Wednesday, 16 August 2023

Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission Amendment (Ending Political Corruption) Bill 2023

Second reading

Debate resumed on motion of Samantha Ratnam:

That the bill be now read a second time.

Aiv PUGLIELLI (North-Eastern Metropolitan) (15:00): I rise today to speak on behalf of the Greens in support of our Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission Amendment (Ending Political Corruption) Bill 2023. Corruption in our political system and in our state has real-world consequences for the people of Victoria. It is insidious, and this toxic culture runs through both major parties in Victoria. Nepotism is rife, public money is routinely misused and too often big donors, corporate lobbyists and party powerbrokers have more of a say than the rest of us. It can mean that decisions are made to benefit cronies instead of communities. Why else would this government send a military-style invasion to lock down public housing towers while at the same time leaving only Crown Casino’s towers open during the early stages of the pandemic; or suddenly shelve a levy to build more social and public houses, which we all agree are desperately needed, because the kinds of people who pay $10,000 to eat with the Premier at the Flower Drum do not like it; or give jobs automatically to political mates instead of running an open recruitment process to choose the best candidate, a process that occurs in literally every other corner of society outside of media oligarchies, crime syndicates and apparently Victorian politics?

You will note that these examples I have provided may not constitute crimes, but they do nonetheless hurt our community badly and erode trust in our politics. That is why the Greens have introduced this bill. It strengthens the powers of our anti-corruption agency IBAC, gives it more teeth to investigate all forms of corrupt conduct from politicians and brings Victoria up to the minimum integrity standards of other states and the recently opened National Anti-Corruption Commission.

Our bill removes the requirement that IBAC may only investigate matters where the conduct would constitute a criminal offence. Not all corruption involves a criminal offence, and this bill would allow for IBAC to investigate the conduct of public officials in cases such as inappropriate appointments to public positions, the awarding of non-competitive tenders, pork-barrelling and serious breaches of the codes of conduct by MPs or ministers. These types of offences may not be criminal, but they are still corrupt, and it is critical that IBAC has the power to investigate them.

Let us be honest: so far in this Parliament barely a week has gone by without evidence of why we need IBAC to have these powers. True to form, two days ago we had allegations made against an Andrews government minister – serious allegations – of fraudulent branch stacking and misuse of electorate office resources, allegations that reportedly have been now referred to IBAC by the opposition, allegations that however serious may not be investigated by IBAC because it does not have the jurisdiction to do so because this bill has yet to pass. This needs to change if standards and behaviour of members in this place are ever going to be lifted from the gutter. The only standard that members of Parliament are required to hold themselves to is to not commit a criminal offence. Imagine starting a new job and being told that the appropriate standard of behaviour was, ‘Do anything you want, as long as you don’t break the law.’

When the Premier commented on the findings of Operation Daintree, he did just that – he said everything was okay, no crime had been committed. Everything is not okay, and that is why we need this bill. The Premier went on to say that ordinary Victorians were not concerned about this lack of integrity because he gets things done. What a disgrace! Not only is he dismissing the concerns of the community by suggesting that Victorians do not care about dodgy deals being made without their best interests in mind; he is also feeding the community’s lack of trust in government by failing to take these issues seriously. Victorians need a Premier and a government who can act with integrity and who can provide our anti-corruption agency with the powers required to hold our public officials to a higher standard. We need more checks and balances to restore trust in governments. IBAC needs more power to hold decision-makers to account.

A true measure of good government cannot, as this government currently believes, simply be the number of level crossings it removes; it must also be accountable and transparent to the community it serves so that the community can be assured it is always acting in their best interests and not just its own. I commend this bill to the house.

Matthew BACH (North-Eastern Metropolitan) (15:05): It is good to follow Mr Puglielli on this important bill. I find myself, and on this side of the house we find ourselves, agreeing with much of what he says. I too have been troubled over recent days at continuing to hear the rhetoric out of the government that, ‘Well, we get things done’ – as if somehow acting in a way that is corrupt and having a finding against you that you have behaved corruptly no longer matters because you have removed some level crossings. I would note that the government increasingly is not getting things done and the list of Labor cuts and closures is growing longer and longer, whether it is the Western Rail Plan, whether it is airport rail or whether it is now cuts and closures to kindergartens. So I would even question that narrative. I agree with Mr Puglielli and I agree with the Greens party when they assert that just because you get some things done, that should not mean that it is okay for you to act in a manner that is corrupt.

We agree that IBAC should have increased powers. We heard in the most recent debate continued overtly politicised attacks on the opposition. Of course, when we were in power for just four years, we put in place the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission. Since then we have learned so much about corruption in government, and Mr Puglielli is right to point to very serious allegations against Minister D’Ambrosio that, I understand too, have been referred to the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission. Those opposite may wish to make light of serious allegations of the misuse of electorate office funds – of signing up dead people for the purposes of branch stacking. These things are very, very serious, and we should all view them as very, very serious. That is why I was pleased that all members of the crossbench saw fit to support the opposition bill earlier today, Mr Davis’s bill. I think it is right to continue in this place to have ongoing discussions, whether those discussions are led by Mr Davis, whether those discussions are led by members of the crossbench or whether those discussions are led by the Greens party, because despite manifest differences on other matters, we should surely all be able to agree on the great importance of integrity in government.

I perhaps do agree with the Premier’s political calculation to date that as long as he continues to be seen to be removing level crossings – debt be damned – then some people may not focus on integrity matters, some people may not focus on the government’s corruption to the extent that I would like them to and clearly Mr Puglielli would like them to. However, there is a real cost to corrupt behaviour. There is a cost in terms of a dollar value to corrupt behaviour. There is a cost to having senior ministers of the Crown allegedly behave corruptly – and I am talking about Minister D’Ambrosio of course.

We know that there have been serious findings. Despite what the Premier has said, we know there have been serious findings of corrupt conduct against other members of this government, especially at a time when Victorians are experiencing a cost-of-living crisis. Mr Puglielli refers in particular to housing, and again I agree. There should be a huge focus on housing affordability, on housing supply ‍– and yet, clearly, the focus of far too many members of this government is on covering their tracks regarding their corrupt conduct.

So there is a cost to the Victorian community in terms of pure dollars, and that is really important when here in Victoria we currently have more debt than New South Wales, Queensland and Tasmania combined and when so many services are being cut or closed – kindergarten services, rail services, for example. There is a broader cost to us as a previously I think very well functioning democracy, renowned for having a strong integrity apparatus and renowned, until quite recently, no matter who was in government, for having leaders who acted with integrity. Famously Mr Cain the younger always refused to even accept a cup of coffee.

Historically, we have been able to agree on much in this chamber and in the other place too when it comes to integrity. That has been harder recently. So I want to thank Mr Puglielli for bringing forward this important bill. We find ourselves agreeing with him on much regarding this broader matter.

Sonja TERPSTRA (North-Eastern Metropolitan) (15:10): Acting President McArthur, I might just give a little shout-out to you, soldiering on today. I know it has been really tricky with your voice today, so well done.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Bev McArthur): I am taking one for the team.

Sonja TERPSTRA: You certainly are always a team player, Acting President, and well done – always a team player.

Enver Erdogan interjected.

Sonja TERPSTRA: That is right, and we like team players. I rise to make a contribution in opposition to this bill. It should come as no surprise to anyone here that the government does not support this bill. I speak in opposition to the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission Amendment (Ending Political Corruption) Bill 2023 brought by the Greens. I thank the Greens for their interest in this matter, and of course today there has been a bit of a theme in here. We have been speaking about corruption I think for just about the whole day – IBAC, integrity, all those sorts of things.

