Thursday, 1 August 2024

Bills

Parliamentary Workplace Standards and Integrity Bill 2024

Jaclyn SYMES, The ACTING PRESIDENT, Sarah MANSFIELD, Bev McARTHUR, Samantha RATNAM, Evan MULHOLLAND, Ryan BATCHELOR, David LIMBRICK, David DAVIS, Aiv PUGLIELLI

Download page

Bills

Parliamentary Workplace Standards and Integrity Bill 2024

Second reading

Debate resumed on motion of Jaclyn Symes:

That the bill be now read a second time.

Jaclyn SYMES (Northern Victoria – Attorney-General, Minister for Emergency Services) (16:26): I have the honour of summing up on the Parliamentary Workplace Standards and Integrity Bill 2024. I do thank members not only for their contributions to today’s debate but for a lot of constructive engagement over many months across the Parliament, because as we know and in the words of the Premier, this is not a government bill, this is a Parliament bill. It affects each and every one of us, and I do want to thank those that have participated in ensuring that we have a piece of legislation that is robust and does what it needs to do for a modern, fit Parliament. As we know, this is over and beyond what other states have done, so we should be proud of our efforts in that regard.

I will therefore, rather than go through the content of the bill, which has been well canvassed by previous speakers, use my time to run through some house amendments and to advise the house of some further negotiations and words of comfort around the concerns about legal fees that many people have spoken about today. Of course that is an issue that government have been working to come up with a solution on, and I have got some information for the house in that regard. Obviously the house amendments that I am sponsoring today are a combination of ideas and indeed formal amendments that other members may have put up, so that makes several redundant. Therefore I do want to thank those that have had the ideas behind some of the work that I am putting forward today. We did consider many of the suggestions. We do want to get this right. As I said, some of those ideas indeed will feature in the house amendments that I am proposing.

We have accepted the Greens amendment which provides the commission with a function to monitor compliance with sanctions that it imposes for parliamentary misconduct and included two additional amendments to give full effect to the commission’s new function. This function will allow the commission to seek information to determine if someone has complied with a sanction that it has imposed. If the commission is satisfied that the person has failed to comply within a reasonable timeframe, it will be required to prepare a noncompliance report, which it must provide to either the Privileges Committee or the Premier depending on whether the person who was sanctioned was the Premier, MP or minister or parliamentary secretary. The commission will be able to recommend further sanctions in line with a finding of serious parliamentary misconduct in its noncompliance report.

Parliament and the Premier will have their own discretion to monitor compliance with sanctions imposed for serious parliamentary misconduct, improper conduct, detrimental action, failure to comply with an investigation request without a reasonable excuse and any sanction for noncompliance. If someone fails to comply with these sanctions, they may be referred back to the commission, as this could be considered a failure to uphold our parliamentary standards and integrity. Parliament may also decide to refer them directly to the Privileges Committee.

The commission must afford procedural fairness regarding noncompliance reports. This amendment provides that the commission must not prepare a noncompliance report unless the commission has given the person an opportunity to respond to the proposed report and considered any response by that person. A noncompliance report must include certain details, including the details of the commission’s finding that the person has failed to comply with the sanction; the sanctions, if any, that the commission recommends be imposed on the person; and any response by the person to the proposed report. The government house amendments provide for an additional amendment that will also outline that a noncompliance report must not include the following: information that is likely to lead to the identification of an individual referral or affected person without their consent, a finding or opinion that a person is guilty or has committed an offence, or a recommendation that a person be prosecuted for an offence. This additional amendment will ensure that noncompliance reports are prepared in the same way as the investigative report, and the commission must provide a noncompliance report as soon as practicable to the following: the individual referrer, if there is one, who made the referral for which an investigative report was prepared and the sanction was imposed; the person who is the subject of the noncompliance report; and any other person or body to whom the commission provided the investigative report.

The government amendments will also ensure that the bill clearly reflects the commission’s function to monitor compliance with sanctions imposed and to issue reports in respect of noncompliance. More generally the bill has been drafted so that all investigative reports will be tabled in Parliament, except when it is not in the public interest to do so. This is intended to encourage people who have had a sanction imposed to comply with that decision.

There is a Liberal amendment that has been adopted in relation to acting commissioner appointments. The government has accepted the Liberal amendment to the Integrity and Oversight Committee’s oversight of commissioner appointments so that the committee’s unanimous support is required before any acting appointment can be made. The bill already requires the IOC’s unanimous support for the appointment of commissioners, and this amendment will extend to that of acting commissioner appointments.

In the spirit of working across the chamber the government is moving these amendments suggested by the Liberals and the Greens because we do accept that they enhance the bill. The house amendments seek to improve compliance with sanctions imposed and the independence and integrity of commissioners, which are both important matters to the functioning of the new commission.

I will take an opportunity to just refer to some correspondence that has been prepared by the Premier and provided to the Shadow Attorney-General. I do thank the Shadow Attorney-General for his constructive participation and feedback in relation to the workability of the bill. As this has been raised by a number of members in this place and the other place across the political spectrum in relation to legal costs arising out of referrals to the Parliamentary Workplace Standards and Integrity Commission – and if it is okay with you, Acting President – it might be easier just to read the letter into Hansard. This is, as I said, a letter from the Premier addressed to the Shadow Attorney-General:

Further to conversations between the Government and the Opposition, I confirm that the Government will implement a policy to assist members of parliament with legal costs arising out of referrals to the Parliamentary Workplace Standards and Integrity Commission matters broadly consistent with the attached draft document, subject to the matters raised below.

The attached document states that the policy will be time limited. The intention is that the policy will be reviewed at the same time as the statutory review of the Parliamentary Workplace Standards and Integrity Bill (subject to its passage) and may be updated. I confirm that, notwithstanding any changes are made to the policy at that time, the approach of maintaining the same level of coverage for all members of parliament, regardless of whether they are also ministers and parliamentary secretaries will not change.

The draft policy currently refers to a deductible payable by a member of parliament when making a claim for assistance. It is the government’s intention that no deductible will be payable under this scheme.

There are two outstanding issues to be resolved:

Whether an MP should be entitled to seek legal costs where an adverse finding is made against them in relation to a minor infraction. The draft policy currently provides that a member of parliament will only be entitled to seek legal costs when the Commission has not made any adverse finding against them.

Whether there are any circumstances in which an MP should be entitled to seek at least some of their legal costs in circumstances where the Supreme Court has found that they did not have a reasonable excuse for non-compliance.

I confirm that the Government will work with the Opposition in good faith to resolve these issues.

This is correspondence to confirm that the government is indeed conscious of the concerns and working towards a solution that has the purpose of ensuring that appropriate legal costs are able to be recouped in circumstances related to the implementation of this new commission.

