Wednesday, 31 August 2022

Motions

Member conduct

Mr DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan—Leader of the Opposition) (10:22): I move:

That this house:

(1) notes:

(a) the recent reports from the Victorian Ombudsman and the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission (IBAC), including the:

(i) Ombudsman’s report on their Investigation of a Matter Referred from the Legislative Council on 9 February 2022: Part 1, transmitted out of session on 28 July 2022;

(ii) IBAC and Ombudsman’s report on Operation Watts: Investigation into Allegations of Misuse of Electorate Office and Ministerial Office Staff and Resources for Branch Stacking and Other Party-Related Activities, transmitted out of session on 20 July 2022;

(iii) Ombudsman’s report on their Investigation of a Matter Referred from the Legislative Council on 25 November 2015, transmitted out of session on 21 March 2018;

(b) the Ombudsman indicated that she was open to receiving new evidence, should it appear;

(c) that a sworn statement by a senior member of Victoria Police provides detailed evidence that the investigation by Victoria Police may have been interfered with;

(2) requires Mr Davis to provide a copy of the sworn statement to the Clerk;

(3) requires the Clerk to refer the statement referred to in paragraph (1)(c) and (2) to the Ombudsman and requests that, pursuant to section 16 of the Ombudsman Act 1973, the Ombudsman:

(a) assess the material and, if appropriate, reopen their investigations; and

(b) refer to IBAC, as appropriate, under section 16E of the Ombudsman Act 1973, to assess the claims made concerning interference in the police investigation as outlined in the statement.

The community are now well aware of this statement. This statement was provided. I make the point here that I have chosen not to name the person who has sworn the statement, and I have done that on advice from a number of people, including people in this house and elsewhere. But I, along with a number of others, was provided with a copy of this statement. It was provided to a number of media outlets—

Mr Leane: You wrote it yourself.

Mr DAVIS: No, I did not, Mr Leane. It is actually quite a serious matter, and I am trying to treat it quite reasonably. This was provided to media outlets. It was provided to MPs. A number of MPs in this chamber have received the statement.

The course of action outlined in this motion is a very straightforward one. I would provide a copy of the statement to the Clerk. The Clerk would provide that to the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman would then be in a position to assess that in a thoughtful way under the provisions of the Ombudsman Act 1973. She has indicated that she is open to receiving new evidence. I am not a barrister and I am not a lawyer, but it is I think quite relevant that it comes through this house in a formal way and that the document is then available to the Ombudsman.

Some have said the document has been sent to IBAC. I have no way of knowing whether that is true or not. It may be true, it may not be true. The truth of the matter is that the IBAC do not confirm or otherwise many of their investigations—and I am not arguing that that is wrong. I understand the IBAC has got its own procedures and approach, and I am not in any way critical of that. I am just noting that that is actually the fact, so none of us have a way of knowing whether the IBAC both has the document and is using the document for its own investigatory purposes. Consequently the steps here are very sensible, practical and moderate steps.

I make the point that for those who have read the statement, it is a concerning statement. It does seem to have an enormous depth of evidence in it. As I read through it there were significant points that laid out in great detail processes that had occurred—whether it be interviews and steps that occurred, where evidence was contradictory or evidence was received in a certain way—and looking at this from the outside, as it were, it does seem odd that when the red shirts investigation was occurring staff were investigated in a series of dawn raids but ministers were not investigated. The dawn raids had very significant impacts on people, and I do not think there is any question about that, but there is a question about the difference—and I might say that a number of the interviews given by senior police on these matters do not in my view quite stack up. So in that circumstance I think what we are doing here is a reasonable way to have this information properly assessed by the relevant authority—in this case the Ombudsman—and if she believes it is appropriate under her act, she is in a position to refer that matter to the IBAC.