Enver Erdogan: The buzzwords.

Sonja TERPSTRA: Yes, but here we are. We find ourselves here again. The government opposes the private members bill moved by Dr Ratnam, and I will go into the reasons in a moment – there are a number of reasons why – but I will also talk about some of the hypocrisy that we see. We have called it out on the side of the opposition, but I will also talk about that on the side of the Greens in a moment. But what I want to do is just highlight again for the record in the context of this bill some of the things that the government has been doing.

The government has publicly committed to sweeping integrity reforms. They have been in much of the contributions that I have made today in regard to these bills that have been before the Parliament and in our chamber. We have publicly committed to introducing sweeping integrity reforms as part of a significant overhaul of parliamentary oversight in this country. We have supported and committed to implementing all 21 recommendations from IBAC’s report into Operation Watts to ensure that Victorians can be confident in the integrity and ethical conduct of all MPs, ministers and their staff.

We will be creating a parliamentary integrity commissioner with powers to receive and investigate complaints about possible misconduct from MPs. The commissioner will be armed with robust powers and resources, including the power to recommend sanctions. We recognise that this is a workplace like any other workplace really, but of course MPs are not employees; they are obviously recognised in a different way and in different legislation. You know, workers have different rights and are recognised under different pieces of legislation – they have rights to bullying protections, harassment protections and the like – and of course we find ourselves in this environment and these things do not really apply. But that does not mean that we cannot improve on protections for people who work in this environment, and that is exactly what we are doing. As I said, the commissioner will be armed with all the necessary powers that they need to be able to investigate things, and it is important because we need to recognise that, whether you are an MP or an employee, it is important to have protections in the workplace and it is important that we ensure that we find ourselves working in an environment that is not toxic.

In a previous life I have been somebody who has represented workers over many decades in fact, and it saddens me, as someone who has worked in both private legal practice and the union movement representing people, that what is happening now is that you find that people who are accused of bullying often weaponise that and make it about them rather than the bullying that they do on others. So it is important that we recognise that toxicity can exist on all levels and it can take various forms, and some who might like to say that they are perhaps the subject of bullying can in fact turn that around when in fact they are the bullies. There has been a lot of work done in regard to bullying in other jurisdictions to look at those sorts of things, and I know that any commissioner will have the necessary powers to be able to investigate these things and obviously look at, as I said, robust powers and resources, including the ability to make recommendations and sanctions. So any investigation re process is a very important part of that.

We will also be working across the chamber both here and in the other place to establish a joint parliamentary ethics committee with membership from both houses. Both the commissioner and the ethics committee will play key roles in promoting and supporting an ethical culture in this Parliament, which is critically important. We will also establish a parliamentary integrity adviser to provide confidential advice – I know we have already done things like that, there already is an adviser that people can go to here, but this is a further step – and create proactive advice on integrity and ethical best practice to all members of Parliament. I have had previous discussions with the clerks on this. I think with the previous Clerk who was here, Andrew Young, we were talking about the cut and thrust in this particular chamber, for example, and we were comparing it in comparison with other jurisdictions around the world. I think Mr Young was saying that he thought that our chamber was particularly robust in comparison to other jurisdictions. However, I myself have not had the opportunity to observe any of those sorts of things at any great length, but I will take his word for it if that is the case.

We have also got to be cognisant of the fact that we have people who work in this chamber with us who are employees – like the clerks and their assistants and the aides, the Hansard reporters, the attendants – so it is a good thing for us all to be mindful of the fact that we work with a whole range of people in this precinct that make it possible for us to do what we need to do. Treating people with respect is critically important, but also I myself have found that if you treat people with respect you generally get that in return. But, again, I am seeing changes in behaviour of people who might seek to weaponise complaints processes, and those people should be condemned for doing that, because these processes are put in place to protect people and ensure we have an appropriate workplace environment.

We have already updated the ministerial code of conduct, which is now publicly available online, and we will be updating the ministerial code of conduct. We will be clarifying that ministers are responsible for ensuring that public resources made available for the performance of their duties are not used for party-specific purposes, we will ban MPs from employing close family members in their electorate offices and we will be looking at conflict-of-interest controls for both ministers and ministerial staff. For when the issue arises, we will create pathways for people to raise complaints other than with a Presiding Officer. We are also looking at electorate officer recruitment, management and supervision and grants administration to ensure greater transparency and better processes across the board. All these things are critically important as we walk on the pathway to improving integrity measures. It is all about transparency rather than opaqueness. These changes will be supported by careful consideration of related issues and appropriate supporting reforms to make sure that the reforms achieve their purpose of bolstering our integrity system, and that includes considering the structure and operations of the parliamentary privileges committees to improve transparency and accountability as well.

On top of all of these reforms that I have just highlighted, which have been recommended by IBAC, the government will go further. There will be three additional changes to further strengthen public trust and lift standards across the administration of all political parties in Victoria. Major political parties will need to fulfil minimum requirements of party administration to qualify for public funding. These will include requiring that party memberships are paid by traceable means, mandatory photo ID checks for new members joining a party, proof of eligibility to hold concessional memberships and measures to ensure compliance in using the electoral roll. A lot of these reforms have also been talked about in the Bracks and Macklin review, and some of them have already been implemented by the party. Of course these are matters that are relevant for party administration, but it is necessary and appropriate to highlight them here.

These safeguards will be applied to parties that meet a minimum threshold in terms of size and reflect the high degree of responsibility that major established parties have in ensuring the absolute confidence of all Victorians in their conduct. These new rules will not be applied to small parties so as to not disadvantage any new or small minor parties from being established, because we recognise that some of these requirements might be particularly onerous from an administration point of view, and these new parties particularly may not have the infrastructure necessary, and we do not want to make it more onerous than it might already be. These changes are about making sure that larger and more established parties are held to the standard that Victorians rightly expect from publicly funded organisations.

We will also extend the parliamentary integrity commissioner’s powers beyond considering possible breaches of an MP’s code of conduct. We will enable the commissioner to examine the behaviour of MPs, including bullying, harassment, sexual harassment and victimisation, providing a crucial avenue for complaints to be heard and investigated. Employment arrangements for ministerial staff will also be codified consistent with Commonwealth arrangements under the Members of Parliament (Staff) Act 1984 to clearly set out the structure, terms and conditions of employment. Work on all of these reforms will begin immediately, and as per the recommendation in Operation Watts, the government will work towards the full establishment of a new parliamentary integrity framework, including in legislation, by June 2024.

As you can see, there is a fair bit of work that needs to be done in preparation whilst we work on these recommendations, and we are working really hard on doing that. It is not something that can be implemented immediately, because we need to make sure we have the appropriate mechanisms and framework in place in order to properly implement these recommendations. As I touched on earlier, I note that the Department of Parliamentary Services have also received funding from the government to help them implement the reforms that were recommended by Operation Watts, so we have looked across what we need to do in a range of settings that are affected in this Parliament to ensure that we implement these important reforms.

As you can see, the work of strengthening Victoria’s integrity system is not simple – it can be quite complex – and we will be working and consulting closely with all members, regardless of their party or the house they sit in, to make sure we get this right. Similarly, we will work closely with our integrity agencies to make sure any broader changes we make to the integrity system are sensible, effective and actually work to improve accountability and transparency. That is just the framework and the stuff I wanted to highlight.

