Patrick Carlyon: It seems political imperatives trump the pursuit of inconvenient truths in Victoria

The latest IBAC saga shows us the Andrews government is only worried about the politics of covering backsides.

It sounds so familiar.

A Labor MP heading a state parliamentary committee which keeps veering into alleged ALP misdoings keeps shutting down lines of inquiry.

The Integrity and Oversight Committee is looking into the treatment of witnesses by anti-corruption agencies.

It can and should be hearing the observations and conclusions of investigators who have examined the so-called Red Shirts affair as well as allegations of ALP branch-stacking.

There’s fire, here. In 2018, Ombudsman Deborah Glass found that the ALP’s systemic usage of taxpayer-funded staff for electoral gain was inappropriate.

As for the branch-stacking allegations, several disaffected ALP MPs have lined up to describe the details of branch-stacking.

Premier Daniel Andrews has twice been called to give confidential evidence to IBAC.

When the committee’s questioning turned to this last week, its chair, the ALP’s Harriet Shing, pulled the plug on the livestream feed.

Citing legal necessities, she has deemed that some details must be hidden from open scrutiny.

Robert Redlich, the commissioner of the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission, says nothing precludes the frank airings of some allegations in question at this time.

Harriet Shing with Premier Daniel Andrews. Picture: Jason Edwards

He wants to reappear at the committee inquiry – but has so far been rejected.

Shing rejects the suggestion of any link. But no one can dispute the Andrews Government’s persistent unwillingness to bow to institutional processes of accountability.

It seems as though political imperatives – call it damage control – often appears to trump the pursuit of inconvenient truths in Victoria. This longer culture of covering up seems more sinister as the perceived misdoings.

Remember when Andrews wouldn’t speak about the hotel quarantine policy choices that directly led to more than 800 avoidable deaths?

And how he, his ministers, and the heads of the bureaucracy couldn’t recall or did not know how such a dumb-ass policy came to be?

Daniel Andrews wouldn’t speak about hotel quarantine policy choices. Picture: Brendan Beckett

His constant refrain – “not running a commentary” – reeked of political posturing.

He should have been running a commentary because 800 grieving families needed to know why their loved ones were no longer here. Instead, their needs bowed to the politics of covering backsides.

Andrews didn’t want to talk about the truth, because the truth was so appalling. So he set up an inquiry. Then hid behind it in public view.

Shing heads a committee about integrity and oversight. But what can the committee achieve when its very approach brings into question the objectivity of the committee’s oversight charter?