 9 May 2022 the then Chair, over objection by some members of the IOC, refused to permit any questions or answers relating to any issues arising from the submissions concerning ongoing investigations and, at one stage, cut the live stream of the hearing.

That is what I am referring to: the chair interfering with the work of this committee and cutting the feed. That clearly is so concerning, as it should be, because it goes to the heart of what this government will do to cover up corruption. We need to get to the truth of what is going on.

Now, we know that the Premier himself has been involved – to what extent we do not know – with at least four investigations, I am told, but I have no proof that it is more than that. I would like the Premier to clarify that. I wish he would, because that is what we know. But that is pretty shameful too. The Premier of this state – at least four IBAC inquiries. He will do what it takes to cover up corruption in this state because it is a bit like follow the money. You follow the corruption, and you go to the head of the government. He will do anything to cover up corruption in this state.

If he really wanted to clean it up, if he really wanted to get to these issues, he would enable this important work of the Parliament, this select committee, to be formed. He would not do the grubby little deals to make them look good so they could save face – because the Greens know that there is a massive issue with integrity. They have got to save face on this too. So they are saying, ‘Well, the IOC will do this work.’ Well, we should be having both. The IOC should be doing their work and their reviews, and this select committee should be formed to enable the important work that needs to be done. Both processes can run in parallel.

But, oh no, the government, after just a couple of weeks ago saying there was no chance of having a non-government majority and chair, have done a deal with the Greens to keep them happy and to enable what we suggest in the motion – that the select committee be balanced: two members from the government, two members from the coalition and two members from the crossbench. Now we see in the IOC that the government does not have that chair or majority. That is a good thing, because, as Mr Redlich pointed out, it was stacked, and all of those issues that I have previously spoken about occurred.

There has got to be, I think, a very real look at this. President, you yourself are intrinsically involved because the letter was sent to you. You understood, I am sure, when you read this letter, the seriousness of what Mr Redlich was pointing to. I am not asking you to make comment of course, but I do say that any member who has read this letter would be incredibly concerned about what Mr Redlich has raised in his letter. Any reasonable person in the state who has read Mr Redlich’s letter would be incredibly concerned about what Mr Redlich has raised. Yet the leader of this state, the Premier, has not even bothered to read the letter. I say again: I just cannot understand how he thinks that is all right, how he thinks that he does not have to read the letter. As I say, I am sure the letter has been read to him, so he is being tricky with his words. But why go to that length? Why say again today, ‘I haven’t read the letter’? We all know why – because if he said, ‘Yes, I have read the letter’, then hopefully the media would do their job and then start asking him exactly about the claims in this letter.

Members interjecting.

Georgie CROZIER: He cannot recall, Mr Luu. And let us not forget that: ‘I can’t recall. I can’t remember.’ I mean, the farcical Coate inquiry that he set up with his terms of reference – again, I say that was a farce. The ministers, the bureaucrats that went before that committee – ‘I can’t remember. I can’t recall.’ People are sick of that. They hurt so desperately through the COVID period. They want a government to act on their behalf. You might say you have got a mandate. Well, yes, you do.

Nicholas McGowan: No, they don’t.

Georgie CROZIER: They won government, Mr McGowan, but they do not have a mandate for corrupt behaviour, cover-ups.

Members interjecting.

Georgie CROZIER: You do not have a mandate for corrupt behaviour and cover-ups. That is the point here, Mr Galea. This is a cover-up to get to the heart of – you nod no. You do not agree with Mr Redlich’s letter? You do not agree that what he is pointing out should be a huge concern? Have you read it?

Michael Galea: No.

Georgie CROZIER: Perhaps you should. How ignorant. You are about to speak on a motion that refers to the letter and you have not even read it – another one with their head in the sand, another one refusing to understand the level of corruption in this state driven by this Premier, driven by this government, who has no shame. They think they have got a mandate for corruption. You do not have a mandate for corruption. I just hope that common sense prevails and that that IOC committee does call Mr Redlich, does call Callida consulting and does undertake an inquiry because the government refuse to support this important inquiry.

With my concluding words, I am disappointed that the Greens and a number of the minor parties have done a deal with a cowardly government that will not do the right thing on behalf of the Victorian people. I say again this is an important inquiry that the people of Victoria needed to see in operation to understand the depth of what was going on and have this committee established. Let the Parliament do its work. Let the Parliament get to the bottom of the concerns raised by Mr Redlich. But, no, we have got a cowardly government that will do anything to cover up corruption in this state.

Michael GALEA (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (11:51): I do rise to speak on this motion. The proposal outlined in this motion is totally unprecedented. It flies in the face of Westminster parliamentary practice – a select committee of the Parliament looking into a joint committee of the Parliament. It absolutely flies in the face of hundreds of years of Westminster convention. This is demonstrated by the fact that it is contrary to this Council’s – to this chamber’s – own standing orders and our own committee practice. For this reason this proposal is unworkable. Evidence could not be received by the select committee because that evidence would already have been received by the joint committee the opposition wants to examine. It would be a farce.