We are familiar in this chamber with the red shirts issue—and to be clear, the red shirts issue was the decision in 2013 and 2014 by Labor to use parliamentary staff and parliamentary resources for the purposes of their political campaign ahead of the 2014 election. They repaid $388 000 at the time of the Ombudsman’s report in 2018, but many at the time believed—and still believe—that that was not a satisfactory outcome in the sense that the money that was taken was wrongfully taken. And even though that component of it was repaid, it does appear that the architects of the scheme—you know, there is a whole set of questions here, but it is not my position today to go over the full detail of the previous matters.

I have referred to them in the motion. The presence of those reports in the motion makes it clear what we are referring to. At the same time this is new, detailed and sworn information. Those who have read it have no doubt about its credibility. I do not have any doubts about its credibility, but its position in law and the weighting of this as evidence is not a matter that I am able to manage myself or I think any of us in this chamber. There are obviously top-line things that appear to rankle and do not appear consistent. The early morning dawn raids and the ministers not even interviewed do appear to be an inconsistency. Again, this evidence appears to argue that there was interference in that set of steps, so in that circumstance the only appropriate thing to do is to refer this to the Ombudsman and, through her in this circumstance, to the IBAC. I do not want to go on here, but this I think is a reasonable and sensible course of action.

Ms TAYLOR (Southern Metropolitan) (10:31): This government has a clear record of investing in and strengthening Victoria’s oversight and integrity systems that function to investigate and expose improper conduct, corruption and police misconduct and uphold the integrity of our public institutions. This includes providing our integrity agencies with significant funding since 2014 to ensure they can acquit their legislative requirements. The Victorian budget 2022–23 provides IBAC with $32.1 million in additional funding and a $15.8 million boost in base funding for the Victorian Inspectorate. Total funding for Victoria’s three key integrity agencies has increased significantly, with a 92.7 per cent increase between 2015–16 and 2025–26, or an additional $45.8 million in funding, allocated over that time.

Since 2019 we have made a range of reforms to strengthen the oversight and integrity of our public institutions, including measures to allow IBAC and other integrity agencies to conduct inquiries and investigations over audiovisual links and embed modified service requirements; improving Victoria’s public disclosure system and streamlining oversight of integrity agencies under the new Integrity and Oversight Committee; providing our integrity agencies with greater budgetary independence, with budgets now determined in consultation with the IOC and annual appropriations specified in the Parliament appropriation bill; and other reforms strengthening IBAC’s powers, including the power to arrest a potential witness suspected of corrupt activity if IBAC believes that person is at risk of leaving Victoria. We have also delivered significant reforms to improve transparency and access to information for Victorians through legislative, policy and administrative changes. The Victorian Ombudsman and IBAC absolutely have the resources and the legislation they need to investigate any genuine allegation or evidence of improper conduct, maladministration, corruption and police misconduct.

This ‘new evidence’ that Mr Davis refers to has been communicated to IBAC. It is with them, it is with an integrity agency; if they see fit to act on this, then that is their decision. Mr Davis, once again, is seeking to do little more than politicise IBAC for his own gain. It is pathetic. It shows truly the low regard he has for the function of the Ombudsman and the work that Deborah Glass and her office undertake.

Mr LIMBRICK (South Eastern Metropolitan) (10:35): I will just speak briefly on this. I also was sent a copy of this document. I am aware of a number of other people who were sent copies. I concur with Mr Davis that it does appear highly credible, with a large amount of detail and makes some serious allegations. I have no way of determining the veracity of these allegations. I also have no way of determining whether the author of the document consented to its distribution, so I have chosen not to distribute it. I also have no way of knowing whether it has been sent to IBAC already. As Mr Davis has pointed out, they would not comment on that. I think the appropriate course of action is to hand it over to the Ombudsman for her to determine what to do with it.

It does appear to be new evidence. The dates on this evidence are quite recent, so I do not think that it is something old that has already been covered. It does look like it is new information or a new statement by this person, so I think that the only appropriate course of action is to hand it over to the Ombudsman.

Mr DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan—Leader of the Opposition) (10:36): In reply, this is, as I say, a very important motion. It is the responsible step. We think it should go to the Ombudsman. She would then be in a position to assess it thoughtfully and to send it to the IBAC if required.

House divided on motion:

Motion negatived.