I just want to touch on some of the things that I mentioned earlier about some of the other behaviours that we have seen in public life as well, and some of these things have been reported in the papers. I think this bill that has been brought before the house contains only one really substantive change, and that is amending the definition of ‘corrupt conduct’ to remove the requirement that it constitute a relevant offence. Something that I spoke about earlier – I think it was on Mr Davis’s bill – is the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. It has an inherent jurisdiction to be able to review these things and to overturn things, so again, I am not sure that this bill would necessarily stand up to that level of jurisdictional scrutiny. I said the same thing in regard to Mr Davis’s bill, that sometimes in trying to address one problem you might be creating a whole new set of problems. We have seen in other jurisdictions that some findings have been overturned by the Supreme Court, and I think there was a notable one in regard to a former Liberal Premier of New South Wales, Nick Greiner.

When we think about corruption, no matter where it might exist, it requires a continued effort, a constant effort. You cannot ever just say ‘We’ve made a reform’ and then stop. You have got to keep looking at the sorts of behaviours that occur, because things often come to light through investigative processes that need a different approach. It is plain that this government is committed to the integrity of this Parliament, the executive government and the public service. It is essential to ensure public confidence in our parliamentary democracy, and Victorians rightly expect and deserve the highest level of integrity from their elected representatives. We on this side, as I have highlighted and gone through earlier, are absolutely committed to ensuring that we get this right, and we are doing the work, as I have outlined, to deliver on that expectation.

I think what you see in this bill is that the Greens are positioning this as some kind of silver bullet that will end political corruption. It will not. Like I said earlier, we have got to make a continual effort to end corruption and have appropriate responses and appropriate frameworks when we find it. I think this bill is a tokenistic approach that really is about the Greens cutting deals with the Liberals and the Nationals, working hand in glove with the Liberal–Nationals to concoct a show of integrity that we are debating today whilst glossing over the conduct of some of their own members – and let us face it, some of those things have been reported. So perhaps these sorts of stunts might give a bit of a sugar hit and a social media grab, but really there is a lot more detail, and we just find that some of these things are quite simplistic. Trying to say that there is a silver bullet again is very simplistic. It is not going to end political corruption unless everybody involved in the political system makes a concerted effort to ensure that they comply with the highest standards of integrity and honesty in the Parliament and continue to work on it.

What we saw with the Greens as well included a decision by the Greens to use a parliamentary adviser employed by a Greens MP to promote the Greens City of Yarra councillors. These are parliamentary advisers, as we know, who are taxpayer-funded employees employed to support members of the Parliament and who the public no doubt expect to work on issues pertaining to their MP. Yet a decision was made by the Greens to use their parliamentary adviser to further the Greens party agenda through the promotion of Greens councillors with media releases. This is despite the City of Yarra having their own media team. This is exactly the kind of conduct that the Greens want to call those on the government benches out about. But if you are going to do that, you have got to have clean hands, and of course we know that they do not. This behaviour went on for over a year after the November 2020 local government elections, according to reports in the Age, conveniently in the lead-up to the 2022 state election. The Victorian Greens in the state election championed themselves as the party of integrity and placed political righteousness at the heart of their election campaign. However, this was not practised In practice, they did not practise what they preached. They used their parliamentary adviser to spruik a Yarra councillor and then the mayor of Yarra council, who was also a candidate and is now the member for the seat of Richmond in the other place.

It does not stop there. The Greens, who preach transparency, good governance and anti-corruption, are quick to condemn but fail to reflect on their own conduct and own example. We are talking about the same Greens who are quick to ignore due process or consider any findings and recommendations from the party’s own internal misconduct panel. These are the same Greens who deemed a decision made by their own misconduct panel to carry no weight. To add insult to injury, as reported in the Age, the Greens then went another step further and sacked their internal misconduct panel for that unfavourable finding. If I can quote from the sacked misconduct panel chair David Eldridge, who articulated what the real issue is with the Greens, in his view:

… the confidence they have lost is not in the capacity of the panel to apply the rules fairly, it’s in the capacity of the panel to apply the rules with results that suit them. Disciplinary tribunals aren’t impanelled to suit the professed needs of a particular body.

So how can we trust the Greens or, more importantly, how can the Victorian public trust the Greens on any matter of integrity when their own behaviour, their party processes or lack thereof and their own integrity is in question? Who are the Greens to be the moral guardians when they cannot get their own house in order?

We see these examples time and time and time again. Whilst they will try and bring this bill up, as I said, it is really about a sugar hit, it is really about the social media grab – ‘We can stand up there and say we’ve brought this bill on integrity.’ But again, those on the government benches know and understand that it takes more than posturing, it takes more than a social media grab, it takes more than a stunt, it takes more than standing out the front of Parliament waving a placard and saying ‘The Greens the pure’, because we know it is a lot more than that. There needs to be integrity and frameworks.

I have gone to great lengths today in my contribution to outline all of the work the government are doing and how seriously we are taking the recommendations from Operation Watts. I might just again for a moment – and I did this earlier, but I am going to reiterate this point because it is important – talk about our record. We have a record of working on these things. I know, Acting President McArthur, you are enjoying this contribution – I know! We have a proud and strong record of all the actions that we are taking. Again, the 2022–23 budget was $61.9 million and the 2023–24 budget is $62.2 million. That is an increase of $300,000. Then, actual spending for IBAC in 2022–23 was $62.9 million, which is $1 million higher than their budget. So in 2022–23 we invested $32.1 million in additional funding for IBAC as well as a further $8.6 million in its annual base funding. So funding for IBAC in proportion to the public sector workforce they hold to account is higher in Victoria than in any other state, because when we are asked to help our integrity agencies – because they come to us and they say, ‘We need more funds to do our job properly’ – we respond and say, ‘Yep. Here’s some more money.’ That is what we do over here.

When we get reports from IBAC – and again, I talked about this in my contributions earlier today – those reports that have been undertaken by IBAC with recommendations, none of them have found adverse findings on government members over here. None of them have found adverse findings. So again we continue to –

David Davis: On a point of order, Acting President, the member needs to be truthful and not mislead the chamber. The fact is these IBAC reports have been replete with negative findings about the government – shocking findings.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Bev McArthur): This is debating, Mr Davis. There is no point of order.

Sonja TERPSTRA: Thank you very much, Acting President. I appreciate your ruling. It is a very wise ruling indeed. As I was saying, there were no adverse findings in any of those reports. There were no adverse findings against individuals, Mr Davis. You can sit there and heckle as much as you like.

David Davis: On a point of order, Acting President, the member knows that what she is saying is not true. There were negative findings about Theo Theophanous and his misbehaviour.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Bev McArthur): Mr Davis, I have just ruled on that. There is no point of order.

Sonja TERPSTRA: Thank you, Acting President, again, for your very wise and informed ruling on that non point of order. I shall continue. Again, we know over here that it is important. As I said earlier, this area is never static. It evolves. Behaviours evolve. People will look to try new things and new ways to subvert.

David Davis interjected.

Sonja TERPSTRA: Well, Mr Davis, I can take up your interjection and talk about Ventnor if you like. What about when you guys were last in government? Do you want to talk about Ventnor and Matthew Guy as the planning minister in the other place? Would you like me to talk about the windfall gains that came out of the rezoning of land?

David Davis interjected.

Sonja TERPSTRA: Acting President, I take offence at Mr Davis pointing his finger at me, and I suggest he not do that.

Enver Erdogan: On a point of order, Acting President, could we please speak through the Chair? Could everyone just be a bit more respectful? I am struggling to hear Ms Terpstra’s important contribution to this debate.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Bev McArthur): You are probably struggling to hear me, too, are you, Minister? Through the Chair, Mr Davis.

David Davis: Acting President, we are responding to provocations.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Bev McArthur): I do not need Mr Davis’s intervention.

