Wednesday, 31 August 2022

Multicultural Victoria Amendment (Independence) Bill 2022

Second reading

Debate resumed on motion of Mr DAVIS:

That the bill be now read a second time.

Mr RICH-PHILLIPS (South Eastern Metropolitan) (16:26): I am pleased to rise to make some remarks in support of the Multicultural Victoria Amendment (Independence) Bill 2022, and in doing so I start my remarks reflecting that as a member for the South Eastern Metropolitan Region I have the privilege of representing one of the most multicultural regions in Victoria, a part of Melbourne which spans from Rowville to Mount Eliza, from Port Phillip Bay across to Berwick, with in many respects—probably contested—one of the two multicultural melting pots of Victoria, with a very large multicultural community starting through the Springvale corridor but now extending right out through the south-east, out through Clyde and down further into Cardinia. As we have seen in the 2021 census data, which was released in the last couple of weeks, the multicultural mix in that region is becoming more and more diverse year on year, and the proportion of people in that region who were born outside Australia as well as having family—parents, grandparents—born outside Australia is growing rapidly in each census cycle.

So there is a strong interest in that community in multicultural affairs, and there are some very engaged and strong multicultural communities, both formally organised through a number of multicultural community groups, particularly more recently established communities, as well as perhaps more diffused multicultural communities who have been longer established in the south-east and have spread further across the south-east over many decades, of course dating back to the immediate post Second World War environment, when there was substantial European immigration settling in the greater Springvale area. More recently we have seen immigration from South-East Asia, with a large Vietnamese community and a large Chinese community. More recently still we have seen Middle Eastern communities growing throughout the south-east. My own office in Dandenong has had a lot to do in years past. It is interesting to see how communities change. The Sudanese community was very prominent in Dandenong for a number of years probably 15 years ago before it spread elsewhere through Melbourne. But it started its early roots in Victoria in the Dandenong area before spreading elsewhere throughout Melbourne.

Many of the communities throughout the south-east have developed over the years, have developed community groups over the years and have come to have a good relationship with the Victorian Multicultural Commission, a relationship which in many instances has been built on not only engagement with the VMC but also receiving support from the VMC through grants programs. Those grants have been incredibly important to helping establish and grow many of those multicultural community groups. It is therefore important that there is integrity in the way in which the VMC operates and integrity in the way in which grants are provided by the VMC. That is the reason that this bill is before the house this afternoon.

This is a bill that was introduced by Mr Davis following concerns—understandable concerns—which were raised about the way in which the Victorian Multicultural Commission was distributing grants. We saw through the course of Operation Watts, which looked at some of the allegations about conduct within the Labor Party and some Labor members of Parliament and Labor ministers, that questions were raised about the independence of how VMC grants were being issued, that they were being issued with political favouritism, that they were being issued to groups politically aligned to the Labor Party and that they were not being given out on the basis of merit. That is of concern to not only multicultural communities but all communities in Victoria, so the purpose of this bill is to reinforce independence in the VMC process of allocating grants.

We know at the moment that the way in which the VMC is operating is not optimal. In fact senior staff officers within the VMC and around the VMC have indicated that the way in which the organisation is operating at the moment is not optimal. The secretary of the department has basically assumed the role of responsibility for the allocation of grants rather than the commission acting independently. We have seen the secretary of the department basically operating the VMC rather than it operating independently in terms not only of grant allocations but of how its budget is expended and how its staff is engaged, which was not the intention of the Victorian Multicultural Commission when it was established.

It is a commission with a board of commissioners that are appointed to oversee its operation with the VMC commissioner heading that, and the intention with the establishment of the VMC was that the chief commissioner, if you like, along with the other commissioners, would oversee the operation of that organisation, both in allocation of grants as well as operational matters at the VMC—staffing and budget et cetera. The fact that those functions now appear to be largely undertaken by the secretary rather than being done through the commission as was intended is a cause for concern, because the VMC should be operating independently. It should be allocating grants on a merit basis to the various multicultural groups throughout this state. The fact that we have seen the exposé around the office of the former Minister for Multicultural Affairs that came out through Operation Watts, the IBAC investigation, which called into question the independence of the grants allocation process is of concern. The subsequent reports that the secretary of the department is now largely running the VMC, which was never the intention of the VMC structure, is also cause for concern.

