Thursday, 13 August 2026

 Ryan BATCHELOR (Southern Metropolitan) (09:33): Pursuant to section 35 of the Parliamentary Committees Act 2003, I table a report on the independent performance audits of the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission and Integrity Oversight Victoria, including appendices, from the Integrity and Oversight Committee. I move:

That the report be published.

Motion agreed to.

Ryan BATCHELOR: I move:

That the Council take note of the report.

The Integrity and Oversight Committee is a joint committee of the Parliament established under the Parliamentary Committees Act to oversight the performance of Victoria’s integrity agencies. One of the statutory obligations that the committee has is to cause an independent performance audit of each of those integrity agencies every four years. This year the IOC engaged an independent performance auditor to monitor and report to the Parliament on the performance of IBAC and Integrity Oversight Victoria. Earlier in the term, on the recommendation of the IOC, the Parliament appointed O’Connor Marsden to undertake the audits. These are the second independent performance audits of IBAC and IOV since the inaugural audits in 2022. The purpose of the audits is to consider whether IBAC and Integrity Oversight Victoria are achieving the objectives of their respective governing legislation effectively, economically and efficiently and to ensure that they are complying with the legislation.

Overall the performance audit reports conclude that both IBAC and IOV are achieving the objectives set out in their governing legislation. Of the 37 indicators of performance for IBAC and the 39 indicators of performance for IOV, it is pleasing that the auditors found that the agencies were not failing to meet any of their performance objectives. The auditors did, however, find that there are areas for improvement. O’Connor Marsden made 18 recommendations to IBAC and 13 recommendations to the IOV, and it is pleasing that both agencies are accepting all of the recommendations made to them.

On behalf of the committee, I express our appreciation to IBAC and Integrity Oversight Victoria for their assistance in undertaking the performance audits and their cooperation in informing and responding to the auditor’s requests. I want to thank O’Connor Marsden & Associates for the conduct of the audits and Ms Julianna Demetrius for providing independent technical advice to the committee. I want to thank the other members of the IOC for their work on this; it was done in an incredibly collegiate manner. I particularly want to thank the work of the committee secretariat, particularly Sean Coley, the committee manager; Tom Hvala, the research officer; and Chloë Duncan, Whitny Kapa, Emma Daniel, Maria Marasco and Bernadette Pendergast for their administrative support.

In its covering report to the Parliament the IOC has made a recommendation for some legislative change to clarify some of the information-gathering powers that independent performance auditors have. There have been some competing interpretations of provisions of the act with respect to the provision of information to the independent performance auditors. The committee believes that the powers of these independent auditors should be sufficient to enable them to do their job and has made some recommendations to the government to ensure that those matters are clarified.

Motion agreed to.

 Ryan BATCHELOR (Southern Metropolitan) (09:38): Pursuant to section 35 of the Parliamentary Committees Act 2003, I table a report on the performance of the Victorian integrity agencies 2023–24 and 2024–25, including an appendix, from the Integrity and Oversight Committee, and I present the transcripts of evidence. I move:

That the transcripts of evidence be tabled and the report be published.

Motion agreed to.

Ryan BATCHELOR: I move:

That the Council take note of the report.

This is a report from the Integrity and Oversight Committee on the performance of Victorian integrity agencies in 2023–24 and 2024–25. The last one was an independent performance audit; this is an annual report of the committee on the performance of the integrity agencies. It is the main vehicle through which this Parliament has annual oversight of the performance of these integrity agencies, in a similar way that the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee oversights the work of government departments. The report is a culmination of a comprehensive review by the committee of the performance of the agencies during the two financial years that I have mentioned. The committee has made seven recommendations directed to three of the five agencies that the committee reviews, aimed at improving the effectiveness, accountability and transparency of Victoria’s integrity framework, including IBAC, the Office of the Victorian Information Commissioner and the Ombudsman. Overall the committee found the agencies have generally performed their statutory functions effectively and have been doing so in the face of more complex matters and significant technological changes.