Sonja TERPSTRA: I know it provokes ire from Mr Davis to actually hear the reality and the actual details of what has happened. I know he wishes that it were different. If it was not for wishing, he is trying so hard to wish that these things were different, but they just are not. It does not matter how many Herald Sun articles or Sky News talking points or after dark talking points get written for you guys over there. I know you keep banging away and you just wish it might be different, but all I can point to is the fact that at the last election, I think eight or nine months ago, we were returned to the government benches with an increased majority. So despite you over there on the opposition benches wishing it was different, it just is not.

Nevertheless, having said all of those things, when we talk about integrity, I can again raise Ventnor and Matthew Guy, the former planning minister, rezoning land that benefitted some of your Liberal mates.

David Davis: On a point of order, Acting President, the member well knows that she is not entitled to attack sitting MPs other than through substantive motion.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Bev McArthur): I uphold that point of order. Ms Terpstra, please stick to the knitting.

Sonja TERPSTRA: Thank you, Acting President, and I do apologise because I know I am making you talk a lot, and I know you need to save your voice. However, again, on this issue I think we all agree in one respect – that we all need to work harder at ensuring that we have a strong, robust integrity system so that we can root out corruption.

The debate in this chamber today has been a little bit concerning to me, because I note that there were some strong contributions made by Mr Puglielli around this. What we do not want to do is cast aspersions around the public sector in saying that there are really deep systemic issues of corruption in the public sector, because we know our public sector is a very important institution and body that does a lot of good work in supporting the work of government. Let us face it, the public sector and the public service are there to actually carry out and implement the policy of government. They have roles, there are departments, they have functions to play and a lot of our public servants work incredibly hard at doing that as their job. I thank them, actually, for their contributions to public life, because we know sometimes being a public servant is not easy. They work incredibly hard.

I do not think it has been quite right today to cast aspersions on many of our hardworking public servants in the public sector. What I can say is that, when integrity agencies have drawn something to our attention and recommendations have been made – noting that there were no adverse findings made against anybody – we look at the recommendations and we work on them. As I said, in my contribution today I have gone to great lengths to outline all of the work that this government is doing to set up the framework so that we can fully act and fully implement those recommendations. It is really critically important to make sure that parliamentary democracy is upheld. Victorians need to have confidence in our systems of democracy, and they deserve the highest level of integrity from their representatives who are elected to this place. As I said, we are doing a lot of work on this side of the chamber to make sure that that is a reality.

I note the member’s interest in this particular area, and I acknowledge Mr Davis’s interest in this area as well. I think everyone has some kind of obviously political agenda with these sorts of bills, and that is fine. We are in politics, and that is what it is. But realistically, some of these bills have been ill conceived. I said the same thing in regard to Mr Davis’s contribution, and I think it is the same with Dr Ratnam’s bill that she is bringing in this chamber today.

Enver Erdogan: Why didn’t they merge the motions?

Sonja TERPSTRA: Exactly, we have got competing bills here. As I said, you cannot do what the Greens are suggesting, because it is not actually going to really achieve an ultimate end to any political corruption. I highlighted this earlier around things like the inherent jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. In fact doing these sorts of things might actually create unintended consequences and create further problems. I touched on Mr Davis’s bill earlier. A person has a right to privacy, and that is actually a human right.

We see that those opposite and the Greens are kind of on a unity ticket. The Greens work with the Liberals quite often on a whole range of things. We talk about transparency and talk about making sure that the Victorian public and voters have transparency, a line of sight on the actions of their elected representatives. The Greens often work with the Liberals on a range of things to try and implement their particular agenda, whatever that is. Again, the changes that will need to be supported need careful consideration and appropriate supporting reforms to make sure that we can achieve the proper purpose of bolstering our integrity system. I do not think that the bill brought by the Greens will actually do that. I think, as I said, there will be some unintended consequences. It does not really add anything.

What we are doing is looking at the reports that have been delivered by IBAC in terms of the investigations that they have had, and what we are seeing is that the government has carefully considered those. I have outlined them. We have undertaken a range of measures to make sure that we can implement the recommendations.

David Davis interjected.

Sonja TERPSTRA: I will talk about Ventnor again if you like. Make it the third time. Honestly.

David Davis interjected.

Sonja TERPSTRA: Ventnor, Ventnor, Ventnor. We can talk about Ventnor as much as you like. You have got no credibility, Mr Davis. You made the point of order to me, and I will make this comment to you as well: if you want to make an accusation about a member, you do it by substantive motion. The Acting President has ruled on these interjections from you as well, so I think in the last minute that I have left I would like to continue on without your assistance, if you do not mind, because I will keep mentioning Ventnor if you keep it up.

Anyway, as I said, we have looked across a range of things to do with this bill, and we are responding to the reports that have been delivered by IBAC, noting there have been no adverse findings against people. They have made recommendations, noting that some of these investigations have in fact fallen well short of the threshold for IBAC to investigate. Nevertheless when recommendations have been made by reports, we have acted on them.

Acting President, I think I will leave my contribution there. I thank you for your patience and your very wise determinations in regard to points of order during this debate. As I said, I encourage members in this chamber to also vote against this bill, which the government opposes.

David DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan) (15:40): I am pleased to rise and make a contribution on this Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission Amendment (Ending Political Corruption) Bill 2023. This is part of a constellation of bills. Let us go directly to the attack made just now and explain to the chamber and the community precisely what is going on here. We actually have a long-term tired and corrupt Labor government. It is crooked to the core, and there are incredible problems with the behaviour of this government.

There are undoubted weaknesses that have developed over time in the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission Act 2011, and I am proud to have been part of the government that brought the IBAC act in. There was no IBAC act under the previous government, and the Brumby government would not bring forward an IBAC act. They would not bring IBAC into existence. The Baillieu government did, and it was a strong act, but that is not to say that it was not beyond improvement.

The IBAC has brought forward a series of reports to this chamber over recent times. Last year and this year matters have been raised by IBAC both in reports and in correspondence, and I think it is important for people to understand precisely what is occurring here in the chamber. The Greens have made a significant contribution, and I am happy to put that on record and to say that they are concerned about corrupt government behaviour and they want a better system. We in the opposition, the Liberals and Nationals, are also concerned about corrupt government behaviour, and we want to strengthen the system. We want IBAC strengthened, and we want it to have the powers to root out corruption, to stop corruption to the maximum extent possible.

Let me be clear here. Why is this important? It is important because we know from international groups, Freedom House and others, that have assessed the levels of corruption around the world that between 3 and 10 per cent of transactions have some level of corruption involved. If 5 per cent of this government’s transactions were in some way tainted or corrupt, that is an enormous amount of money. It is government resources, thereby community resources and taxpayers resources, that we want to make sure are applied for the proper purposes. We want lower taxes, and we want proper services that are supported by contracts and procurement that is clear and clean of corruption. So these things do matter. They have real-world consequences, and it is a fact as well that we all want a system that is as pristine as possible. Clearly it is impossible to have a perfect system, but we can make it better than it is now.

I am just going to step through this quickly. The Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission Amendment (Facilitation of Timely Reporting) Bill 2022, which was passed by the chamber today, came about directly from communication from Robert Redlich AM KC, the then Commissioner for IBAC. He wrote to Jaclyn Symes and me as the, at that time, Leader of the Opposition in the chamber and said there is a problem with the ability of his organisation, IBAC, to get reports through to the Parliament because of misuse and misbehaviour in effect – and I am paraphrasing him here – in the Supreme Court and a number of people, on whom negative reflections were made, using legal shenanigans and procedures to block the tabling of reports. That bill, including the modifications that I made at the behest of others in this chamber and beyond, was a sincere attempt to help with that problem. It was carried in this chamber by the crossbench almost in its entirety – and the opposition – and I thank them for that support. It went downstairs at 12:30 today and was crushed without debate. The lower house under Labor with its jackbooted approach would not even debate it ‍– would not allow it to be read. How undemocratic is that? So that is the timely reporting bill.

The Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission Amendment (Public Recommendations) Bill 2023 – that is the bill that was second read today and will lie over for two weeks – is again following the advice of Robert Redlich and others that there be the ability for IBAC, where they see it as appropriate, to actually put in place a system where they table or on their website release some of the individual reports to agencies when they are not big enough to make a full report about but there is useful material in there that is educative in its function and also helps the implementation. Tabling those or putting them on the website is a sensible way to go, again in response to Robert Redlich’s recommendations.

The Operation Daintree Implementation (No. 1) Bill 2023, which we were just debating earlier, is an important bill. It actually picks up many recommendations, but not all. That is why it is Daintree number 1. It does not claim to do everything about Daintree, but it picks up the sensible, easily implementable recommendations that the IBAC made in the Daintree report. I mean, that report would make your hair curl. Let us be clear what was going on here: the awarding of a well over $1 million contract to a union, a mate of the government, without a proper process and without proper procurement, giving them money – and nobody in the public service thought they were capable of delivering the services that they were being paid for. So it was like a straight suck: more than $1 million paid to the union without a proper process. It was crooked to its bootstraps. There were negative findings in that. It was crooked. It was corrupt. Let us be clear: corrupt is what it was. We say it should not happen like that. We say that that was wrong. We say that that needs to be dealt with. The recommendations in the Daintree report were pulled back, and many of them were put into that bill.

With the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission Amendment (Restoration of Examination Powers) Bill 2022, people in this chamber had different views on the changes that should be made to IBAC’s powers, and this bill from the Greens addresses part of that. But the earlier bill also addressed that, and that is at the Integrity and Oversight Committee for examination now.

The Operation Clara report is a very small report but an important one, because it points to corrupt behaviour – let us be clear what it was – of former Labor MPs and others in the planning area. What was occurring was that Theo Theophanous was sitting on the board of the Victorian Planning Authority. He was making planning decisions. He had a client over here and he was a lobbyist as well. He had two hats: he was a lobbyist and he was actually lobbying on behalf of his client to the body that he sat on the board of. And he went further. He actually collected corruptly – let us be clear what was going on here – money for his daughter’s election campaign. The thing was crooked to the core. It should not have occurred. Clara had four sensible recommendations. That bill was passed through this chamber with the support of every single member of the chamber other than Labor, and then it went downstairs to be crushed by the government with its majority down there, without debate. They would not even look at it – would not even entertain it. How undemocratic was that? They just used their jackboot numbers in the chamber to crush a very sensible bill that was based entirely on the four recommendations that were made.

The other thing I want to draw the chamber’s attention to is the attacks on the former commissioner at that hearing of the Integrity and Oversight Committee. I think that was appalling. I do not recall seeing such scandalous attacks of that type on someone of Robert Redlich’s background and esteem, and I think that the three Labor members involved did themselves no credit. I think it was wrong. I think the committee tried its best, but the fact is the Labor members of the committee did not do the right thing. I for one stand with Robert Redlich on this rather than with the Labor members of the committee with their behaviour.

I want to talk about this bill very directly after having talked about that context about where things are.

Jaclyn Symes: Context!

David DAVIS: I was directly responding to some of the points that were made by a Labor member, and actually you do not doubt that. I did. I directly responded to her complaining about the number of bills on corruption and the number of bills on IBAC – the number of bills trying to deal with this – to explain why. Perhaps it was helpful for her and others to understand that.

But in the context of this bill, we do not agree with every aspect of the way the Greens have presented this bill. I will be quite clear on that. We would probably tweak this in a number of ways. But we think it is a sincere attempt to get in place a better system to give IBAC the increased powers that it needs. We think it is too narrow now, and we think there needs to be improvement in the way the IBAC powers are construed. In that circumstance we are not going to oppose the bill. We are going to say actually it is important to go forward on this at this time. Again, we have a corrupt long-term government that needs as much scrutiny in this field as possible, and this bill will assist with that matter.

Widening the definition of what IBAC can investigate, the definitions will be amended. Clause 4, under the definition of ‘corrupt conduct’, says:

omit “being conduct that would constitute a relevant offence …

as defined by section 4(1) of the IBAC act. Clause 3 says:

In section 3(1) of the –

IBAC act –

… the definition of relevant offence is repealed.

So this makes it wider. There is a context to this, a national context, and again I am conscious of time. The national context is that a number of different regimes operate around the country. The new national body, the National Anti-corruption Commission, has a wider definition than Victoria’s and allows a wider range of investigation. The New South Wales ICAC has a wider definition that enables a wider set of investigations to occur and more in the way of public hearings. We accept that the widening is right in direction, and we accept that the national and New South Wales models have much to commend them.

All these things are a balance. I will go on and say the amendments will have the effect of removing the current requirement that corrupt conduct must also constitute an indictable offence or a specified common-law offence. That is the current situation, but they will open that to a wider set of investigation. Daintree is a case study where it was too narrow and they could not make a number of the recommendations that they would have liked. I might say that in New South Wales there would have been public hearings on something like Daintree.

Andrews has been to IBAC four times that we are aware of, either as a witness or as a person of special interest. We do not know in a number of these cases. We know Operation Richmond is still at large, still being slowed down in the courts, we hear, but Andrews, the Premier, has been off to IBAC again and again and again and again. I will just say this: if a Liberal Premier had been at IBAC four times, they would have been hounded out of office. There is an uneven application on these matters. A Liberal Premier would have been hounded out of office, but a Labor Premier four times has been at the anti-corruption commission. Understand what we are talking about: Daniel Andrews has been to the corruption commission four times, and he should have been hounded out of office. He should have gone a long, long time ago.

This is a sensible step, a sensible direction that the Greens are wanting to go. The former IBAC Commissioner Robert Redlich has recommended a change of this nature to be made. The Centre for Public Integrity has made recommendations that a change of this nature be made. We are open to the steps here. That is why the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission Amendment (Restoration of Examination Powers) Bill 2022 was here in the first place. It was a more modest bill ‍– we accept that – and that is why we were open to sending that to the Integrity and Oversight Committee, because we think there need to be steps.

The case has become stronger since then as more reports have been tabled in this place – more reports that would make your hair curl, more reports that would make any reasonable person conclude that this long-term, tired, corrupt government has got to go. But there have got to be greater teeth to get in there and actually root out the corruption that is part of this government. It is a shocking government, it is a crooked government and it is rotten to the core, and the votes that these Labor members undertake in this chamber are to oppose reform on every turn. They oppose every reform. They have these long arguments. We see them reading from their cheat sheets that are provided from central casting. They all read the same thing. Some of them do not even understand it. We saw a Labor member yesterday read their cheat sheet for the wrong bill. Leaving that aside – I am not having a go at that person in particular – I am just saying that on this corruption matter it is not good enough. For bills that have been passed by this place to go to the lower house and be crushed instantly before they are even read is wrong, and that is why we will not be opposing this bill.