In summing up, the government has, I confirm, worked with every interested party on this bill. A number of independents have also been involved to ensure that the model is right, and all of the feedback has been thoroughly considered. Significant changes to the bill have occurred along the way following input from MPs. We think the model set out in the bill is an appropriate one to enhance the standards of accountability and integrity in our Parliament. As members have said during the debate, this is of course what Victorians rightly expect. The bill will do this while being true to the traditions of Parliament and maintaining role the role of privileges committees in the two houses in sanctioning their own members.

In summary, we know that the bill will establish the Parliamentary Workplace Standards and Integrity Commission to receive, manage, investigate and resolve allegations of misconduct by members of Parliament, ministers and parliamentary secretaries; establish the existing Parliamentary Integrity Adviser in legislation; establish a Parliamentary Ethics Committee; amend the Public Interest Disclosure Act 2013; amend the Members of Parliament (Standards) Act 1978, including to update the MP code of conduct to create positive obligations on members to create safe workplaces and demonstrate respect for parliamentary integrity; and make consequential amendments to the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission Act 2011, the Judicial Commission of Victoria Act 2016, the Local Government Act 2020, the Ombudsman Act 1973, the Parliamentary Salaries, Allowances and Superannuation Act 1968, the Public Administration Act 2004, the Racing Act 1958 and the Victorian Inspectorate Act 2011.

When it is established at the end of the year, the commission will be the first legislated parliamentary integrity commissioner in Australia with the ability to investigate the conduct, as I have said, of MPs, regardless of whether they are ministers and parliamentary secretaries as well. The legislation will promote the highest standard of accountability, integrity and behaviour from all members of Parliament, and as I have said before, this is the bare minimum of what Victorians should expect of us. We have said time and time again that the right to a safe and respectful workplace is non-negotiable, and we hope that with this bill we reaffirm that commitment. I commend the bill to the house.

I have talked through all of the amendments, and I would like to take the opportunity to formally table those.

Amendments circulated pursuant to standing orders.

Motion agreed to.

Read second time.

Instruction to committee

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Jacinta Ermacora) (16:38): I have considered the amendments on sheet SMA19C, circulated by Dr Mansfield, and in my view, amendments 11 to 18 are not within the scope of the bill. Therefore an instruction motion pursuant to standing order 14.11 is required. I remind the house that an instruction to committee is a procedural motion. I call on Dr Mansfield to move her instruction motion.

Sarah MANSFIELD (Western Victoria) (16:38): Contingent on the Parliamentary Workplace Standards and Integrity Bill 2024 being committed, I move:

That it be an instruction to the committee that they have power to consider amendments and new clauses to amend the Parliamentary Committees Act 2003 to require that all joint investigatory committees and privileges committees must have not more than half of their members from a political party forming the government and a chairperson who is not from such a party.

Council divided on motion:

Ayes (24): Melina Bath, Jeff Bourman, Gaelle Broad, Katherine Copsey, Georgie Crozier, David Davis, Moira Deeming, David Ettershank, Renee Heath, Ann-Marie Hermans, David Limbrick, Wendy Lovell, Trung Luu, Sarah Mansfield, Bev McArthur, Joe McCracken, Nick McGowan, Evan Mulholland, Rachel Payne, Aiv Puglielli, Georgie Purcell, Samantha Ratnam, Rikkie-Lee Tyrrell, Richard Welch

Noes (15): Ryan Batchelor, 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.

Committed.

Committee

Clause 1 (16:47)

Sarah MANSFIELD: Attorney-General, this bill is a start, but we are very aware that there are outstanding reforms recommended by multiple IBAC reports with regard to the enforcement of codes of conduct for ministers and ministerial advisers, including strengthening dealings with political lobbyists. These reforms are equally important as those in this bill. Will the government legislate to implement these vital reforms?

Jaclyn SYMES: I thank Dr Mansfield for her question, which is clearly outside the scope of the bill. However, we are working on lobbying reforms, and I agree with your characterisation that this bill is a start. There is always room for further integrity measures across Parliament and across government, and that work is always ongoing. The answer to your question is I am not in a position to specify the specifics because they are being developed as we speak.

Sarah MANSFIELD: Just to clarify that, if they are being developed as we speak, can we expect that legislation to come before this Parliament before the end of the term?

Jaclyn SYMES: I can only confirm, Dr Mansfield, that we have supported in principle the IBAC special report from October 2022. It would be our intention to do that this term.

Sarah MANSFIELD: The government has had over two years since the Watts report was handed down, and on the day it was handed down the then Premier was absolutely clear and unequivocal that the government would implement each and every recommendation. This bill confers even more responsibility to the Privileges Committee, but after two years you still are not implementing recommendation 3a, which is to dilute government dominance of privileges. What is the reason for waiting over two years to do what you said you would do?

Jaclyn SYMES: Well, Dr Mansfield, you are asking me for an opinion, pretty much. But I think, as you would appreciate – because I know that the Greens political party has been involved in a lot of the consultations – this is quite complex and there are a lot of views. We want to make sure that we get things right, and we also want to make sure that we provide ample opportunity for consultation. Times blow out when you are inclusive and have everybody’s views on board; there is pretty much a clear example with the bill before us today. But in regard to the topics that you have raised, they are in policy development, and we would like to consider taking everyone’s feedback on board.

Sarah MANSFIELD: It is good to hear that lots of different views are being canvassed on this. But the government did make a commitment to implement the recommendations of that report, and I guess we are interested in understanding when you will acquit your commitment to reform privileges.

Jaclyn SYMES: Dr Mansfield, I have answered that question.

Bev McARTHUR: Minister, can you confirm that there are confidentiality provisions for MPs under investigation?

Jaclyn SYMES: Yes.

Bev McARTHUR: Can you also confirm that the threshold for investigation is lower than IBAC’s, which means the commissioner can launch an investigation without having a good-faith basis of a finding?

Jaclyn SYMES: Mrs McArthur, I would draw your attention to the bill.

Samantha RATNAM: I wanted to follow up on Dr Mansfield’s question just previously, because I do not believe the question actually was answered. It was a specific question about when we will see those reforms to the Privileges Committee, given there has been at least a two-year time lapse since some recommendations were made. I hear that consultation is occurring, but the specific question was: when can we expect to see the reform of the Privileges Committee before this house and this Parliament?

Jaclyn SYMES: It is outside the bill that is before us today. It would be good if we could get through the bill and get these reforms started. As I have indicated, there is ongoing policy work in relation to other matters that are under close consideration and will be subject to ongoing consultation.

Samantha RATNAM: This bill is about integrity reform in this state. While you might rely on technicalities, there is something that needs to be provided to this chamber and this Parliament that reassures us that we are on a pathway to improving integrity in this state – a long-fought battle. At least we are here with this step forward, but there are so many more to go. For us to be able to support a whole tranche of reforms that are being put forward and also to have some comfort that the other reforms that have been promised by the government are coming, we are asking questions about when those next stages will occur. They are linked to what is being presented in this bill today because your government has been saying that you want to entertain some reform to the integrity systems. The Greens have been pushing for it for a number of years. We are seeking some assurance about those timeframes. Is it going to be one year, five years, 10 years, 20 years? Even a ballpark would do at this stage.