Not only is this proposal against convention but it may also potentially lead individuals to breach the secrecy provisions in IBAC’s legislation, which, like the Council’s own processes, exists to protect confidential information. Those opposite know this. They should know this. Many of them have been in the chamber far longer than I have and they should know this. But they do know – they know that their idea of a select committee to scrutinise another joint committee is utterly abnormal. It is embarrassing. But the bottom line is they do not care, because for the opposition all this is politically driven. It is a cheap political stunt. For the opposition to be standing here trashing parliamentary convention with this motion and potentially breaching the law, it is apparently worth it. It is apparently worth it for them to score some political points. And don’t we know how desperate they are to deflect anything away from themselves this week. There is no precedent that I know of – that we on this side know of – that involves a house select committee being established to review the actions of another committee. It is totally unheard of. Of course the exception is where the Privileges Committee is tasked with investigating a matter, such as leaks from another committee.

Nicholas McGowan interjected.

Michael GALEA: That is the whole point of the Privileges Committee, Mr McGowan. But this is permitted because the Privileges Committee would be investigating a breach of the Council’s privileges, not another committee’s processes, as this motion seeks to do. The proposal anticipated in this motion goes against, again, hundreds of years of Westminster tradition. It undermines fundamental privileges of parliamentary privilege.

Nicholas McGowan interjected.

Michael GALEA: I am surprised for you to be saying that, Mr McGowan, given I know you are a very renowned stickler for the conventions and traditions of this place. I would hope that you would be supporting me in this. I would hope that you would be supporting me. This is a very, very profound convention. These privileges exist to protect the vigorous debate and the contest of ideas that are necessary for this Council and our committees and our joint committees and our select committees to function.

Enver Erdogan: They don’t have any idea.

Michael GALEA: They do not. Members will be unable to participate in those deliberations freely and openly. They do participate freely and openly, but they will not be able to in future because they will be concerned about future ad hoc, partisan, politically driven new select committees, such as the one being proposed by Ms Crozier today. The proposal in this motion would undermine the participation of Council and Assembly members in any future confidential parliamentary committee process. If the need for the committee envisaged in this motion were established, there would be endless points of order to ensure that the processes of the other committees’ scrutiny can be protected, which may be –

Members interjecting.

Michael GALEA: Maybe that is why Mr McGowan is supporting it. The Council’s standing orders protect and preserve the important –

Members interjecting.

Michael GALEA: Write them out. The Council’s standing orders protect and preserve the important privileges that this motion would so blatantly trash. Firstly, Council committees are restricted from receiving evidence from other committees. Committee and subcommittee meetings and minutes are private and are never publicly released unless by way of extracts of proceedings in a published committee report. I refer those opposite to Legislative Council standing order 23.12(2). Whilst the Integrity and Oversight Committee was a joint committee, these standing orders do still apply to the extent that they are not inconsistent with the Parliamentary Committees Act 2003 under which such joint committees are established.

Secondly, a committee can only consider unreported evidence – that is, evidence received by a previous committee which lapses or ceases to have legal existence before it can report to the Council – where the new committee is appointed in the same or next Parliament inquiring into the same subject matter, referring to standing order 23.18, any new select committee not inquiring into the same subject matter because the previous committee was a former joint investigatory committee with its own terms of reference.

Thirdly and finally, the unauthorised disclosure of any committee proceedings conducted in a private session or of any publication of documents not authorised for release by committee may be considered a contempt of Parliament – a contempt of Parliament. Any member discussing the deliberation of a former committee would be captured by this, and the unauthorised disclosure of any committee proceedings may need to be referred to the Privileges Committee for investigation and determination as to possible contempt.

A further fundamental problem with this deeply flawed motion is that there are important confidentiality provisions applying to former officers of IBAC. The Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission Act 2011 provides that:

A person who is, or was, an IBAC Officer must not, directly or indirectly, provide or disclose any information acquired by the person or the IBAC by reason of, or in the course of, the performance of the duties and functions or the exercise of powers of the person or the IBAC under this Act or any other Act except –

(a) for the performance of the duties and functions or the exercise of the powers of the person or the IBAC in accordance with this Act or any other Act …

That is section 40(a) of the IBAC act. The maximum penalty for breaching that provision is 120 penalty units or imprisonment for 12 months or both.

This motion has stemmed from a letter sent to the Presiding Officers of Parliament that some now suggest should have been shared widely to members in this place. This is despite the correspondence being marked as ‘Sensitive’.

Members interjecting.

Michael GALEA: It was not written to me; it was not written to you, Ms Crozier. It was not written to anyone else except the Presiding Officers, and it was marked as ‘Sensitive’.

Members interjecting.

Michael GALEA: It was not written to me. The views of the former IBAC Commissioner are a matter for him, but any suggestion that anyone on this side has acted inappropriately is utterly rejected. What I will say for those on that side is that we welcome the unanimous decision of this Council this morning to appoint Ms Payne, my colleague from South-Eastern Metropolitan Region, to the Integrity and Oversight Committee, and I look forward to Ms Payne’s contributions to that committee.

This motion should be opposed for several reasons. It is completely contrary to parliamentary tradition, which in turn will mean it is unworkable because of the important privileges of this Council and its committees, which are protected by the standing orders. It may result in breaches of the IBAC act –

Business interrupted pursuant to sessional orders.