Jaclyn SYMES (Northern Victoria – Attorney-General, Minister for Emergency Services) (15:55): I just have a few remarks, really, to make in relation to the bill. I know that there has been a lot of commentary. It is always everyone getting up and about a bit when it comes to integrity, but I will leave that for others. I was just interested in discussing the bill and some of the other initiatives that the government has underway and giving some context as to why we do not think this bill is a good step forward. We think it has got some problems. Of course calling something ‘ending political corruption’ – sure, it sounds good, doesn’t it? I wish it was that simple. That would be great. There are lots of titles for legislation that I could dream up, if only it was that easy. But in substance this bill really only contains one solitary, substantive change, and that is to the definition of ‘corrupt conduct’ ‍– and as I said, it is appearing to claim that that definitional tweak will end political corruption. I have some concerns with the bill. The intentions are fine, but it is not going to achieve that in the way that the Greens have outlined.

I do want to at the outset make it very clear that the government is committed to integrity: integrity of every member of Parliament, integrity of the government and integrity of the public service and our agencies. Integrity of course is critical to ensuring public confidence in democracy, and Victorians rightly expect the highest level of it from their elected representatives. We are certainly as a government doing the work to deliver on that expectation – delivering real accountability through a range of mechanisms.

As I said, it would be lovely if it was just simply that three pages could bring about substantive change in any event, but that is sadly not the case. Changing just a definition is in our view not going to achieve any real, meaningful change in the way the Greens have articulated it. Certainly a simple definitional change is a bit simplistic. To bring about real change you need nuance, balance and careful consideration. You need meaningful consultation with integrity bodies, and you really need to understand the operational impacts of such reforms.

Our commitment to a range of reforms is well known. That is why we delivered the Victorian Independent Remuneration Tribunal in the Victorian Independent Remuneration Tribunal and Improving Parliamentary Standards Act 2019. It is why we have committed to implementing all 21 recommendations in the IBAC and Victorian Ombudsman’s joint Operation Watts investigation report in line with their recommended time line of June 2024, and it is why we have actually gone further than Operation Watts, further than what was recommended by those integrity agencies, and committed to implementing three additional measures to further strengthen public trust and lift standards across the administration of all political parties in Victoria.

We do recognise that there is more to do. There is always more to do. We will keep listening, and we will continue to make sensible improvements across the board when there is merit to do so. What we certainly do not want to do is just come charging in and claim that we are ending political corruption with one definitional change.

Clause 4 of the bill is effectively the substance of the bill. It removes the requirement that conduct must constitute a relevant offence under the act. And it is proposed that the amendments take effect retrospectively so that conduct that occurred before the commencement of the amending act can also be investigated without the requirement for a relevant offence. It proposes to remove the reference to a relevant offence in the definition of ‘corrupt conduct’ in the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission Act 2011. But this definition of ‘corrupt conduct’ is not in isolation in that act, which is one of my concerns about the operability of this bill if it were to become law, because the definition of ‘corrupt conduct’ is used in other acts, including the Ombudsman Act 1973 and the Public Interest Disclosures Act 2012. When you start tinkering with definitions, it can have consequences and impact the jurisdiction of other agencies, and it may well lead to unintended consequences that you really should ensure that you have examined before you proceed with a bill of this nature.

Expanding the scope of an integrity agency or indeed any agency without talking to them about how it will impact them as an agency, how it will work in reality, how they will resource it and how it will impact their staff and operations is not the way you should bring about legislation. You also should not reform something as complex as an integrity system like it is paint by numbers – one colour, one change, at a time. As I said, it is a complex system. It interacts with other agencies, and you really need to take a global view of these things to ensure that any changes bring about your intended impacts.

Any amendments that we make, such as those that we have committed to following Operation Watts, for instance, should be considered when we make these other amendments. It is why we are also considering the Operation Daintree recommendations and what they could look like. We are doing that in conjunction with our development of the commitment to implement the Operation Watts recommendations, because you do not want to start one that then disrupts the other. There is significant work underway as part of the government’s integrity reform agenda. We have a commitment to appoint a parliamentary integrity commissioner, whose remit as recommended by IBAC and the Ombudsman would directly compete with the additional jurisdiction that the Greens are proposing for IBAC. So we would urge consideration of how it would be envisaged that those two work together if this bill were to proceed. It is why we take time. Time can be frustrating; you want changes quickly. We are politicians; I know we are all impatient, I get that. But I also see the consequences if you get it wrong, and that does not serve anyone’s purpose, particularly not those Victorians that rely on us to do our job properly. It is why we as a government consult thoroughly and carefully with our integrity agencies to determine the impact of proposals before we introduce them and to make sure that they do not introduce inconsistencies, and we are already seeing a few red flags in this bill.

That is fundamentally why we are not in a position to support this bill. We do acknowledge the intention behind it, and we commend the aspirations of anyone that claims that they can end political corruption with the stroke of a pen. I think there is more work to be done, and I have certainly outlined our commitments in that regard. The work of strengthening Victoria’s integrity system is certainly not simple. I wish it were; it would make my job a lot easier. But it is a complex space. There is continual work underway, and this bill is not helpful in that regard.

As I said, we will continue to work closely with all of our integrity agencies to make sure any broader changes that we make to the system are sensible, effective and actually work to improve accountability and transparency. We are certainly not in a position to support a bill that is really just a three-page catchphrase that has some consequences that I do not think the Greens have thought through. The government commends the title – not the bill, though.

John BERGER (Southern Metropolitan) (16:04): I rise today to speak on the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission Amendment (Ending Political Corruption) Bill 2023. This is a bill that seeks to amend the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission Act 2011. These amendments are entirely inappropriate to the functioning of the IBAC. I too will not be supporting this bill, and I encourage others not to support it as well. The IBAC was established to prosecute serious corruption in public bodies. At this stage, it does just that. It does competent and effective work in that field, and everyone who works for it and has assisted in any IBAC investigation should be commended for the important work they do for this state.

It is of utmost importance that the public have confidence in their Parliament and government, and that is the role the IBAC executes in Victoria. I am very proud not only to live in a state with such a robust anti-corruption commission but also to be a member of a government that is committed to empowering and supporting said IBAC. The government has made countless commitments not just to implement the recommendations put forward by the IBAC’s Operation Watts report but to go beyond to ensure that Victoria’s integrity agencies are as robust as they can possibly be. However, this bill flies in the face of what IBAC was established for. It flies in the face of our integrity bodies altogether. I believe the Attorney-General is on the record in Hansard countless times outlining the nature of the government’s relationship with the IBAC as mediated by the role of the Attorney-General. Where fit, IBAC makes recommendations to the Attorney-General, and we will always consider them. Most importantly, when implementing recommendations we will take our time to ensure that, in a legislative sense, we get it right.

These are not trivial matters that my colleague is dealing with. My colleague claims that her bill does one thing, essentially, in altering the definition under the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission Act for the key focus of both the act and the relevant commission. This definition being amended is that of corrupt conduct. My colleague has proposed amendments that would alter section 3(1), that being the definition surrounding the term ‘corrupt conduct’. This is a three-page bill, and the massive, complex issue of combating political corruption is a closed book. This is not an example of good legislation reform; it is an attempt to draft an amendment bill with a flashy name.

The definition of ‘corrupt conduct’ that may be prosecuted by the IBAC covers conduct that if found to be true could lead to criminal prosecution and charges. This is in reflection of the seriousness of the cases and complaints that the IBAC was established to investigate. The bill seeks to seemingly indefinitely extend the umbrella of conduct that would cause one to be investigated under IBAC. Should we extend IBAC’s jurisdiction to the standing orders? Should an MP be prosecuted by IBAC for a failure to wear a tie in the chamber? Does that seem like the worthwhile use of one of the most essential institutions in our state?

