NewsBite

Advertisement

This was published 1 year ago

Victorian Liberals use legal loophole to stall donation investigations

By Paul Sakkal and Josh Gordon
Read more on integrity in government.See all 27 stories.

The Liberal Party has used a legal loophole to stall a probe into leader Matthew Guy and his former chief of staff, the outcome of which Victorians will not learn until after the state election.

Two sources familiar with the party’s legal approach, speaking anonymously because the investigation is confidential, said lawyers had requested a review into orders of Victorian Electoral Commission (VEC) investigators, causing the investigation to drag out by months.

Mitch Catlin was the former chief of staff to Victorian Opposition Leader Matthew Guy (inset).

Mitch Catlin was the former chief of staff to Victorian Opposition Leader Matthew Guy (inset).Credit: The Age

The same powerful, but perfectly legal, delaying tactic has also been used in a separate VEC probe into anonymous donations made to the opposition after an online “Ditch Dan” push for money.

It allows parties to ask for a legal review any time the VEC orders they hand over documents or other information, which can lengthen the process by eight weeks even if the original order is upheld after review.

The commission has spent three months investigating whether laws were breached when Guy’s former adviser, Mitch Catlin, requested a wealthy donor pay $100,000 to his private business.

Catlin described the scheme as an “agreement” in an email sent to Guy’s Hotmail account, which was publicised by The Age in August, prompting Catlin to resign.

Victorian Opposition Leader Matthew Guy on the campaign trail this week.

Victorian Opposition Leader Matthew Guy on the campaign trail this week.Credit: Mark Stewart

Guy’s implication in the donor scandal has quelled his ability to prosecute Premier Daniel Andrews over the extent of his involvement in four corruption inquiries.

The latest of those inquiries by the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission was also revealed by this masthead and is focussed on the role of Andrews and other officials in granting a contract worth millions of dollars to a trade union.

Advertisement
.

.Credit: Illustration: Matt Golding

When asked on Monday why Catlin only resigned once the proposed arrangement was made public, Guy said: “I’m not going to go into all of this.”

“The VEC is having a look into it and when they come back to me with some conclusions, we’ll have a chat about it,” he told ABC radio host Raf Epstein, repeatedly brushing off questions and leaning on an approach – which Andrews has been criticised for – to avoid discussing live inquiries.

Guy claimed the VEC investigation of his party did not involve alleged criminal behaviour, which he said, “contrasts with a government with four … corruption investigations”.

“There is a big difference between the electoral commission and the corruption commission,” he said.

On Tuesday, a Liberal Party campaign spokesperson said both Guy and the party “have fully co-operated with the VEC, and all documentation requested was provided some time ago”.

The VEC also recently conceded a second investigation involving the Liberal Party – this one examining anonymous donations made for “Ditch Dan” fundraising event in August – has also been delayed until after the November 26 election.

The VEC’s pace in conducting these inquiries – coupled with legal prohibitions on publishing information about three IBAC investigations involving Andrews – means both leaders are seeking election while facing allegations of impropriety.

In both VEC investigations into the Liberal Party, the commission flexed its legal muscle under the state’s electoral act, issuing written notices to compel people to hand over documents.

While the VEC has not publicly confirmed if the party reviewed notices in the Catlin probe, The Age has confirmed it has done so, meaning the delaying tactic has been used in both investigations.

Under section 222B of the Electoral Act, political parties and individuals have the right to request reviews of those notices.

Although it does not stipulate how long these reviews should take, the commission recently confirmed that in the case of the “Ditch Dan” investigation, individuals and entities had exercised their right to request reviews.

This, it said, meant it would take up to eight weeks before any information was received from the written notice, even if the notice was eventually deemed to be appropriate after a review.

Regarding the Catlin investigation, the commission last week said in a written statement: “Information obtained by the VEC will often prompt the need to seek further information, usually through further written notices.”

Loading

In explaining the delay, it said its investigations must “search for factual evidence that is admissible in a court of law. For these reasons, the VEC must not compromise its processes or rush to end an investigation.”

Victorian Electoral Commissioner Warwick Gately said last month the commission’s compliance team was bolstered to handle an anticipated rise in election-related complaints.

According to the commission’s 2021-22 annual report, it employs the equivalent of 223 full-time staff, up from 172 the year before.

The Morning Edition newsletter is our guide to the day’s most important and interesting stories, analysis and insights. Sign up here.

Most Viewed in Politics

Loading

Original URL: https://www.theage.com.au/link/follow-20170101-p5byb7