Jaclyn SYMES: Asking for a ballpark is not something that I am prepared to entertain. I have given you a commitment that the government’s work is ongoing. I think that it is important to note that this bill before the house today is the biggest overhaul of parliamentary oversight in the country. It is for a new legislated commission that does not exist anywhere else. It covers MPs, it covers ministers, it covers parliamentary secretaries. This is significant work. The way you want to approach this bill and how you want to vote is a matter for your political party, Dr Ratnam, but I do appreciate your involvement to date and your consultation on the bill that is before us today. My answers to your previous questions stand.

Clause agreed to; clause 2 agreed to.

Clause 3 (16:55)

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Attorney, I invite you to move your amendment 1, which tests your amendments 2 to 6 and 10 to 14.

Jaclyn SYMES: As I took the opportunity to go through the house amendments in my summing-up, I will formally in the committee stage move:

1. Clause 3, page 5, after line 29 insert –

“non-compliance report means a report prepared by the Commission under section 32A(1);”.

Sarah MANSFIELD: The Greens will obviously be supporting these amendments. We thank the government for accepting these amendments and moving them. We feel that they are an improvement on the existing legislation before us. As the Attorney said, she has outlined the different purposes of these amendments, and I did so in my second-reading contribution. We are very supportive of these.

Evan MULHOLLAND: The opposition will be supporting these amendments. I thank all parties for working together to secure this outcome.

Amendment agreed to; amended clause agreed to; clauses 4 to 32 agreed to.

New clauses (16:59)

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Attorney, I invite you to move your amendment 2, which inserts new clauses.

Jaclyn SYMES: I move:

2. Insert the following New Clauses to follow clause 32 –

“32A Non-compliance with sanctions imposed by Commission

(1) Subject to subsection (2), if the Commission is satisfied that a person has failed to comply, within a reasonable time, with a sanction imposed under section 30, the Commission –

(a) must prepare a report of that failure; and

(b) may recommend that one or more sanctions be imposed on the person as if the Commission had made a finding of serious parliamentary misconduct by the person.

(2) The Commission must not prepare a non-compliance report unless the Commission has –

(a) given the person an opportunity to respond to the proposed report; and

(b) considered any response by the person.

(3) A non-compliance report must include the following –

(a) the details of the Commission’s finding that the person has failed to comply with the sanction;

(b) the sanctions (if any) that the Commission recommends be imposed on the person;

(4) A non-compliance report must not include any of the following –

(a) information that is likely to lead to the identification of –

(i) an individual referrer without their consent; or

(ii) an affected person without their consent;

(b) a finding or opinion that a person is guilty of or has committed an offence;

(5) The Commission must provide a non-compliance report as soon as practicable to the following –

(a) the individual referrer (if any) who made the referral for which an investigative report was prepared and the sanction was imposed;

(b) the person who is the subject of the non-compliance report;

32B Presentation of non-compliance report to Parliament – Privileges Committee

(1) Subject to subsection (2), if a Privileges Committee receives a non-compliance report, the Privileges Committee must –

(a) consider the report; and

(b) in the case that the report includes sanctions that the Commission recommends be imposed on the person who is the subject of the report –

(i) invite the person to provide within 30 days a written response regarding the sanctions recommended; and

(ii) consider any response provided within 30 days by the person; and

(c) prepare and cause to be transmitted to its House, no later than 10 sitting days after the period referred to in paragraph (b), a report that contains –

(i) the non-compliance report; and

(ii) the recommendations of the Privileges Committee regarding sanctions; and

(iii) an explanation for any differences between the recommendations of the Commission and the recommendations of the Privileges Committee.

(2) As soon as practicable after a Privileges Committee receives a non-compliance report, a Member of the Privileges Committee who has a direct or indirect interest in the subject-matter of the report, being an interest that could conflict with the performance of their duties as a Member of the Privileges Committee in considering the report, must –

(a) recuse themselves from the consideration of the report until the Privileges Committee has caused a report to be transmitted to its House in accordance with subsection (1)(c); or

(b) resign from the Privileges Committee.

(3) For the purposes of subsection (2), a direct or indirect interest in the subject-matter of a non-compliance report does not include being a member of the same political party as the person who is the subject of the report.

(4) A Privileges Committee must not reconsider or review any finding of the Commission in a non-compliance report.

Note

See section 112 for general requirements relating to transmission of reports to Parliament.

32C Presentation of non-compliance report to Parliament – Premier

(1) If the Premier receives a non-compliance report, the Premier must –

(a) consider the report; and

(b) in the case that the report includes sanctions that the Commission recommends be imposed on the person who is the subject of the report –

(i) invite the person to provide within 30 days a written response regarding the sanctions recommended; and

(ii) consider any response provided within 30 days by the person; and

(c) prepare and cause to be transmitted to the House of which the person who is the subject of the report is or was a Member, no later than 10 sitting days after the period referred to in paragraph (b), a report that contains –

(i) the non-compliance report; and

(ii) a statement of the actions that the Premier has taken in response to the non-compliance report; and

(iii) an explanation for any differences between the recommendations of the Commission and the actions taken by the Premier.

(2) Subsection (1) does not apply in respect of a non-compliance report that is related to an investigative report received by the Premier under section 28(8).

(3) The Premier must not reconsider or review any finding of the Commission in a non-compliance report.

Note

See section 112 for general requirements relating to transmission of reports to Parliament.”.

My amendment 2 is in relation to acting commissioner appointments. That has been subject to consultation with the opposition and just extends the same provision so that unanimous Integrity and Oversight Committee (IOC) approval to appoint a commissioner also extends to the appointment of an acting commissioner.

Evan MULHOLLAND: The opposition will obviously be supporting this amendment, and I would like to thank my colleague Mr O’Brien but also thank the Attorney and members of the government for the way in which they have very maturely negotiated with the opposition on this bill. I think what Mr O’Brien has been able to secure on behalf of the entire Parliament is nothing short of stunning, and I know that Mr O’Brien has many new-found friends on the government backbench in particular in regard to assurances around legal costs as well. This amendment closes a loophole whereby an acting commissioner would be appointed at the same standards as a commissioner. I think, as I was saying earlier, there are often many comments from outside this place casting shade on politicians for always disagreeing with each other and being angry with each other, but this is one where all sides have worked very closely together.

Sarah MANSFIELD: The Greens will be supporting this amendment as well. Similar to the previous amendment that was moved, this was one of the amendments that we had put forward, and we are thankful to the government for working with us and agreeing to move this amendment.

Jaclyn SYMES: For everyone who is following along with the run sheet, in my error I was following the grouping numbering and not the amendment numbering and therefore I was inadvertently referring to group 2 which is not until amendment 7, which we all agree on so we can probably skip over that when we get to 7. We are currently at my amendment 2, which is a consequential amendment to the amendment that we all agreed to in amendment 1.

