Wednesday, 3 May 2023

Bills

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

Second reading

Debate resumed on motion of David Davis:

That the bill be now read a second time.

John BERGER (Southern Metropolitan) (16:44): Today I rise to contribute to the debate on the Public Administration and Planning Legislation Amendment (Control of Lobbyists) Bill 2023, and in doing so I want to discuss what the bill claims to do. According to the bill, it is aiming to amend the Public Administration Act 2004 and the Victorian Planning Authority Act 2017 to provide more control over lobbyists. This is an eight-page bill introduced by my colleague over there on the opposition benches Mr Davis.

Let us break down the eight pages. The first page is the table of provisions – standard stuff. The next page outlines the purpose of the bill. Now we are up to the third page, so we are more than a quarter of the way through the bill, and we are onto the definition of words. Skipping ahead to page 6, the bill talks about the repeal of the act, and page 7 has the endnotes, so we have three pages to talk about something very important, something that should have been done in a far more comprehensive manner.

This bill is just a political stunt. The bill is just a sound bite. It is political pointscoring. It is sloppily drafted and it is not worth the attention or the time of this important house, nor is it worth the time of its members. Why is that the case? Our government has already announced that it will support in principle the recommendations of the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission’s Operation Clara report, which this bill claims to implement. We are doing the hard work now, the sound policy work to improve the framework under which lobbying occurs.

As I have said a lot this week, and we will continue to say, we will consult widely. We speak to the relevant stakeholders, listen to the community and then craft legislation that will last in the long run. It is important work. It should not be rushed for a cheap political point. We need to get the consultation right. We must ensure that the concerns outlined in the report are addressed and considered appropriately.

The bill claims to try and provide more control over lobbyists, but the question is: who is going to be doing the controlling – what body, with what money and where from? These questions have not been considered. It is a very strange purpose, and I am not a lawyer. It shows how rushed the process has been and how sloppy the opposition has been in drafting this bill. In Operation Clara the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission was not concerned with controlling lobbyists. They were concerned with issues of transparency and integrity, and I want to talk about what our government is doing to address this.

Our government is a government of action, and that is what we are doing. In fact our government regularly supports the recommendations of the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission. On 12 October last year the Premier said:

Victorians deserve to have confidence in the political parties and public institutions that serve them – which is why we’re delivering funding to support the most significant overhaul of parliamentary oversight in the country.

The Minister for Local Government Melissa Horne said:

There is no place for corruption in local government, which is why we’ll bring in donation and lobbying reforms.

What are the Premier and the Minister for Local Government referring to? They are talking about the Andrews Labor government acting on recommendations contained in a report into donations and lobbying, a report that was released by the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission on 12 October 2022. As we said at the time, the government supports in principle the IBAC report and its recommendations on lobbying reform. We also said at the time that we would work on implementation if we were re-elected. Thankfully for all of us involved we were.

Our government is dedicated to working to provide funding to help implement the nation’s most significant integrity reforms related to parliamentary oversight. Our government has a history of supporting these sorts of recommendations. After receiving a report on IBAC’s Operation Watts, the government immediately accepted all 21 of its recommendations. The government is committing to strengthening the integrity and the ethical conduct of members of Parliament, ministers and their staff. As the Premier said, our government has:

… always stood ready to deliver necessary reforms to donation and integrity frameworks – that’s why we will act on every recommendation.

But on the adoption of these 21 reforms recommended by Operation Watts, I want to draw a parallel to the legislation that is being debated today. I want to associate myself with the remarks of the Attorney-General, who on these recommendations said:

These shouldn’t just be reforms that are driven within one political party – they should be the law.

These reforms deserve broad and bipartisan support. We’ll consult and engage with all Members of Parliament from all political parties to deliver the lasting change Victorians expect.

It is a shame that this bill ignores that work. On 20 July last year, 2022, the government committed to working with the Parliament, including representatives of the opposition and the crossbench, to establish a joint parliamentary ethics committee that would comprise equal numbers of members from this house, the Legislative Council, and the Legislative Assembly. Did you catch what I said? We would work with members opposite to deliver this. We would work with the crossbench. This bill does none of that. You see, with Operation Clara the government announced that it was concerned with the issues that had been brought to the fore.

I want to note that Operation Clara, the operation run by the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission, made no adverse findings against any current or past Andrews Labor government ministers or MPs. The commission stated in its Operation Clara report that lobbying is a legitimate activity, something I know the opposition and particularly those on the crossbench would agree with. But that does not mean that lobbying can be done in any fashion; it must be done in accordance with the law and the code of conduct.

The bill provides for amendment to the appointment and remuneration guidelines. These amendments aim to:

make a lobbyist ineligible for appointment as a director of a public entity that has any functions that relate to any matter on which the lobbyist has conducted any lobbying activities in the previous 12 months; and

require a person making a declaration of private interest under the Guidelines …

to disclose whether they are on the lobbyist register and, if they are, give details of the clients and the industries for which the person has conducted lobbying activity in the previous 12 months.

The bill is also providing for amendments of the lobbyist code of conduct. Let us talk through this as well. It will:

prohibit a director of a public entity from conducting any lobbying activities on any matter that relates to the functions of the public entity; and

require a director of a public entity to comply with integrity requirements, including conflict of interest provisions, in relation to any lobbying activities conducted by them prior to their appointment as director.