There needs to be transparency around the way in which VMC grants are allocated, and there needs to be independence around how VMC grants are allocated. This bill that Mr Davis has brought to the house this week is intended to do that. It is intended to ensure that there is independence in the allocation of grants by the VMC, as the Parliament originally intended when the VMC was first established. It is regrettable that it is necessary to bring forward a bill to enshrine the independence which was always assumed to be there.

The VMC has operated in Victoria for decades now, allocating grants and providing support to various multicultural communities not only in the south-east but across the state. Until the last couple of years there had not been questions about the way in which it was allocating grants and whether that was being done on a political basis. It is only with the conduct of this government that has come to light in the last two years through matters associated with Operation Watts that there have been questions raised around the integrity of those allocations of grants. Hence the need for this legislation today.

In many respects it is regrettable that this bill has been brought forward and the need for legislation to enshrine independence is being brought to this house, but the matters which came out through Operation Watts are of concern to the community. They are certainly of concern to this side of the house, as are the more recent disclosures that effectively the secretary of the department has taken control of the VMC and is making decisions around the allocation of VMC grants and it has even extended to controlling staffing at the VMC as well as the budget of the VMC. That is not how the VMC was intended to operate. If that intervention has been taken by the secretary because of concerns about the way the VMC is operating, then that poses a larger question and raises even more concerns about what has been going on at the VMC under this government.

The bill we have before us today is designed to reassert the independence of the VMC—frankly, the independence that everyone, until very recently, expected was there. It is regrettable that that independence needs to be enshrined in statute when for the last three decades that has not been necessary, but the conduct of this government over recent years has highlighted that it is necessary to enshrine independence in legislation for the VMC. Hence we will be pursuing the passage of this bill today, and we look forward to it having strong support in the house.

Ms TAYLOR (Southern Metropolitan) (16:37): First of all, I am going to tackle the matter of the McCann review, and then I will go to some of the specific elements of Mr Davis’s bill. In 2019 an independent review was undertaken by Mr Warren McCann into the administrative arrangements and functions of the Victorian Multicultural Commission. The aim of this independent review was to make recommendations to clarify the working arrangements between the Victorian Multicultural Commission, the responsible minister for multicultural affairs and relevant government departments. The reforms that emerged from the independent inquiry included providing the chair of the VMC with clarity around and control of the commission’s budget; greater involvement in staff appointments; full control over the commission’s communications, including social media accounts; clear authority to direct the director of the office of the Victorian Multicultural Commission; and full decision-making authority to deliver Cultural Diversity Week.

The report noted that provided these reforms were implemented, the current integrated model adopted in 2016 should be retained. Under this current model the VMC is supported by the Department of Families, Fairness and Housing (DFFH) through multicultural affairs, which sits within the Fairer Victoria division. What were the reasons given to support this inclusion? There was a general view that the form of structural support is a second-order issue compared to clarifying the role of the commission; an integrated model offers the best opportunity for managing the intersectional issues between the commission and the department; it is the lowest cost option; and the current governance structure of the commission does not lend itself to the sound management of a body fully independent in financial and employment matters.

The review made 20 recommendations, 19 of which have already been implemented, including through the development of a memorandum of understanding with the VMC and via a new ministerial statement of expectations. The remaining recommendation, recommendation 19, will be implemented if and when the Multicultural Victoria Act 2011 is reviewed. The McCann review does not recommend the act be reviewed, but it recommends that if it is, it be made more explicit that the skills potential appointees might bring to the commission will be a factor taken into account in the recruitment process. Each of the recommendations from the McCann review which can feasibly be implemented has been significantly addressed or acquitted. I think that is very important in the context of the debate that we are having here today on this proposed bill. The McCann review made clear that the management of the grants process, including recommendations made to the minister, is a departmental function and that the Minister for Multicultural Affairs has the final decision-making authority for all grant funds.

Now, let us go to the specifics of Mr Davis’s independence bill. The bill proposes to amend the Multicultural Victoria Act 2011 with a view to restoring the Victorian Multicultural Commission’s independence in grants and administrative processes. The member’s second-reading speech contains a number of inaccurate claims related to the government’s response to recommendations from the McCann 2019 review and political interference. The VMC retains a level of independence consistent with its status as a statutory authority. There has been no change to the VMC’s status as a statutory authority since its establishment in 1983, and as a statutory authority the VMC remains at arm’s length from government, with the capacity to provide independent advice to government about the issues and challenges faced by Victoria’s multicultural and multifaith communities. Consistent with the findings of the McCann review, the administration of almost all grants within the multicultural affairs portfolio sits with the Department of Families, Fairness and Housing. The government has worked closely with the VMC to implement the recommendations from the two reviews of the VMC that have been undertaken. None of the recommendations have been rejected. In fact 19 out of the 20 recommendations from the 2019 review are complete or underway, with the remaining recommendation to be completed if the Multicultural Victoria Act itself were to be reviewed.