New clauses agreed to; clauses 33 to 40 agreed to.

Clause 41 (17:04)

Jaclyn SYMES: I move:

3. Clause 41, lines 1 and 2, omit “investigative report or summary report” and insert “reports”.

4. Clause 41, line 4, omit “or a summary report” and insert “, a summary report or a non-compliance report”.

5. Clause 41, lines 6 to 7, omit “or a summary report” and insert “, a summary report or a non-compliance report”.

Amendments agreed to, amended clause agreed to; clauses 42 to 44 agreed to.

Clause 45 (17:05)

Jaclyn SYMES: I move:

6. Clause 45, page 62, after line 13 insert –

“(da) monitoring compliance with sanctions imposed by it and issuing reports in respect of non-compliance;”.

This is the additional amendment that is related to noncompliance reports that I outlined in my summing-up, which the government has effectively added to the Greens amendment.

Amendment agreed to; amended clause agreed to; clauses 46 to 48 agreed to.

Clause 49 (17:06)

Evan MULHOLLAND: I move:

1. Clause 49, page 65, line 7, omit “5” and insert “10”.

2. Clause 49, page 65, line 9, omit “5” and insert “10”.

3. Clause 49, page 65, line 15, omit “5” and insert “10”.

4. Clause 49, page 65, line 17, omit “5” and insert “10”.

This would take the eligibility criteria and rules set out in the bill from five years to 10 years. This is an integrity measure to ensure that the appointment that we get of a commissioner is above reproach. If you are a member of a political party, if you are a councillor, if you are a lobbyist – if you are part of the game, in a sense – we think that threshold should be increased. One topical example: someone that might not have been a member of the Labor Party for five years, say, one John Setka or someone else, might be able to be a member, after five years, of this committee. We do not think that that is high enough, and so the suggestion that we have put is 10 years. You are well and truly out of the game, maybe. Once, younger in life, a bit more inexperienced, you might have been a member of any political party but left that political party, and you have later become a real person of integrity. I think 10 years is a valid period of time to wash yourself of your previous sins.

Jaclyn SYMES: The government will not be supporting Mr Mulholland’s amendment. I have been in this place 10 years. It is a long time. We think that five years is a more than appropriate level for eligibility in all the circumstances. I would add that given the Integrity and Oversight Committee effectively have a right of veto in relation to needing a unanimous vote to approve a commissioner, we think that that is the appropriate safety net, and if people come into the remit of that job and they are appropriate, we think that the IOC would be well equipped to ensure that somebody that is appropriate between five years and 10 years might actually be a good fit. So we think five is a safe spot to land.

Sarah MANSFIELD: We will be supporting this amendment to lift the timeframe to 10 years. We think that it is a reasonable timeframe. We have seen plenty of examples where there is a bit of ‘jobs for mates’ that goes on, and so yes, the Greens will be supporting the Liberal amendments on this one.

Council divided on amendments:

Ayes (21): Melina Bath, Gaelle Broad, Katherine Copsey, Georgie Crozier, David Davis, Moira Deeming, Renee Heath, Ann-Marie Hermans, David Limbrick, Wendy Lovell, Trung Luu, Sarah Mansfield, Bev McArthur, Joe McCracken, Nick McGowan, Evan Mulholland, Aiv Puglielli, Georgie Purcell, Samantha Ratnam, Rikkie-Lee Tyrrell, Richard Welch

Noes (17): Ryan Batchelor, John Berger, Lizzie Blandthorn, Enver Erdogan, Jacinta Ermacora, David Ettershank, Michael Galea, Shaun Leane, Tom McIntosh, Rachel Payne, Harriet Shing, Ingrid Stitt, Jaclyn Symes, Lee Tarlamis, Sonja Terpstra, Gayle Tierney, Sheena Watt

Amendments agreed to.

Amended clause agreed to; clauses 50 and 51 agreed to.

Clause 52 (17:16)

Jaclyn SYMES: I move:

7. Clause 52, line 14, omit “or 51(1)” and insert “, 51(1) or 58(1)”.

Just to repeat my earlier description of this amendment, this is adopting the opposition’s proposal to ensure that the IOC must be unanimous in appointing not just a commissioner but an acting commissioner as well.

Amendment agreed to; amended clause agreed to; clauses 53 to 57 agreed to.

Clause 58 (17:17)

Jaclyn SYMES: I move:

8. Clause 58, line 15, omit “The” and insert “Subject to section 52, the”.

9. Clause 58, lines 32 to 34, omit all words and expressions on these lines.

These continue as consequential amendments in relation to the noncompliance report.

Amendments agreed to; amended clause agreed to; clauses 59 and 60 agreed to.

Clause 61 (17:18)

Jaclyn SYMES: I move:

10. Clause 61, page 73, after line 2 insert –

“(fa) a function under section 32A (preparing and providing a non-compliance report);”.

Amendment agreed to; amended clause agreed to; clauses 62 to 82 agreed to.

Clause 83 (17:19)

Jaclyn SYMES: I move:

11. Clause 83, page 94, line 29, omit “reports and” and insert “reports,”.

12. Clause 83, page 94, line 30, after “reports” insert “and non-compliance reports”.

13. Clause 83, page 95, line 1, omit “reports and” and insert “reports,”.

14. Clause 83, page 95, line 2, after “reports” insert “and non-compliance reports”.

Amendments agreed to; amended clause agreed to; clauses 84 to 138 agreed to.

Clause 139 (17:19)

Sarah MANSFIELD: I move:

11. Clause 139, line 6, before “In” insert “(1)”.

12. Clause 139, after line 8, insert –

‘(2) After section 21(4) of the Parliamentary Committees Act 2003 insert –

“(5) Not more than half of the members of a Joint Investigatory Committee may be members of a political party forming the Government.”.’.

I spoke about these in my second-reading contribution, but to refresh the chamber, these amendments propose a uniform requirement under the Parliamentary Committees Act 2003 requiring joint committees to have not more than half of their members, and not chairs, from the political party forming the government. The purpose of these amendments is to ensure that the government oversight functions are sufficiently independent of the government of the day for effective oversight. They are there to avoid real or perceived perceptions of executive or partisan interference in committee functions. They are there to ensure the legitimacy and effectiveness of each committee’s respective legislative veto powers with regard to statutory appointments recommended by ministers, including the Integrity and Oversight Committee’s veto in relation to workplace standards and integrity commissioners proposed in this bill. They ensure the consistency and the membership requirements of all investigatory committees, and they also promote members’ obligations to undertake committee work in the interests of the people of Victoria and the Westminster principles of responsible government.

