IBAC chief wanted Andrews corruption probe to be heard in public

Victoria’s anti-corruption chief Robert Redlich says a secret investigation that involved Premier Daniel Andrews being interviewed over his promised $3.4 million payments to a union ought to have been held in public.

But laws restricting the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission’s power to question witnesses publicly meant Operation Daintree and the premier’s role in it remained confidential until some details were reported by The Age last week.

Premier Daniel Andrews on the campaign trail at Bayswater on Thursday.Credit: Eddie Jim

Asked if IBAC should have openly questioned witnesses in Operation Daintree, Redlich said: “All things being equal, it would have been preferable if those matters had been capable of being explored in public.”

“There will always be questions about whether or not, if one holds a public hearing, there is a sufficiently grave risk that reputations will be unfairly damaged. One shouldn’t engage in a public hearing unless one is satisfied that that is not going to occur and, similarly, it is not going to result in unfair damage to a witness’ welfare.

“But I think in both of those cases [Operation Watts, which focused on sacked Labor minister Adem Somyurek, and Operation Daintree], it would have been better had we been able to conduct a public hearing.”

Under laws introduced by the Andrews government in 2019, IBAC is required to have reasonable grounds to believe “serious or systemic corrupt conduct” has taken place before it holds a public hearing. This barrier came on top of the requirement in the legislation for “exceptional circumstances”.

With about a month remaining in his term, Redlich argued at a Friday forum on government integrity that the risk of non-criminal public corruption was higher than ever.

He suggested this was largely due to the concentration of power in the offices of prime ministers and premiers, the “ever-increasing” influence this afforded unelected advisers, and the consequent “diminution” of expert public servants.

“What is the consequence of concentration of government around a leader? ... What it means is that in the area of what I call soft or grey corruption, there are much greater risks today than ever before,” he said.

The Age has previously reported about the centralisation of power in the premier’s department under this government, how the premier’s private office has grown from 20 people under the former Liberal government to 90 now, with a further 287 ministerial advisers across the government.

Victorian Opposition Leader Matthew Guy.Credit: Joe Armao

Age readers surveyed as part of our Victoria’s Agenda project have expressed concern about the state’s anti-corruption regime. “This is a critical question. It is clear that IBAC is not as powerful or well resourced as the NSW ICAC. It needs to be,” said one reader, while another said: “Can you ensure we have an adequate and vigorous anti- corruption body which is independent from government”?

Andrews has spent the week batting away questions about Operation Daintree, the probe into pledges made to the Health Workers Union shortly before the 2018 election. IBAC last week won a Supreme Court injunction to prohibit The Age publishing information about IBAC’s draft findings in Operation Daintree.

However, sources with knowledge of events have said IBAC closely scrutinised the actions of a group of government officials, including Andrews, during the investigation, and that a key focus of events was a meeting between Andrews and the union leader, at which the premier is alleged to have promised a $2.2 million election commitment. In the three other integrity inquiries in which Andrews has been questioned he was not a central figure.

The Supreme Court agreed with IBAC’s argument that the public interest in reporting on the investigation before Victorians voted in the state election was outweighed by the need to allow witnesses, including Andrews, to respond to preliminary findings.

Asked by The Age this week whether the threshold for public inquiries should be lowered, Andrews said: “it’s not binary – there’s a fair bit of room for interpretation [by IBAC on whether to hold a public hearing].” His office did not respond to further emailed questions late on Friday.

However, a government spokesperson told The Age: “We’re undertaking the most significant overhaul of parliamentary oversight in the country, including strengthening lobbying rules to stamp out influence.”

“IBAC has broad powers to effectively conduct its investigations and the resources it needs to undertake that work,” the spokesperson said.

Opposition Leader Matthew Guy, who has faced a series of his own scandals, promised to allow more public hearings if elected.

Former Supreme Court judge Stephen Charles – who also spoke at the Centre for Public Integrity and Melbourne University forum – said fewer than 10 public hearings had been held in Victoria compared with more than 45 at NSW’s corruption commission over the same period.

The NSW body has been criticised by some politicians and commentators for conducting hearings that unfairly damaged innocent people, but Charles said Victoria’s laws “severely limited” its ability to fight corruption.

Veteran Labor minister Martin Pakula.Credit: Justin McManus

Redlich and Charles argued that the need for IBAC to suspect criminality before launching an investigation inhibited its ability to examine other misuses of power that did not involve criminality, including conflicts of interest, improper quid pro quos and pork-barelling. These forms of wrongdoing were elevated onto the national stage during the Morrison government’s term in office and fuelled the rise of progressive campaigns on “integrity”.

Redlich also addressed the growing view of some involved in politics who question the power of corruption agencies. One of the few politicians to air this view publicly was retiring Labor minister Martin Pakula who, in his valedictory speech in September, lamented the “seemingly relentless trend toward expanding the definition of what is considered improper and simultaneously narrowing the prerogative of the electorate to be the arbiters of such conduct.”

He warned against “lawyers and judges [becoming] the final arbiters of the appropriateness of political decisions” and encouraged MPs to “guard your sovereignty jealously [and] never forget that it is this arm of government that is formed by the will of voters.”

Redlich said that the 1987 Fitzgerald Inquiry into Queensland police corruption’s focus on criminality was limiting.

“We all know what black, or crime corruption, is; when someone receives money in a paper bag when one is engaging in fraudulent activity. And one might ask: do we need integrity agencies if all we are going to pursue is criminal activity, why aren’t our police forces capable of discharging that role?

“The short answer is: they are. So, what is the real purpose of integrity agencies? It is, I venture to suggest, that we must have the capacity to fully explore the range of soft of grey corruption.”