The bill also aims to provide for amendments to the directors code of conduct. It would:

prohibit a director of a public entity from conducting any lobbying activities on any matter that relates to the functions of the public entity; and

require a director of a public entity to comply with integrity requirements, including conflict of interest provisions, in relation to any lobbying activities conducted by them prior to their appointment as director.

All members of government boards are required to declare any conflicts of interest and not use their board positions for personal advantage. We know that overwhelmingly members of government boards take integrity matters very seriously. They act in the interests of the organisations on whose boards they serve and, by extension, the broader Victorian community.

Finally, the bill provides for proceedings for an offence under the Victorian Planning Authority Act 2017 which may be commenced within three years after it is alleged to have been committed. Our government is pursuing these matters appropriately, methodically and in the appropriate way, consulting with those who must be consulted. We will get legislative reform, and we will do it in the right way. We will not rush it, not for political points.

I would like to associate myself with the remarks of my colleague Ms Ermacora, who last sitting week during the debate on this very amendment defined what a lobbyist is. I think it is important for me to talk about what they are. The government has established a register of lobbyists. This is important as lobbyists have a duty to act ethically at all times. There is a professional code of conduct to ensure all conduct is conducted with the highest degree of transparency, because remember, as my colleague Ms Ermacora said, Operation Clara did not dispute the legitimacy of the role lobbyists play in society, but they must perform ethically.

We have to get this right to ensure lobbyists can perform their role to the best of their ability in a way that continues to be in good line with ethical standards at all times. Getting the code of conduct right is essential to this. The code of conduct underpins the register, as it defines the lobbyists, their activities and government representatives and indicates what will be available on the register publicly. It is registered publicly for the purposes of ensuring transparency of who their clients are and what interests they may have when conducting business with others. It is essential to our democracy.

Before I move on, I want to note that I agree with my colleague on the crossbench Dr Ratnam, who welcomed any chance to strengthen integrity measures. I agree. Our government has taken those chances to deliver reforms. We have taken them, and we have strengthened our systems. You see, less than a decade ago our government was sworn in, in 2014, and the Minister for Racing at the time, Minister Martin Pakula, made a visit to Japan, where a key aspect was to learn from integrity practices successfully implemented at the Miho training centre. In 2020 we continued to further investigate how to better create integrity in our racing industry. How? A review of the integrity structures of the Victorian racing industry undertaken by Paul Bittar was handed down. The purpose of the review was to consult with the industry and develop a set of recommendations to enhance collaboration between the codes, provide greater transparency of integrity service functions and consider the separation of integrity functions from commercial operations.

Following extensive consultation – that is the word again, ‘consultation’ – Mr Bittar recommended the establishment of a new racing integrity unit, and of course our government accepted the principles and the integrity recommendations made by Mr Bittar. In 2017 the Minister for Sport at the time John Eren released the Victorian Integrity in Sport Action Plan, which addressed the risks to integrity in sport and laid out a clear plan to maintain integrity in the sporting industry. That plan built on the Andrews Labor government’s determination to preserve the integrity of sport at all levels and was evident in the Victorian code of conduct for community sport.

This bill emanates from an opposition that have no grounds upon which they can stand. They have thrown away any semblance of bipartisanship on this and have engaged in cheap political pointscoring. They should not be lecturing anyone on integrity or related matters. Let the house reflect on the record of those opposite. Let us remember the four long years when they had the chance to govern. They did show leadership – on inappropriate behaviour. No-one can forget the four wasted years of the Baillieu and Napthine governments, a period notable for former planning minister Matthew Guy attending $10,000-a-head dinners with property developers and botching planning decisions – lobster with a mobster. One of the finest pieces of artwork in the Victorian Trades Hall Council reminded us of this each and every day in the lead-up to the 2018 state election. These were decisions that ultimately cost the Victorian taxpayer millions in legal settlements.

This bill introduced by Mr Davis is also notable as he was health minister at that time. Notably, he had other entities pay his personal legal bills – inappropriate behaviour, let alone for a minister. But the list goes on. This sort of behaviour never ends from the opposition: dinner with mobsters, with the former opposition leader sensationally referring himself to IBAC; the opposition leader’s chief of staff having some Liberal donors top up his salary – another matter which resulted in the former opposition leader being referred to IBAC; or Mr Davis again, on his final warning for attending an important community event so plastered that he was touching guests inappropriately. This bloke had to be told to leave by colleagues. Seriously, this legislation is not worth the paper it is written on.

David Davis: On a point of order, Acting President, the member well knows that if he wants to make a substantive attack he needs to do it by a motion.

Harriet Shing: Further to the point of order, Acting President, Mr Davis had only just wandered into the chamber, having missed what I think was a large part of the sentence that he is now saying requires a substantive motion. I was listening very carefully. Mr Berger did not in fact name anybody. Mr Davis might have a name he wants to put onto the record, but as far as I am aware, there was not actually any substantive allegation.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Sonja Terpstra): There is no point of order.

John BERGER: We will not be lectured by those opposite on matters relating to personal propriety. Importantly, the bill is rushed, sloppy and trying – quite badly, I might add – to do the work that the government have said that they will do already. It must be done in the right way; there is no way around it.

Lee TARLAMIS (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (16:58): I move:

That debate on this bill be adjourned until the next day of meeting.

Motion agreed to and debate adjourned until next day of meeting.