We all know that obviously a government cannot be asked to mark its own homework by scrutinising its own decisions. This is not a partisan attack on the current government; this is about having the highest level of integrity, transparency and accountability of government in Victoria, whoever is in power. I think it is incredibly disappointing that we have not been able to recognise the value that these sorts of changes would bring in terms of integrity, particularly around the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee. I think PAEC at the moment really fails to perform its function in the interests of this Parliament and in the interests of the Victorian people. This is really a missed opportunity to not reform that.

I think the opposition in particular could have taken this opportunity to reform PAEC and really hold the government to account. Instead of having to resort to putting up things like select committees to investigate individual issues when they occur, we could have used our joint investigatory committees to do exactly the sort of work that you are asking to be done by a select committee. That could be done through our existing committees if they were reformed to function properly, with independent chairs and majorities that are independent of the government of the day. You passed up that opportunity to do so on all of these investigatory committees. I think this was a real opportunity missed here for the Parliament. Instead we will see more select committees being put up to try and do this work, and you will have to resort to walking out of question time. But if you really wanted to change things, if you really wanted to hold the government to account, what you could have done is support these changes that are here before us. I urge you to still consider doing that.

These are reforms that have been long recommended by integrity experts. Victoria really is a laggard compared to other states and territories and other jurisdictions when it comes to the strength of the oversight functions of these committees. The Greens will continue to push for these changes to be made. We hope that at some stage we will see all parties recognise the value of them. I still urge all members in here to consider supporting these amendments because we believe that these are genuine improvements in integrity and oversight that this state is desperately calling out for.

Evan MULHOLLAND: The opposition will not be supporting these amendments, and there are a few reasons for that. We do agree, however, on the next one, on the IOC in particular. There is a lot of disparagement towards the opposition. I will just remind the Greens that it was actually Tim Read who said that the current Integrity and Oversight Committee arrangements, which changed this term, would not be possible without the Liberals. You talk about these committees needing to be independent of government. Well, it is clear after yesterday, when you sided with the Labor Party to cover up the corrupt dealings of the CFMEU, that the Greens political party is not independent of government and does not actually value integrity in this place, when you are willing to do deals to cover up the actions of the corrupt criminal enterprise known as the CFMEU. So I will not be taking lectures from the Greens on integrity when you were not willing to set up a select committee to see how taxpayer money is being rorted and fleeced by criminal enterprises on construction sites. I will not be taking lectures from the Greens on that, and we will be opposing this current amendment, but we are happy to support the following amendment in regard to the IOC.

Ryan BATCHELOR: Just a question for Dr Mansfield: essentially your argument here appears to be, and I do not want to paraphrase, that there is a potential conflict around the chair’s exercise of functions and partisan interests – you have talked about partisan interference in committee functions. You have said that being a member of the government is one of those instances where there is a potential incompatibility in being a chair of the joint investigatory committee. Are there any other circumstances that you think could give rise to the chair of a joint investigatory committee having a similar actual or perceived conflict of interest or an incompatibility or circumstances where there might be partisan interests that take over from committee interests?

Sarah MANSFIELD: Those are hypothetical questions. I am not really sure what you are trying to get me to answer there. Just to –

Members interjecting.

Sarah MANSFIELD: They are very simple, the changes we are putting up. We are proposing that if we have investigatory committees that are meant to be holding the government of the day to account chaired by members of the government with a government majority, it is very hard for that work to be done.

Jaclyn Symes interjected.

Sarah MANSFIELD: PAEC is 100 per cent about government accountability. It is the opportunity to question the government. These are investigatory committees. It is about holding the government of the day to account. We do not believe that a committee that has a government majority and a government chair – maybe they are doing a wonderful job, but for the public to have confidence in the functions of those committees, we do not believe that is an appropriate make-up of the committee. So it is very simple, what we are putting forward. That is the intention of the amendments. I think I have spoken to them at length, and that is the issue we are seeking to address.

Samantha RATNAM: I would like to speak to Dr Mansfield’s amendments. This may be the first time for me speaking to amendments saying that the chamber should support another member’s amendments over my own. I have made the point in my substantive contribution: if this place fails to pass these amendments, it is essentially saying that it knows that government-dominated joint investigatory committees do not work and that ministers should not be able to directly make appointments to independent oversight agencies without effective checks and balances, but at the same time it is only going to fix this issue for a few committees and not others. It will be saying that to uphold the integrity of joint committees, we must have a pandemic committee and an ethics committee not controlled by the government of the day, but we can leave the Electoral Matters Committee (EMC), the Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations Committee (SARC), the IOC and PAEC without the same levels of integrity. We will be saying that the Parliamentary Integrity Adviser can only be appointed where an effective non-government-controlled committee veto power over the appointment is legislated but ministers can appoint their mates to head other integral agencies, such as IBAC, the Victorian Auditor-General’s Office (VAGO) and the Parliamentary Budget Office (PBO) because they know their party colleagues that dominate the other joint committees will never veto these appointments. Victorians deserve the same standards of integrity from all of the Parliament’s joint investigatory committees. The only reason for not reforming all of them today is political expediency in its purest form, which is on full display in this chamber today.

Ryan BATCHELOR: Just to go back to the question I asked Dr Mansfield, what I am getting at is that not all of the functions of joint investigatory committees are about oversight of the executive. Some of them have other functions. In those circumstances, do you think that the same principle that you are articulating about partisan interference applies?

Sarah MANSFIELD: I think what is at issue here is that oversight of the executive is the most important function of these committees. There may be other functions. If there are issues around conflict of interest, they are dealt with. There are procedures to deal with those in all our committees, and they should be dealt with as they already are. This is about the ability of that committee to execute that important function that this Parliament requires, and that the Victorian public really expects this Parliament to be able to do, and that is to hold the government of the day to account. We believe that is the most important function of these committees. At the moment most of the committees are unable to do that effectively. We see that time and time again. Again, PAEC is one of the best examples of that. Large parts of that process are a joke. It is Dorothy Dixer after Dorothy Dixer. It is a large waste of time for a lot of people. It really is a waste of time. It could do so much better. If we had more non-government members and a non-government chair, I think we would find that it was much more effective. It would actually benefit the government of the day to be held to higher account, because we might avoid some of the scandals that we are seeing regularly because of that lack of parliamentary oversight. We would avoid things like select committees being put up to deal with individual issues because we would be able to use the existing committees to perform that very important function around providing oversight to the government of the day.

Ryan BATCHELOR: Just very briefly, I do take issue with the concept that there are not important oversight functions that joint investigatory committees play. They do have important functions that are not related to the oversight of the exec. There are important oversight functions that parliamentary committees play that are not related to the executive, and I think that we should bear that in mind.

The other point – and I will leave it at this – is that I think you have made a very good point about the importance of committee chairs not letting their own partisan interests get in the way of the way committees are conducted. You have also made a very good point about the need to deal with those when those conflicts do arise and when there is a conflict between partisan interests and the interests of the committee. I think it would be good if we all, in thinking about how that moves forward, committed ourselves to practising the integrity that we preach when those come into conflict in the future, or perceived conflict, and I would seek your support in adopting that principle.