But no surprise, the government is committing to addressing all holes in our system that allow an individual to act with disregard for our important conventions and laws – disregarding this oversimplified approach to a problem that is anything but simple. It is indicative of the fact that it is only the Andrews Labor government that is fit to address the maintenance and support of IBAC in Victoria. I wonder if in writing this bill any thought was given to the unintended consequences that would have come of this. It should come as a shock to no-one that the term ‘corrupt conduct’ appears several times in our state’s legislation. This includes but is not limited to the Ombudsman Act 1973 and the Public Interest Disclosures Act 2012. Whilst this bill suggests that it is only amending the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission Act, it will have a ripple effect that will run the risk of completely altering the structures of our integrity agencies. Our integrity agencies conduct work that is complicated and intertwined. When reforming our integrity agencies, it is essential that the possible flow-on effects be considered.

Additionally, this bill has clearly not considered the huge amount of work being done by the government. We are working on the implementation of the 21 recommendations of the Operation Watts report delivered by IBAC. We cannot run the risk of ruining the outcomes of these. The recommendations will introduce a series of reforms, all with the express purpose of upholding the ethical standards and conduct expectations of anybody and everybody. This means everyone in the Parliament of Victoria, this precinct, including members of Parliament, ministers, ministerial staff and electorate officers. Some of the recommendations are as follows: the creation of a parliamentary integrity commissioner equipped with all the robust powers and resources necessary to investigate complaints against MPs, and the establishment of a parliamentary ethics committee that will be filled by members of both houses across party lines.

The parliamentary integrity commissioner and the parliamentary ethics committee will each be integral in the support and promotion of the ethical culture in the Parliament and in ensuring confidence in their Parliament. Members of Parliament will also have a point of call if they have any inquiries. The parliamentary integrity adviser will be established to give MPs confidential advice on the best practice model for MPs. The Andrews Labor government is right in the middle of reforming and updating several codes of conduct. The ministerial staff code of conduct now published online has already undergone several changes, and the ministerial code of conduct has been examined and made up-to-date. These reforms include clarifying their responsibilities surrounding the use of public resources and a specific focus on ensuring that use be non-party specific. There will also be reforms to conflict-of-interest and employment guidelines. We are also examining electorate officer recruitment, management and supervision and grants administration to promote transparency surrounding exactly where public money is going. The Victorian people deserve no less.

The Andrews Labor government is not stopping there. We are going beyond the recommendations of the Operation Watts report to ensure that we can further promote public trust and confidence in the political parties that ultimately end up representing them. This is how you fight political corruption: with careful, considered and informed measures. The Andrews Labor government is introducing four key reforms that directly affect the conduct of political parties and their membership processes, to acknowledge the importance of transparency. They apply directly to major political parties, and breaching of these requirements may affect the parties’ eligibility for public funding. The first reform is the requirement to present a physical ID when an individual joins a political party in Victoria. The second reform is the requirement to use traceable payments when paying for membership. The third reform is the requirement to present proof of eligibility to hold concessional membership cards.

An additional measure is to ensure that compliance with procedures is observed by all major political parties when using the electoral roll. This only applies to parties that meet certain size requirements. This is not to discourage the establishment of smaller parties in Victoria whilst also acknowledging the responsibility that major parties in Victoria share to uphold integrity within the democratic system in this state. We do not want to discourage the establishment of small parties because it is essential that every Victorian can exercise their democratic right in a way that is fair and representative of the people. This is because the Andrews Labor government takes fairness and integrity very seriously. You need only look at recent history to see that the Andrews Labor government is a government that is committed to supporting, endorsing and promoting our integrity agencies. It was the Andrews Labor government that introduced the Victorian Independent Remuneration Tribunal and Improving Parliamentary Standards Act 2019. A huge amount of work has been undertaken by the government, and it is effective work, unlike this bill.

As is so clear, this bill is inappropriately being introduced to the house and is not necessary for the mission the Victorian government is undertaking to ensure that we have the most robust and strong integrity agencies in Australia. Because of these facts I cannot support this bill, nor can I endorse it to my colleagues. To be so brazen with our state’s integrity laws is no way to strengthen the integrity agencies. Carefully informed reform: that is how you get it done and how you get it done right. I urge my colleagues to vote against this when it comes to a division.

In concluding today, we are strengthening Victoria’s integrity agencies. We will be working to strengthen them. We will be consulting carefully with all members, regardless of their party or the house in which they sit, because we want to get this right. My door is always open as a member of the government. If someone wants to come in and chat to me in a meaningful and constructive way about strengthening our integrity agencies, feel free. Similarly, we work closely with our integrity agencies to ensure any broader changes we make to integrity agencies are sensible, sound, serious, effective and efficient and work to improve accountability and transparency.

We are not here to rush a few pages into legislation in the Parliament and call it a day. I reiterate the Andrews Labor government’s stance in doing so and urge the members of this house not to support the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission Amendment (Ending Political Corruption) Bill 2023.

Rachel PAYNE (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (16:14): I rise to make a contribution on this Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission Amendment (Ending Political Corruption) Bill 2023. I will say at the outset that Legalise Cannabis Victoria will be supporting this bill. As members of this Parliament we have been afforded the great privilege by the people of Victoria to serve them and represent them. Public trust in our democracy is low, with a perceived lack of integrity across the board in Australia’s political and bureaucratic processes. Good governance and integrity are important to the people who have elected us. In polls taken prior to last year’s election, integrity in politics and governance was ranked as one of the three major issues of concern for voters. Voters want to see transparency and governmental accountability in decision-making processes at all levels of government. This bill before us would expand IBAC’s jurisdiction by broadening the definition of ‘corrupt conduct’. Currently a relevant offence is defined as an indictable criminal offence as well as certain common law offences. This bill would give IBAC the ability to identify, investigate and expose allegations of non-criminal corruption in our public sector, conduct that might include, for example, the awarding of non-competitive tenders for government contracts.

This legislation would bring Victoria into line with other corruption agencies across Australia, including the new National Anti-corruption Commission which features the ability to investigate conduct that is not unlawful but corrupt conduct. It is sensible reform in the public interest. We in Victoria have led the country in progressive reform like medicinal cannabis and voluntary assisted dying and there is no reason why we should not lead in terms of integrity, transparency and accountability.

We could not only expand the reach of IBAC, but we could consider broader integrity reform measures also, like a hard cap on electoral spending and open ministerial diaries. Corruption of whatever hue, if it occurs, only leads to bad policy outcomes, poor planning decisions, mismanagement of services, wasted taxpayer funds and the stifling of innovation and competition. If we put measures in place that would prevent future officials from straying across the line, then it is Victoria that benefits. It is a problem that has been a long time in the making and is not specific to this state of course. As we heard from the former IBAC Commissioner in the public hearings a fortnight ago, and I am paraphrasing, it is not one specific government; it has been 40 years of systematic erosion of integrity standards. As the Victorian Ombudsman has articulated about our integrity frameworks:

We have fallen behind in not having enforceable standards, transparent, accountable, enforceable standards for people in public life when it falls short of that high threshold for criminal conduct.

Not all corrupt conduct reaches the high benchmark of criminality, but it is still wrong and should be investigated. This reform would help IBAC fully realise its core function of preventing and exposing public sector corruption in Victoria if and when it occurs. Transparent and enforceable standards can hold our elected representatives and public sector to account.

Legalise Cannabis Victoria is supportive of any measure that advances Victoria’s integrity system and strengthens our political institutions. As legislators and public office holders we need to ensure public administration is conducted in a manner that is transparent and supports the interests of the people of Victoria. We are supportive of any steps towards enhancing integrity, so I commend this bill to the house.

