Daniel Andrews’ private office ‘interfered’ in probe, Liberal MPs claim

Liberal MPs launch scathing attack on Daniel Andrews’ private office, accusing it of meddling in a parliamentary inquiry into IBAC.

Former integrity and oversight committee chair, Labor MP Harriet Shing. Picture: Andy Rogers

Daniel Andrews’ private office has been accused by the state opposition of interfering in a parliamentary committee’s independent inquiry into the witness welfare record of IBAC.

In a minority report that has emerged ahead of the final report by the Labor-dominated integrity and oversight committee, the Liberal MPs have attacked the committee’s conduct during the inquiry.

Some of the opposition’s criticism in the minority report is focused on the alleged conduct of former integrity and oversight committee chair, Labor MP Harriet Shing, who led the committee’s inquiry.

Liberal MP Brad Rowswell, the committee’s deputy chair, and veteran Liberal MP Kim Wells have drafted a 14-page report alleging the committee “failed to fulfil its obligations to both the parliament and the people of Victoria” during its inquiry, sparked by the suicide of former Casey mayor Amanda Stapledon.

“Throughout the course of this inquiry, opposition members have become aware of Labor government members being directed by operatives within the Premier’s Private Office (PPO),” the minority report alleges.

“Opposition members of this committee believe that the work of the (integrity and oversight committee) should be removed from party politics, as the work of this committee is undertaken on behalf of the Victorian parliament and people. Members of the committee have an obligation to the parliament and not the PPO.

“Integrity is essential to the operation of this committee. It is the view of the opposition members that Labor government members of this committee did not act with integrity during the course of this inquiry.”

An Andrews government spokesperson rejected the Liberal criticisms. “Minister Shing is no longer a member of the committee, however, she has always conducted herself appropriately in any role she has held by keeping the work of committees confidential,” the spokesperson said.

“The integrity and oversight committee is completely independent from the government and any suggestion otherwise is false.”

The Australian believes that among the examples of alleged interference that has angered the Liberal MPs was their concern the PPO was involved in the decision by newly appointed chair, Labor MP Gary Maas, to release a statement criticising IBAC after the agency criticised the committee.

Ms Shing was the chair of the committee during its inquiry into IBAC’s witness welfare. She

was recently promoted to cabinet as the minister for water, regional development and equality.

In a register of interests lodged with parliament in July, in a section for politicians to declare “any other interests you have that could give rise to, or reasonably be seen to give rise to, a conflict of interest”, Ms Shing confirmed to the parliament she is the partner of the Premier’s chief-of-staff, Lissie Ratcliff.

“A management plan is in place to limit the risk of a perceived or actual conflict of interest,” Ms Shing states in her register of interests. A government spokesperson did not release a copy of the management plan, but said: “All matters related to Minister Shing’s portfolio are briefed up to the Premier through the Deputy Chief of Staff.”

Stapledon took her own life three days after receiving IBAC’s draft report into Operation Sandon, the agency’s investigation into allegedly corrupt land deals between a developer and Casey councillors.

In their minority report, the Liberal MPs allege that the integrity and oversight committee “fundamentally abrogated its responsibilities” to witnesses, integrity bodies and parliament and they oppose the committee report, which is expected to be tabled on Thursday.

The minority report heavily criticises the committee’s treatment of witnesses, and claims that a press release created a “false and empty promise” that witnesses’ first hand experiences would be considered as part of the inquiry.

“This was, disappointingly, not the case,” the report states, before noting that in the end, the Operation Sandon witnesses who wanted to be heard by the committee were gagged.

“They did not expect their submissions to be considered ‘wholly confidential’ by the committee and therefore not referenced at all.”

The minority report is also highly critical of Ms Shing intervening to limit the Liberal MPs raising the fact that Premier Daniel Andrews was privately examined by IBAC during secret Operation Sandon hearings.

At one point, the report notes, Ms Shing declared “cut the feed” to a live broadcast of IBAC’s chief Robert Redlich’s appearance after a Liberal MP asked about why the premier was given the right to a private hearing.

“The most abrupt display of the chair’s questionable guidance was when the chair shut down the public hearing for several minutes. Such a display caused public shock and frustration at the suppressive decision of the chair,” the report states.

“This … decision of the chair was, in our view, an exercise in misguided authority that consequently raised broader concerns about the chair’s handlings of the public inquiry.”

The Liberal minority report states that it was “deeply disappointing” that Mr Redlich’s attempt to appear again to respond to some of the questions was rejected by the Labor-dominated committee.

“It was deeply disappointing and damaging for Labor government members of the committee to act in this way,” the minority report alleges.

“These actions underlined the stated purpose of the inquiry and damaged the important role of the IOC … to hold integrity agencies accountable and seek the truth.”

The minority report makes six recommendations, including an obligation on committee members to “disclose … any interference … that they become aware of – or are party to – by the PPO or any other politically aligned individual or body”.

Other recommendations cover providing individuals who make submissions some certainty over how their evidence will be treated, explain any decision to keep submissions under wraps, review legal restrictions on future hearings and allow integrity agency chiefs the opportunity to present to the committee when they request to.