Council divided on amendments:

Ayes (10): Jeff Bourman, Katherine Copsey, Moira Deeming, David Limbrick, Sarah Mansfield, Rachel Payne, Aiv Puglielli, Georgie Purcell, Samantha Ratnam, Rikkie-Lee Tyrrell

Noes (28): Ryan Batchelor, Melina Bath, John Berger, Lizzie Blandthorn, Gaelle Broad, Georgie Crozier, David Davis, Enver Erdogan, Jacinta Ermacora, Michael Galea, Renee Heath, Ann-Marie Hermans, Shaun Leane, Wendy Lovell, Trung Luu, Bev McArthur, Joe McCracken, Nick McGowan, Tom McIntosh, Evan Mulholland, Harriet Shing, Ingrid Stitt, Jaclyn Symes, Lee Tarlamis, Sonja Terpstra, Gayle Tierney, Sheena Watt, Richard Welch

Amendments negatived.

Samantha RATNAM: I am disappointed that Dr Mansfield’s amendments have not passed. It appears that fixing our integrity system and framework properly is still a step too far for some, and we must adopt a piecemeal approach to reforming committees. I move:

1. Clause 139, line 6, before “In” insert “(1)”.

2. Clause 139, after line 8 insert –

‘(2) After section 21(1) of the Parliamentary Committees Act 2003 insert –

“(1A) Not more than half the members of the Integrity and Oversight Committee may be members of a political party forming the Government.”.’.

I am moving amendments here which insert clauses into the Parliamentary Committees Act 2003 to require the Integrity and Oversight Committee to have not more than half of its members and not its chair from a political party forming the government.

I have separate amendments, which I will move next, which insert clauses into the Parliamentary Committees Act to require the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee to have not more than half of its members and not its chair from a political party forming the government.

While it is our preference that all joint committees will reform consistently to ensure the highest standards of probity, we believe at a minimum this committee first must be made sufficiently independent of the government of the day, given the weight of their oversight role over government decisions.

We note too these committees have veto or direct appointment powers with regard to appointments to our most important independent integrity agencies, including the appointment of the commissioner of IBAC, the appointment of the Auditor-General, the appointment of the Parliamentary Budget Officer, the appointment of the Victorian Inspector and the appointment of the Parliamentary Workplace Standards and Integrity Commissioners as proposed in this bill.

For Victorians to have faith in our integrity agencies, the process for these appointments must be legislated to illustrate they are protected from partisanship, whether it is real or it is perceived.

Evan MULHOLLAND: I rise in support of Dr Ratnam’s amendments on the Integrity and Oversight Committee, which lock in an existing arrangement that was agreed to. I will note that it was only agreed to to avoid our inquiry in the upper house, through negotiation. But indeed Mr Read, the member for Brunswick in the other place, did state that the current arrangements of IOC would not have happened if it were not for the Liberal Party, so that is something. We will be supporting the continuation of the existing arrangement.

Jaclyn SYMES: The government will also be supporting this amendment, but I do take issue with the description that Dr Ratnam has used of the amendment, in the fact that it avoids perceptions of partisanship. That is effectively saying that non-government members are not partisan, and that is not my experience. Nonetheless we will not be opposing this amendment.

Amendments agreed to.

Samantha RATNAM: I move:

3. Clause 139, before line 9 insert –

‘(3) Before section 21(2) of the Parliamentary Committees Act 2003 insert –

“(1B) Not more than half the members of the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee may be members of a political party forming the Government.”.’.

Firstly, I welcome the chamber’s support for the previous amendment. This is a really significant reform, something that we have been advocating for for a number of years, joining with the community, especially a number of integrity experts and agencies, who too have been calling for permanent reform of our integrity systems, starting with a non-government chair of the Integrity and Oversight Committee, which we achieved in a temporary sense with the appointment of a non-government chair in the last year or so. That amendment that we have just passed will now make it a permanent arrangement in legislation, which is something that is long overdue but certainly very, very welcome.

In that vein, and for the same reasons that the majority of this chamber – all of this chamber – supported those amendments, they are the same arguments that carry for why we should have a non-government chair of the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee, which is our version of the federal Senate estimates system. I understand that the government and the opposition will speak to this themselves, but they have indicated they will not be supporting this amendment, which is deeply, deeply disappointing. Actually it is very despairing. There are days in this place where the roadblocks to progress and integrity and transparency and accountability really unmask themselves and stare back at you literally in this chamber – to your face. When people are wondering why this state is plagued with scandal after scandal, you just have to look at the opposition to really sensible reforms backed by experts and backed by the community to understand why things never get better.

For the opposition to say this week especially, ‘We’re here to scrape out the rot; we want to clean up the system,’ well, if you do not support this reform you have no integrity left and Victorians can never trust a thing you say. After every single year at PAEC we have the media essentially laughing at the Victorian Parliament for the spectacle that is PAEC. We have the opposition going out year after year in all the years they have been opposition saying, ‘This system is broken; we cannot interrogate the government properly.’ But now that you think you might one day be in government you do not want the scrutiny applied to yourselves, which tells you about the integrity standards you are offering the Victorian community – which are low. They are so low they are meeting the government’s – the same government that you are criticising every day, that you get out there in front of the media and lambast, but you are the same.

So today, as my colleague so rightly exposed this morning, there is another duopoly in action, stymieing progress, stymieing what is in the best interest of the Victorian community, and we have it unmasked. We have the roadblocks unmasked in this chamber, and for every scandal that happens from this day forward let us remember this day when you had a chance to reform the system and you chose not to. Every time there is a cost blowout on a project and every time you are questioning an appointment on some government project let us remember this day, when you could have had a non-government chair and a non-government majority on PAEC, and remember that you blocked the reform.

At least what we have is on full display – what Victorians can expect from the major party duopoly, the Labor and the Liberal parties. ‘The sames’ we call them – absolutely the same. So no matter who is in the government chair we are going to get the same low standards of integrity and no appetite for reform. All Victorians can hope for one day is that neither of your parties are sitting on those aisles in the future. Do not worry, we are coming for you. We look forward to the day that we are there, because we will lift the standards of this place.

Just as a final point in conclusion and to take up some of the points and assertions that have been made about partisanship, let us be clear what we are talking about when we talk about interests and partisanship in the context of non-government majorities and non-government chairs in the context of this debate. What we are talking about is partisan power and how governments use partisan power to distort the outcomes and transparency on these committees. Over the last few years many in this place have talked about how the government have misused their power. They continue to misuse their power, blocking appropriate questions in those committees, shielding their ministers from interrogation. We have the commentary – the media who report on this year after year – saying, ‘Why doesn’t the Victorian Parliament get on with reforming this circus?’ Today we have seen the duopoly back in the circus, and none of you have any right to complain about the system before us after this day when you had the chance to reform it.