Samantha RATNAM (Northern Metropolitan) (16:18): I welcome the opportunity to make a very brief contribution in summary. I want to thank every member for their contribution to this debate. It is a really important and long overdue debate and just for context, given the breadth of the contributions that have been made so far today, I think it is really important to go back to first principles and why this bill is before us here today and why we felt it was of such urgency that we needed to do everything that we could to advance it and progress it through the Parliament as quickly as possible.

This was a recommendation made by the former IBAC Commissioner Robert Redlich, who for years governed and had oversight over Victoria’s integrity system through his role at IBAC, a really significant body in terms of our integrity framework here in Victoria. Not just Robert Redlich, who has made an incredible contribution, but he has been joined by so many other experts in the field who have urged us year after year to improve the health of Victoria’s integrity system. We are a laggard when it comes to integrity compared to the rest of Australia. We have states across Australia who are now into the second and third iterations of their integrity laws. They are so advanced and we are so well behind that we have to do everything that we possibly can now to catch up if we ever want to hold ourselves up as being the standard for integrity right across Australia. We are so far from that goal. But we should not give up on that goal, because the integrity of our political decision-making systems goes to the heart of whether the community can have trust and confidence in the people they elect to represent them day in and day out. We are trusted with such an important role in their lives. If they do not have faith and trust in the integrity of our decision-making, what do they have left? We have seen year after year over the last few years scandal after scandal. Even within this term of this newly elected Parliament not a few months can go by without another scandal breaking, with a headline saying ‘Integrity issues’ or ‘Corruption issues now plague the Victorian Parliament’. Even if it is happening within one political party, it is a blight on all of us, because we are all tarnished with the reputation that you cannot trust politicians.

Politics should be a place that people can have absolute trust and confidence in. It is essential for any healthy democracy to have places of decision-making, whether it is local government or state and federal parliaments, that the community can have absolute trust and confidence in. We saw at the last federal election an election waged around the strength of our integrity systems – so much so that we had a really significant change at our federal level based on what different representatives were putting forward as their plans to strengthen integrity, which was woefully inadequate at the federal level. As a result of that, we have had a federal ICAC now progress through the federal Parliament after years and years of inaction. Victoria cannot rest and say, ‘Oh, we’ve got these things that we did decades ago’ or ‘We’ve got some plans coming sometime in the future’ and hope that no-one will pay attention to the big gap that is left in between.

This bill might seem simple at the outset, and it is modest in some ways in terms of how much it attempts to change the legislative framework. It is critical as a foundational principle to get this right, after which you build the rest of your integrity system. If you do not get this definitional work right, the rest of it does not matter, as we outlined in a number of contributions we made during the day. It is really important that we think about the definition of ‘corruption’. We have had integrity agencies tell us and tell this Parliament – plead with this Parliament – to pay attention to the fact that our definition of ‘corruption’ is just so limited. We are seeing so much misconduct, misbehaviour and corruption occurring under the watch of this Parliament that cannot be investigated by our integrity agencies because our laws are so restrictive. Our integrity agencies are pleading with us to expand this definition to bring us into line with what is happening in other states and now in the federal jurisdiction so that our community ultimately can have confidence that if people do the wrong things they will be appropriately investigated and sanctioned. Without those consequences we are going to have what is happening right now in the community. You ask people about what they think about politicians and Parliament, and they are like ‘Can you trust any of them?’ because all they see is scandal after scandal.

I find it really disappointing particularly to hear the government be so flippant about what has been put forward today, because they know, and I know that they know, this very well. If they are serious about actually bringing some integrity reforms down the line, which they have been promising for months on end now, if they are actually doing that work, they know exactly what this bill is about. They are looking at this very change, I am sure, if they are being genuine about their pursuit of integrity reforms. This is a foundational principle upon which the health of the rest of the integrity system is dependent, which is why we have to get it right and why we have to do it first.

I think we cannot rest any longer on promises until we see action from the government. We have seen today four integrity bills being either introduced or debated on one day of non-government business. That is more bills than the government is debating entirely this week in the chamber. The fact that they are all focused on integrity I hope sends the government a really strong message, and I hope it sends the community a really strong message – that this Parliament, those of us on the non-government side, are really united and committed in interrogating how we can improve the health of Victoria’s integrity system. It is actually now beyond a partisan issue when you have got this kind of unity, and I hope we will get support for this bill growing, as we saw in this chamber with another anti-corruption bill passing earlier in this day. It should be a wake-up call to government that this Parliament wants stronger action and it wants it more urgently. We have month after month put different reforms on the table, a range of bills, a range of motions, and those in the rest of the chamber are doing the same. We are really urging the government to not be flippant about the really serious work that a number of us are doing for the sake of Victoria’s integrity system and the future health of Victoria’s integrity system.

These are not trivial matters. These go to the heart of whether people can trust in us, and the scandals that we are seeing and the reports that we are seeing from IBAC should trouble us so very deeply. We have got acts of misconduct and corruption that have gone unpunished. We have people who are still presiding over really serious decision-making, who have governance over huge quantums of funds, who have not been appropriately investigated, and how can we hand on heart tell the Victorian public we have done everything that we can to make sure that we have as healthy an integrity system as possible if we do not pass bills like this today, if we do not get the foundational principles right? I urge everyone to support this bill.

Council divided on motion:

Ayes (23): Matthew Bach, Melina Bath, Jeff Bourman, Gaelle Broad, Katherine Copsey, David Davis, Moira Deeming, David Ettershank, Renee Heath, Ann-Marie Hermans, David Limbrick, Wendy Lovell, Trung Luu, Sarah Mansfield, Bev McArthur, Joe McCracken, Nicholas McGowan, Evan Mulholland, Rachel Payne, Aiv Puglielli, Georgie Purcell, Samantha Ratnam, Rikkie-Lee Tyrrell

Noes (14): John Berger, Lizzie Blandthorn, Enver Erdogan, Jacinta Ermacora, Michael Galea, Shaun Leane, Tom McIntosh, Harriet Shing, Ingrid Stitt, Jaclyn Symes, Lee Tarlamis, Sonja Terpstra, Gayle Tierney, Sheena Watt

Motion agreed to.

Read second time.

Third reading

Samantha RATNAM (Northern Metropolitan) (16:33): I move, by leave:

That the bill be now read a third time.

The PRESIDENT: The question is:

That the bill be now read a third time and do pass.

Council divided on question:

Ayes (23): Matthew Bach, Melina Bath, Jeff Bourman, Gaelle Broad, Katherine Copsey, David Davis, Moira Deeming, David Ettershank, Renee Heath, Ann-Marie Hermans, David Limbrick, Wendy Lovell, Trung Luu, Sarah Mansfield, Bev McArthur, Joe McCracken, Nicholas McGowan, Evan Mulholland, Rachel Payne, Aiv Puglielli, Georgie Purcell, Samantha Ratnam, Rikkie-Lee Tyrrell

Noes (14): John Berger, Lizzie Blandthorn, Enver Erdogan, Jacinta Ermacora, Michael Galea, Shaun Leane, Tom McIntosh, Harriet Shing, Ingrid Stitt, Jaclyn Symes, Lee Tarlamis, Sonja Terpstra, Gayle Tierney, Sheena Watt

Question agreed to.

Read third time.

The PRESIDENT: Pursuant to standing order 14.25, the bill will be transmitted to the Assembly with a message requesting their agreement.

I mention that former member Bill Forwood is in the gallery with us.