I just want to go a little further to some of the suggestions that four of the 2009 review’s recommendations were rejected by the government. Let us clarify that. It seems to be a little bit murky, and I think it is important here and now with the debate on this bill that we get some clarity on this matter. At risk of being a little repetitive, I must say the review handed down 20 recommendations and the government accepted all of them. All have since been implemented or significantly progressed. It needs to be clearly understood that the recommendations 7, 14, 15 and 16 that Mr Davis has referred to in the second reading of the bill are not the recommendations of Warren McCann’s 2019 independent review at all. Rather, they were proposals put forward by the Victorian Multicultural Commission as part of its submission to the review. Of the 16 proposals put forward by the VMC, four were rejected—now, this is important—not by government but by the independent reviewer, Mr McCann. For this reason they were not incorporated as recommendations in Mr McCann’s final report. So just to be super clear, crystal clear: the four proposals—not recommendations—were dismissed by the independent reviewer and not by the Andrews Labor government as Mr Davis has falsely and expediently alleged. Therefore I call on Mr Davis to withdraw his false assertions and stop misleading the house. I mean, really.

Ms Symes: It’s a bad day.

Ms TAYLOR: No, he is not having the best day; this is true. It is continuing on a similar trajectory. So, where do we sit with regard to the review findings related to grants management? Among other matters, the McCann review also examined the management of grants in the multicultural affairs portfolio. The review found that the decision-making process was transparent and soundly managed and found no evidence that the process was deficient in any significant way. Assessment of grant applications was deemed robust and structured. The review stated that the ultimate decision-maker for grants in the portfolio is the Minister for Multicultural Affairs, and it made recommendations to communicate the department’s lead responsibility in the management of grants to the VMC.

The VMC currently only manages one grant program, the chairperson’s support fund. It has an annual and modest budget of $150 000, compared to $50 million worth of grants that the DFFH administered in the most recent financial year, and this is also a significant point. The McCann review found that the chairperson’s support fund aligns with the VMC’s strategic and operational priorities, and it provides the VMC with capacity to support matters of urgent need or activities that fall outside the scope of other multicultural affairs grant programs. As the name suggests, the VMC chair is responsible for the allocation and expenditure of these modest funds, and there is no involvement by the minister, her office or the department in its implementation, management, assessment or allocation.

Now, let us explore the importance of departmental oversight for grants processes. Victoria has one of the most generous and ambitious suites of multicultural grant programs of any jurisdiction in the country, and other states and territories tend to look to Victoria for best practice when it comes to supporting our multicultural communities. Across most jurisdictions multicultural grant programs are administered by state government departments. For example, New South Wales’s grants are managed by Multicultural NSW. Page 33 of the Warren McCann report states that they could not find evidence that the decision-making process is deficient in any significant way. The assessment of applications against established guidelines includes that eligibility criteria are robust and structured in such a way as to allow for participation by the commission and shared decision-making. I am further quoting. I will make this clear for Hansard; I will email that after as well. The report recommended that the management of the process remain with the department and proposed that the commission’s participation influence in the process be made explicit on its independent website.

The McCann report also notes that, from the perspective of good governance, it is appropriate that the minister is able to rely on the advice of their department rather than a statutory body, whose commissioners are often appointed as representatives of their community. Due to its deep links into multicultural communities the VMC is already influential in determining what recommendations go to the minister. The report noted that the chair of the commission is content with the level of involvement of the commission and, when invited during interview, had no criticism to make of the process. As the report notes, the VMC does not possess the capacity and capability to administer the multicultural affairs grant programs, which have grown year in, year out. In contrast the multicultural affairs portfolio administers more than 4200 individual grants. This includes rolling out grant programs, assessing and making recommendations, making and entering contractual agreements with each funded project or initiative, monitoring each funded project through its life cycle and ensuring milestones are being met and acquittals are completed to the highest and satisfactory levels.