So let us talk about partisan power. The reason we are putting this forward is because the government have demonstrated to the Victorian public and certainly to all of us here that they cannot be trusted without checks and balances on their power, because they have abused it for years on end, which is why Victoria sits at the bottom when it comes to integrity standards across this country. And while the government says today, ‘Look, we’ve got a reform package which is really, really significant,’ well, it is coming off the lowest base. That is why it has to do so much – it is coming from the lowest base. I am glad we are catching up finally, but we have a long way to go, and I can tell you that neither of your parties is going to assure Victorians of the integrity standards that we need. So I look forward to this side of the Parliament growing in the future. With more displays like that, that is what is going to happen.

Evan MULHOLLAND: Dr Ratnam, if you like the system of federal estimates so much, perhaps you should run for federal parliament. Now, I have seen the Greens so many times almost at a deal. We have put up a proposal and then they have come in and said, ‘We’ve done another deal; we’ve seen a reassurance from the government,’ and then let us down softly. Well, in a similar way, we received a stunning assurance applying parallel similar legal costs for all MPs to be the same. It was a stunning agreement by my colleague Mr O’Brien that I am sure members of the Greens will be very happy about. Perhaps the member for Richmond will be very happy about that. So sometimes you have to make very mature agreements. The Greens have often come in here with assurances from the government and then folded on different pieces of amendments. I will not be lectured to by the Greens about integrity, given they sided with the Labor Party to cover up their CFMEU mates. You are complicit. We have a rogue criminal enterprise of a union fleecing taxpayer dollars and accepting kickbacks with taxpayer dollars, and you vote with the government to vote it down, so do not lecture me about integrity. Hypocrisy, thy name is the Greens political party.

David LIMBRICK: I would just like to speak briefly on this amendment. I know it is very exciting. I think that was some of Dr Ratnam’s best work, maybe, and I always like to see the Greens and the Liberal Party fighting each other. I will be supporting this amendment because I support PAEC reform. I would also like to make the point that although the Liberal Party is attacking the Greens for not supporting the select committee and the Greens are attacking the Liberal Party for not supporting PAEC reform, the Libertarian Party are supporting both.

David DAVIS: I just want to make a very brief contribution here. First, I want to compliment Mr O’Brien on the arrangements that he has negotiated in particular with the government and in parts with the minor parties too. There is something in all of this that we can all look to. But I do think Dr Ratnam’s contribution was intemperate and I do think it was unfortunate.

She well knows that on many occasions we have sought to reform committee structures. I only need to think back to the last Parliament with the pandemic and the issues around the pandemic. There were three initially but later four Labor-voting independents that supported Labor slavishly again and again and again, covering up the mismanagement of the pandemic and covering up the calls for a proper system and a proper approach to actually holding the government accountable. Massive power was being exercised by government – enormous power. Businesses were closed, houses were closed and people’s lives were destroyed, and the Greens did not stand up at that time. The other three that were with them waved through the government’s extraordinary arrangements that were the greatest assault on freedom and the greatest assault on people’s rights that we have seen in 100 years or more.

I had not intended to speak at this point, but I was moved to do so. We put forward arrangements to reform PAEC at that time and ensure that there were proper oversight arrangements from PAEC as one alternative, and even made attempts to get proper oversight on projects, but the Greens and the other three Labor-voting independents were slavishly, limpet like attached to Labor. They could not be broken free. It would be like trying to break a limpet from a rock. The truth of the matter is that in those circumstances I do not think it was right to try and strike the particular note that was struck.

Sarah MANSFIELD: I rise to speak in support of my colleague Dr Ratnam’s amendments that were put forward, although I am disappointed my amendments earlier, which would have seen more wideranging reform were defeated. I believe that at the very least we could be supporting these individual committees that we have put forward. I hear a lot in this debate: ‘Well, you can’t expect us to support this because you didn’t support that in the past or you did this.’ There is a lot of tit for tat here. This is above that. You have the opportunity before you to reform –

Georgie Crozier interjected.

Sarah MANSFIELD: Yesterday is yesterday. We never agreed to support the select committee; we do not think that is the appropriate mechanism. This is an ongoing mechanism that could look into all the issues, not just one issue that comes up but all the issues going forward, and you know this. You have an opportunity right here in front of you with this amendment to change something that would actually benefit everyone in this chamber. But if you had to pick who it was going to serve the interests of the most, it would be you.

There are all sorts of agreements that happen. That is how the amendments and different decisions that are made in this place occur. You can hold a grudge about that if you like, but you have an opportunity right here before you to make a significant reform to an oversight committee that would really go to the heart of a whole lot of the issues which we hear various members across this place who are not in government stand up and express concern about. We would have a much greater opportunity to prosecute those arguments, to ask the questions that we need to of all of the ministers, if we had a more functional PAEC. We have that opportunity here right before us, and I would really urge members to consider taking that opportunity. We will continue to push for it again and again, and I am sure at some point someone will see the interest in doing it.

Samantha Ratnam interjected.

Sarah MANSFIELD: Yes, one day the tables will turn and maybe this will seem like more of an attractive prospect. But it should not be about self-interest. This is about the interests of the Victorian people and holding the government of the day to account. You have an opportunity right here before you now, and I would urge all members to consider what they are voting for or against in this situation.

Jaclyn SYMES: I was not going to say too much in relation to this amendment – the government will not be supporting this amendment – but I did take issue with Dr Mansfield’s plea to the Liberal and National parties as to why they should support their amendment and that it would ‘serve you’. I think that we are not here to serve ourselves, we are here to serve the Victorian public. You are not actually arguing for more effective oversight, you are arguing for more opportunities for partisan pointscoring and the ability to frustrate the executive. You have tried to cover that and mask that with your claims of accountability, but I think it is pretty clear that you are calling on the opposition to support it because it will serve them. And then you are calling on the government: ‘Hey, when you’re in opposition it might best serve you.’ That to me shows your true colours as to why you want to pursue this amendment. I do not think it is a democratic amendment, and we will not be supporting it.

Aiv PUGLIELLI: I concur with the Attorney-General. This change I think would serve the Victorian people, which is, as my colleague has put, why we are seeking to move it as an amendment. I look forward to the day perhaps when the Labor political party stand in opposition. They might see sense and see why actually listening to Dixer after Dixer after Dixer in the PAEC process is perhaps not in anyone’s interests. We could have some real accountability with this reform.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: The question is that Dr Ratnam’s amendment 3 be agreed to, and this is a test for her amendments 4 and 6.

Council divided on amendment:

Ayes (11): Jeff Bourman, Katherine Copsey, Moira Deeming, David Ettershank, David Limbrick, Sarah Mansfield, Rachel Payne, Aiv Puglielli, Georgie Purcell, Samantha Ratnam, Rikkie-Lee Tyrrell

Amendment negatived.

Amended clause agreed to; clause 140 agreed to.

