Andrews backs Harriet Shing, the Labor MP IBAC slammed for ‘disappointing shortcomings’

Daniel Andrews has defended Harriet Shing after IBAC took aim at her leadership of a parliamentary inquiry probing the state’s anti-corruption agencies.

Premier Daniel Andrews has defended Minister Harriet Shing as a “woman of the highest integrity” following a spat between Labor MPs and the state’s anti-corruption watchdog.

Ms Shing has come under fire for her time as head of the parliament’s integrity and oversight committee, which she has now vacated for a spot in Cabinet.

The group has been probing witness welfare following the suicide of a former Casey councillor, who was interviewed by the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission.

But the committee process has been criticised for cutting the feed during testimony by IBAC Commissioner Robert Redlich relating to the premier.

IBAC also wrote to the group expressing serious concerns the parliamentary inquiry was compromising their investigations.

A five-paragraph letter from Ms Shing is understood to have prompted the backlash from the watchdog by rejecting their issues.

Mr Andrews said he refused to get into a public debate with the state’s integrity agencies, but defended the probe.

Labor MP Harriet Shing is under fire. Picture: Andrew Tauber

“I would just make this point: a woman took her own life,” she said.

“Those issues should be the focus.

“Oversight is very important but I don’t involve myself in those matters.”

Mr Andrews also backed in the character of Ms Shing.

“She is a person of the highest integrity,” he said.

“I am so, so pleased that she has joined the Cabinet and she’s doing a fantastic job in challenging portfolios.

“She brings an intellect, a work ethic and a passion that is very, very impressive.

“I’m delighted to have her as part of the Cabinet.”

The Victorian corruption watchdog took aim at the senior Labor MP for “disappointing shortcomings” in her leadership of a parliamentary inquiry probing the state’s anti-corruption agencies.

The Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission said it had “grave concerns” about the procedure followed by parliament’s Integrity and Oversight Committee, attacking its former chair Harriet Shing for making a “significant departure” from procedural fairness.

Ms Shing had ignored IBAC’s concerns and failed to respond on multiple occasions after issues were raised with her conduct, the agency said in a five-page submission dated July 15.

Ms Shing in May repeatedly blocked State Ombudsman Deborah Glass from answering questions about Labor’s Red Shirts rort before the parliamentary committee.

Opposition MPs were prevented from asking questions about Ms Glass’ investigation into the rort because it was “the subject of an unresolved investigation by another integrity agency”, Ms Shing said.

Ms Glass’s report had been finalised and released in 2018.

During another livestreamed hearing in May, Ms Shing ordered a staffer to “cut the feed please” when Liberal MP Kim Wells asked IBAC commissioner Robert Redlich QC why Premier Daniel Andrews was privately examined as part of Operation Watts and Operation Sandon rather than in public.

Premier Daniel Andrews has defended Labor MP Harriet Shing. Picture: Jason Edwards

The committee’s livestream went offline for several minutes while members underwent “private discussions”.

IBAC said it was concerned at the handling of the IOC’s inquiry into witness welfare during anti-corruption agency investigations.

“We are aware that a number of confidential communications that were invited and received by the committee have been leaked to the media,” the agency said.

“Some of these leaks plainly relate to confidential submissions that contain adverse allegations and comments about IBAC’s conduct in respect of ongoing investigations and specific witnesses.

“Despite IBAC’s repeated requests to have the opportunity to be heard on the matters raised in those submissions, the committee has refused to allow IBAC that opportunity, either in a public or private forum.”

The agency called for a private hearing to discuss the issues raised in its submission, or otherwise to have the inquiry adjourned until an investigation could be made.

Current IOC chair Gary Maas said committee decisions are made on a “collective basis”.

“Any suggestion otherwise is simply wrong,” he said in a statement.

“This Committee is the relevant oversight body of IBAC, and has sought to examine the systems and frameworks that exist to manage witness welfare.

“The language in IBAC’s submission only further demonstrates why that is necessary.

“The Committee’s work is critically important, because no agency is beyond scrutiny, especially in matters that relate to the welfare of Victorians.”

IOC deputy chair and Liberal MP Brad Rowswell accused Mr Maas of breaking ‘convention’ by failing to consult with him on releasing a statement.

But IOC deputy chair and Liberal MP Brad Rowswell accused Mr Maas of breaking “convention” by failing to consult with him about releasing a “knee-jerk” statement on the matter.

Mr Rowswell said convention dictates that any public statement released by a Parliamentary Committee Chair requires consultation with, or at least notification to, the deputy.

“On this occasion the newly appointed chair of the Integrity and Oversight Committee, Mr Maas, has chosen to depart from convention as he did not consult with me before releasing his statement late last night,” he said.

“Mr Maas’s statement says that committee decisions are made on a collective basis. This should not be interpreted to mean that committee decisions are always made unanimously. In fact, they are not.

“The IBAC Commissioner was invited by the committee to make a supplementary submission to the committee’s inquiry into witness welfare. The Commissioner is well within his rights to express a view on the process undertaken by the committee.

“What is extraordinary, is the undermining of this submission by Labor’s newly appointed committee chair. This knee jerk response is possibly unprecedented and reeks of a limp political attack on a legitimate parliamentary process.