If the oversight and administration of multicultural grants were to be shifted to the VMC, on the other hand, it would significantly constrain and hinder the commission’s ability to carry out its primary functions and duties under the Multicultural Victoria Act 2011. These functions and duties include advising the minister on systemic community issues relating to the adequacy of government services and settlement support and keeping the government abreast of factors inhibiting harmonious community relations and barriers to participation in the social, cultural, economic and political life of Victoria. This is a role that the VMC continues to play so meaningfully, and it has throughout the coronavirus pandemic.

In focusing his attack on the grants process, which itself has been independently deemed as rigorous, transparent and robust, Mr Davis has failed to realise that the VMC is indeed very much an independent statutory authority. I think it is important that Mr Davis take on board that the independence of the commission is ratified through clause 7 of the memorandum of understanding with the VMC, which states that the commission is not subject to direction in relation to its reports or advice to the minister that relate to the adequacy of government services, settlement support or service delivery to multicultural communities. This recognises that in the performance of this important function the commission acts independently and without fear or favour. Members can see, as we progress through the various elements and roles of the VMC as opposed to the department and minister, why it is so important that these various aspects are demarcated as they currently are, factoring in the various recommendations that have already been implemented in that context. I am going to leave it there; I just realised the time.

Mr MELHEM (Western Metropolitan) (16:51): I also rise to speak on the Multicultural Victoria Amendment (Independence) Bill 2022. I have listened to contributions from Mr Davis and various members of the opposition in relation to this bill last sitting week and today. There has been a lot of talk about grants, Operation Watts and various other things—the role of the commission and what the bill is designed to do. But then I thought to myself that I had better go and have a look at the bill and read the bill—it must be a very important bill—because I had doubts in my mind about the motives of Mr Davis. We all know, and we heard a bit about this earlier today, that it is just about throwing as much mud as possible and using whatever processes are in place to drive a political agenda, nothing to do with reality or the truth or to really make any change. I went and grabbed a copy of the bill. That is the bill: a few pages. There is only one change to the current act, the Multicultural Victoria Act 2011. It is basically a quarter of a page. This is what the bill says: ‘Commission subject to directions of the Minister’. That is the only change Mr Davis is trying to make. It is not about grants, and Ms Taylor talked about the grants. Currently around $50 million is administered by the department, not by the Victorian Multicultural Commission. The only grant the commission controls and runs is the chairperson’s grant, which is $150 000. Ms Taylor talked about the actual role of the commission as prescribed in the act. That is the only change this bill is proposing, not all this mumbo jumbo political stuff the opposition have been talking about in the last hour or so and in the previous week. The amendment to the current act is:

After section 11(2) of the Multicultural Victoria Act 2011 insert—

“(3) Despite subsection (1), a direction must not be given to the Commission by the Minister or on the Minister’s behalf with respect to any grants made by the Commission.

That is the $150 000 we are talking about, because the commission does not control any other grants. That is the only real change. If the bill gets voted up, that is the only effect it will have—the $150 000 grant, not the $50 million in grants which affect around 4200 people or recipients. The second change states:

(4) Any Ministerial briefings provided to the Minister by the Commission in relation to any grants made by the Commission—

(a) are for noting only; and

(b) are not subject to the Minister’s approval.”.

They are the only changes or amendments to the current act, and yet we heard about the mismanagement by the government of the grants and all these sorts of things.

My advice to the Liberal-Nationals is if you really want to be credible as an alternative government, start speaking the truth for a change, start talking about real change and real stuff. If you want to amend the act and say that the Victorian Multicultural Commission should be controlling all these grants to the tune of $50 million, which is currently the case, then say so. Bring an amendment to this house or make it part of this proposed bill and say so. Do not just play this sort of misleading—you are pretty good at it; well, no, you are actually not that good at it, because you get discovered very quickly.

It is really embarrassing again for Mr Davis to come in here and create this cloud and this smokescreen about wanting to change things, but when you look at the fine details, as I just did a few moments ago, the only changes this bill is actually proposing are basically that the Victorian Multicultural Commission should not be taking direction from the minister and any reports it may give the minister should be for noting only. There is nothing about grants, because the only grant is $150 000.

In the last few minutes I have I just want to repeat what Ms Taylor was talking about and basically, for the record, again state what the role of the commission is and what the current act says:

The Victorian Multicultural Commission was established … in 1983 and is now constituted under the Multicultural Victoria Act 2011.