Clause 141 (18:06)

Samantha RATNAM: I move:

5. Clause 141, line 27, before “or” insert “, the Integrity and Oversight Committee”.

This is just a consequential amendment that was approved by the house.

Amendment agreed to; amended clause agreed to.

New clause (18:07)

Sarah MANSFIELD: I move:

18. Insert the following New Clause to follow clause 141 –

‘141A New section 50A inserted

After section 50 of the Parliamentary Committees Act 2003 insert –

“50A Membership and chairperson of Privileges Committee

(1) Not more than half of the members of a Privileges Committee may be members of a political party forming the Government.

(2) The chairperson of a Privileges Committee must not be a member of a political party forming the Government.

(3) In this section –

Privileges Committee means the parliamentary committee of the Assembly or the Council that is responsible for determining whether there has been a breach of parliamentary privilege or a contempt of that House or of the Parliament.”.’.

The Greens are proposing to amend the bill in order to acquit recommendation 3a of IBAC and the Ombudsman’s Operation Watts report that:

the privileges committees of each House be reformed to dilute the capacity of the majority in each House to determine the privileges committees’ priorities and decision making

The amendments propose changes to the Parliamentary Committees Act 2003 to provide that not more than half of the members of a Privileges Committee may be members of a political party forming the government and the chairperson of a Privileges Committee must not be a member of a political party forming the government. The need for this reform was discussed in detail in the Operation Watts report, which led to recommendation 3a, which the current government has previously indicated it would support and legislate. The establishment of the Parliamentary Workplace Standards and Integrity Commission in this bill makes the reform even more important as the bill proposes to confer additional functions to the Privileges Committee with regard to investigating and reporting. Once again, this is an opportunity to make a significant reform to our integrity and oversight systems in Victoria.

It may be encouraging to hear that the Attorney indicated that the government is consulting on this and that it is considering these changes; however, we were unable to get a commitment as to when the government plans to implement the changes to the Privileges Committee. Once again, there is an opportunity for the opposition to join us in making this change to these committees. I understand, at least at some point, there was some value seen in these changes. You were able to support these changes at least temporarily and have decided for some reason, we believe, to change that position. I look forward to hearing the explanation for that. But as we have said, the government has had two years since it committed to implement these changes. We have not yet seen really any firm indication of a commitment to an implementation process or timeline. We would urge all members of this place to support this amendment to undertake this very important reform so we can acquit the recommendation of IBAC and the Ombudsman in their Operation Watts report.

Evan MULHOLLAND: The opposition will not be supporting these amendments, as previously signalled. Sometimes you come into this chamber after receiving assurances on things, as the Greens political party do all the time, and alter your position on things, and I am glad that the government has committed to working with members of the Privileges Committee on a review on how the committee of each house is constituted and operates, which is really important.

I take issue with some of the language coming from over there about ‘old parties’ in particular. The Greens political party was founded in 1992, when I was three years old. It has been around for a while, and the Greens are an establishment party. It is why you see the Greens going further and further to the troppo left on supermarkets and all sorts of other stuff, because you have got the Victorian Socialists and Legalise Cannabis Victoria and everyone else nipping at their heels. You see them being even more radical. The Greens are an establishment party. Again, you might lecture us, but I have seen plenty of times where we have agreed on things and then you have changed your mind, because you have come in here and said you have got an assurance from the government, so just take a bit of your own medicine.

Jaclyn SYMES: The government will not be supporting this amendment. I have contributed to further work and things that will happen in due course after this bill. But just in relation to the Privileges Committee specifically, I was on the Privileges Committee last term, and I did not know much about privileges until I was on the committee. The current make-up of the Privileges Committee for the Legislative Council includes Minister Blandthorn, Mr Bourman, Ms Crozier, Ms Lovell, Mr Mulholland, Ms Shing as chair and Minister Tierney. They obviously have an understanding of what happens on Privileges, and as Leader of the Government, when I sought interest in who would like to be on committees, because that is obviously done across party lines, I am pretty sure that there was no Greens nominee for the Privileges Committee. As I volunteer, my understanding of the Privileges Committee was quite limited until I was on it, so I just do question whether you have really had the opportunity to understand the purpose of your amendment today.

David LIMBRICK: Mr Mulholland spoke of assurances from the government. I would like to ask the Attorney-General exactly what those assurances are.

Members interjecting.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: We are on the amendment, so we are asking questions about the amendment not about other clauses that we have already passed.

David LIMBRICK: No, but Mr Mulholland said that he received assurances from the government, which is why the opposition is not supporting this.

Members interjecting.

David LIMBRICK: Maybe I have misunderstood.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Did you want to answer that, Attorney?

Evan Mulholland: She doesn’t have to; it’s not her amendment.

Jaclyn SYMES: Yes, it is not mine to question.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: The question was put to the Attorney, but we are asking Dr Mansfield questions about her amendment.

David LIMBRICK: Maybe I will ask Dr Mansfield about any assurances. Maybe she can shed some light on it.

Sarah MANSFIELD: Thank you, Mr Limbrick, for that question. I think that is a very good question. I can only speculate as to what the arrangement was because that was not made explicit here.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: The committee stage is not for speculating. This has to be a question about your amendment.

Sarah MANSFIELD: As I understand it, there was a statement made earlier by the Attorney that the government has provided some assurances to the opposition – some indemnity arrangements that will be dealt with through regulation for all MPs. It will be similar to what is being proposed for ministers if they were to have any sort of misconduct allegations –

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I think we are getting into dangerous territory here in committee stage, because we are speculating about what was being said.

Sarah MANSFIELD: This was what was identified earlier.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I think that this question is not relating to the actual amendment.

Sarah MANSFIELD: It is in the sense that the government spoke to this earlier. Our understanding, as Mr Mulholland indicated, is that the opposition changed their mind on supporting this as a result of receiving that assurance. It is not an assurance related to privileges or any other change that would benefit the broader Victorian public, but it is an assurance about some things that will benefit individual MPs.

Council divided on new clause:

Ayes (11): Jeff Bourman, Katherine Copsey, Moira Deeming, David Ettershank, David Limbrick, Sarah Mansfield, Rachel Payne, Aiv Puglielli, Georgie Purcell, Samantha Ratnam, Rikkie-Lee Tyrrell

New clause negatived.

Clauses 142 to 189 agreed to; schedules 1 to 3 agreed to.

Reported to house with amendments.

Jaclyn SYMES (Northern Victoria – Attorney-General, Minister for Emergency Services) (18:23): I move:

That the report be now adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.

Third reading

Jaclyn SYMES (Northern Victoria – Attorney-General, Minister for Emergency Services) (18:24):

That the bill be now read a third time.

Motion agreed to.

Read third time.

The PRESIDENT: Pursuant to standing order 14.28, the bill will be returned to the Assembly with a message informing them that the Council has agreed to the bill with amendments.

Back to the top

Latest

Latest

Thursday, 1 August 2024

Parliamentary Workplace Standards and Integrity Bill 2024