There are some issues that are evident in the performance report that I think are worthy of note. There are some ongoing issues with the way that IBAC is reporting its performance, particularly on complex cases. The committee has repeatedly made some recommendations on the need for IBAC to develop better performance indicators for case complexity and to report those publicly. There have been some issues with the timeliness of some of the performance of IBAC’s functions. The committee has made some recommendations about how the Office of the Victorian Information Commissioner is funded; currently it is funded through appropriation through a department. The committee has recommended it be brought into line with other integrity agencies, with direct funding through parliamentary appropriation. The other is that the Victorian Ombudsman raised some significant concerns that the volume of required investigations under the public interest disclosure framework and as a result of parliamentary referrals has meant that it has largely been unable to undertake its own-motion investigations in the last two years. Particularly in one of the financial years it was unable to take any investigations of its own motion because of the operation of the Public Interest Disclosures Act 2012 and of referrals from the Parliament. The Ombudsman has requested, and the committee agrees, that the Parliament should provide it with some greater flexibility in dealing with public interest disclosure complaints so that it can ensure that it is dealing with matters that are raised from the general public as well, which is the fundamental of its work.

The other thing I will just mention briefly is that during the course of our hearings this year IBAC took quite an extraordinary step of apologising for some of its past conduct, particularly with respect to the conduct highlighted by what is now known as Integrity Oversight Victoria with respect to the handling of Emma’s case, the second special report ever tabled by IOV into IBAC – the handling of complaints made by a victim-survivor of police-perpetrated family violence. Dr Jana Katerinskaja at a public hearing outed herself as Emma and detailed the significant threats to her own personal safety due to the failings of the handling of her case by IBAC and by Victoria Police. The Chief Integrity Inspector found that there were serious failings in the case, and upon reflection the current Commissioner also found IBAC’s response at the time to have serious failings.

It was put to the committee by the former IBAC Commissioner that the committee did not have jurisdiction to hear these complaints. This report I think quite plainly makes it clear that the committee does have the power to investigate reports from Integrity Oversight Victoria, and that is one of its statutory functions. The former Commissioner also expressed his view to the committee that the apology should not have been allowed to take place. The committee has put on record through this report its view that it was entirely appropriate for IBAC to apologise for its prior errors and in fact it is in keeping with the best practice guide recommended by the Victorian Ombudsman in terms of the way that apologies should be used to redress errors in the past. No-one is above accountability and no-one is above their actions being scrutinised, and I think it was a big step for IBAC to admit that it got it wrong and to make the public apology that it did earlier this year. It was important for the committee to pursue these issues, and I know that all members of the committee were very supportive of that. What it demonstrates is that everyone is subject to oversight and accountability in the state of Victoria.

 David DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan) (09:45):(By leave) This report, Performance of the Victorian Integrity Agencies 2023/24 and 2024/25, is an important report. I am not sure that it all gets to grips with some of the key structural problems that are there for the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission. I welcome its focus on timeliness. Certainly I have found, when I have made referrals to IBAC, that the process has been very slow indeed. But that is in part because of resourcing, and I think there is a genuine resourcing issue for IBAC and the Ombudsman. I think it is important here to also pick out – and I am conscious I only have a minute or two – the Victorian information commissioner section and recommendation 4:

That the Victorian Government directly fund the Office of the Victorian Information Commissioner through Parliament’s appropriation, similar to the funding arrangements for the Independent Broad‑based Anti‑corruption Commission, Integrity Oversight Victoria …

I think there is a strong argument for that, and I think the information commissioner has been progressively starved by this government because it wants to block the release of information.

Just returning to the point about public interest disclosures and the speed with which they are dealt with, that is a challenge. I do not think the committee, with respect, has got a full grip on the need of IBAC to have proper and adequate resourcing to achieve that –

Ryan Batchelor interjected.

David DAVIS: No, no. I think there are a number of points that are made that are worthy in the report. I am not criticising the report per se; I am just saying that there is also a context there. This just shows very clearly why the opposition was calling for a royal commission on the deep corruption in the state. That deep corruption needs a royal commission to get to the bottom of it. There is no chance that IBAC could get to the bottom of it, and the royal commission will be needed. It has got to have proper terms of reference – (Time expired)

Motion agreed to.