As the main link between communities and the government, our role involves:

• identifying issues faced by diverse communities through consultations and our Regional Advisory Councils

• investigating and researching issues faced by communities

• advising the Minister for Multicultural Affairs on community issues

• giving recommendations to government to improve laws and policies through submissions

• developing partnerships to improve settlement support services

• helping diverse communities to access government services

That is the role of the commission. The role of the commission is not about granting grants to the communities; that was never the case.

In relation to what Mr Rich-Phillips said about Operation Watts, from my recollection and reading of that report, there was no adverse finding against a minister or the government in relation to these grants. It did not find anything. But that does not matter—those are only minor details, very minor details. All these grants that have been talked about are on the website. They are in accordance with what the law says, and they all meet the requirements. But that does not really matter for the opposition.

With the last minute that I have, can I just say to Mr Davis and his colleagues: if you want to make real changes and present yourselves as a credible alternative government, you need to start coming back to us with some serious and credible things. Make changes that are going to affect Victoria, not this smokescreen. This bill—this is it. I was expecting a bill with 50 pages and hundreds and hundreds of changes to the current act. It is only two paragraphs which have nothing to do with any of the contributions made by the speakers on behalf of the opposition in this place. It is a joke. And because they are a joke, with these comments, I will be opposing this bill. This bill should be rejected.

Mr DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan—Leader of the Opposition) (16:59): This is a very important bill. It is a bill that actually strengthens the position of the Victorian Multicultural Commission. It is a body that is regarded with great reverence by many in our multicultural communities, and any step that we can take to strengthen it is I think a welcome step. Anything that we can do to put it on a firmer footing is a welcome set of steps.

I listened carefully to much of the debate today and in the earlier period, and Mr Melhem seemed to miss one of the large changes. The purposes clause inserts that it is ‘an independent multicultural commission’. That is up there in the purposes, and that actually strengthens the position of the commission greatly. It means that all of its action, all of its activities, are viewed through that prism. So that simple but clear change does strengthen the position of the commission. The amendments also make very simple changes to insist that directions must not be given by the minister or on the minister’s behalf, and that ministerial briefs are for noting only, not for approval of grants and other processes.

I listened carefully to what Ms Taylor said, and she seemed to confirm again and again and again that the minister has complete control over grants that are made. That is precisely the point. She is actually confirming what worries us about the way the system has been operating. We actually want to see greater independence of the commission. We want to see the commission able to chart a more independent course. We do not want the minister intervening in this way repeatedly and directing the grants entirely, exactly as Ms Taylor indicated. So that worries me greatly. In effect in Ms Taylor’s contribution, and I invite people to read it, you can see that again and again and again she made the point that the minister controls everything, and that is not the way it should be. This should be a body that is able to chart an independent course, a body that is able to make things better for our multicultural communities without the difficulty of being entirely a creature of the minister of the day or a creature of the minister’s staff and advisers.

I listened carefully to others as well, like Mr Melhem. He seemed to be unconcerned about a number of the findings that were made in a number of these recent inquiries by the Ombudsman and IBAC, and Watts is one of the ones that I think is of great concern. It is clear that grants were being interfered with. It is clear that there were attempts to manipulate grants. The second-reading speech on this actually quotes some of those sections of the IBAC reports and the Ombudsman’s reports. So it is actually very clear that there is a real concern about the independence of these, and I think those reports made it clear that the process is not clean. They made it clear that the process is problematic, and that is what we are trying to remedy with some of these changes—an independent multicultural commission, a commission that cannot be directed in that way by the minister or the minister’s staff. These are very simple, straightforward, elegant changes that actually improve the administration of the multicultural commission.

Ms Taylor also talked about the McCann reviews—there were two of them—and I have those reviews. I have read them. There are some small redactions in them, but by and large we have clean copies of those, and it took a considerable fight to get those out of the government. But I do not think anyone can read those McCann reviews without feeling a significant chill. In fact the independence of the multicultural commission is not assured when you read those reviews, and that is one of the things that we are seeking to respond to. I read those reports carefully. I know Mr McCann. We all know Mr McCann. He is an erudite dude in his own way, but at the same time when you read those reports you are left with the clear impression that there needs to be reform and there needs to be greater independence. So it is in direct response to both of those reports that this bill has come forward, and some of the material that Mr Rich-Phillips put on the record today comes directly from very senior people in the sector. It is clear that they think the bill is a good step, they think the bill is worthwhile and they see the particular problems that are there in the sector without the independence that is required in the commission. With those short comments I commend the bill.

House divided on motion:

Motion negatived.