Daniel Andrews refuses to address Adem Somyurek’s IBAC allegations

Adem Somyurek claimed the Victorian Premier had knowledge of Labor’s Red Shirts rort ahead of the 2014 election.

Victorian Premier Daniel Andrews. Picture: NCA NewsWire/David Crosling

Victorian Premier Daniel Andrews has repeatedly refused to answer questions regarding allegations made about him at IBAC by former ALP powerbroker Adem Somyurek.

In evidence given to the anti-corruption watchdog under oath on Monday, Mr Somyurek claimed the Premier had knowledge of Labor’s Red Shirts rort ahead of the 2014 election, played a key role in negotiating a peace deal to end branch stacking with Mr Somyurek in 2002, and was a leader of the Socialist Left faction, which “invented ethnic branch stacking”, during the late 1990s and early 2000s.

Asked whether he had ever told Mr Somyurek words to the effect of “Do you want to win an election or not?”, when Mr Somyurek allegedly asked him about his knowledge of the Red Shirts rort which saw Labor misuse $388,000 of taxpayer funds, Mr Andrews said: “I’m not getting into a debate or a discussion about evidence that’s been led by that witness or any other witnesses.”

“I wouldn’t do that if there was a court case on. I won’t be doing it with IBAC, and I’ve been very consistent about that,” Mr Andrews told a press conference on Tuesday.

Former Labor premiers Steve Bracks and John Brumby provided prompt statements on Monday, denying allegations Mr Somyurek made concerning them.

Asked why he could not do the same, Mr Andrews said: “Well, with the greatest of respect to them and to you, they’re not the current premier.”

“They’re not running the government at the moment. They’re not burdened with the responsibilities that me and my team have,” Mr Andrews said.

“It’s a great honour, but it does mean that you’re somewhat limited. As a former premier, you’ve perhaps got much greater scope to be able to talk about all sorts of things.

“I would direct you to those comments. I’m not going to add to them. It would just not be appropriate for me to do that. I’ve been very, very consistent, and you’ve got a job to do. So do I.

“My job does not include trampling all over an independent process, and it certainly does not include replicating, with you good people, exactly the process that’s ongoing now. IBAC’s doing its job and we should all let it continue that.

“I understand you’ve got a job to do, and that’s important, that is about asking questions. But my job sometimes means I can’t answer them, and I’m not here to walk away from my fundamental responsibilities by running a commentary, replicating a process, trampling literally all over that process.”

Asked whether he was expecting to have to formally respond to some of the extensive allegations Mr Somyurek has made against him, Mr Andrews said: “I’m not going to confirm for you one way or the other, whether I think they’re extensive or not, because that’s commentary, and I’m not going to comment on that. That’s your view.”

“That’s your interpretation of what he’s said. If you want to know who’s going to appear at IBAC or who has already, then the people to talk to are IBAC. That’s the way that system works,” Mr Andrews said.

Witnesses who have appeared at IBAC are legally barred from discussing the matter, meaning Mr Andrews is unable to say whether he has been called to give evidence privately.

Asked if he would agree to appear if asked, he said: “Well every Victorian should participate fully if they’re asked to. But as to who’s been asked, who’s been there, who’s going to go there, that’s a matter for IBAC.”

Mr Andrews said it was also a matter for IBAC to determine whether any hearing involving him occurred in public or behind closed doors.

‘We treated Ombudsman’s Red Shirts findings seriously’: Andrews

Asked whether Mr Somyurek had ever spoken to him about the Red Shirts rort ahead of the 2014 election, Mr Andrews said the Ombudsman had conducted a “very thorough inquiry and handed down a report with adverse findings”.

“We apologised for the way in which things had occurred. The party paid back the money. I have spoken to you guys for literally hours and hours about those matters, at the time and since, and I would just direct you to those comments and direct you to the seriousness with which we took the Ombudsman’s findings, the changes that were made to the law and the fact that the party repaid that money,” the Premier said.

“We were deeply regretful at what had occurred, we accepted responsibility for it, and we moved forward beyond that. I really don’t have anything more to add.”

The Premier’s claims to have treated the Ombudsman’s findings with “seriousness” contrast with his government’s extensive efforts, at great taxpayer expense, to avoid her investigating in the first place.

The Labor Party paid back $388,000 Ombudsman Deborah Glass found it had misused ahead of the 2014 election, only after taxpayers spent $879,000 on the investigation.

The Andrews government’s decision to go to court in an attempt to stop the Ombudsman investigating cost taxpayers a further $139,000 on the government side and $330,000 on the side of the upper house, meaning the whole saga cost Victorians $1.3m.

The government used its numbers in the lower house to enable its MPs there to refuse to co-operate with the investigation. They also refused to be interviewed by police.

Andrew ‘must answer allegations’: Guy

Opposition Leader Matthew Guy said Mr Andrews could not “shield himself” from IBAC any longer.

“Victorians need answers to the allegations of misuse of taxpayers’ money that have been levelled at the Premier. The Premier has to answer these allegations. He can’t hide from these allegations,” Mr Guy said.

The Liberal leader cited the resignation from Mr Andrews’ front bench last month of Luke Donnellan, who stood aside after IBAC heard evidence that he had been involved in branch stacking.

“ (Mr Andrews has) accepted other people’s resignations for similar claims being made against them, that are now being made against him,” Mr Guy said.

“Yet he won’t answer those inquiries, he won’t answer those questions. One has to ask why.”

Mr Guy also hit out at Mr Andrews’ claims that his government had treated the Ombudsman’s findings regarding Red Shirts with “seriousness”.

“If the Premier took the Ombudsman’s inquiry seriously, why did they take the Ombudsman to court and spend taxpayers’ money trying to stop it?” he said.

“The Premier and his party never took that inquiry, the findings, anything around it seriously. It was always treated as an issue just to throw away, to dispose of: a political problem rather than an actual problem. Herein lies the problem of the government in Victoria today.

“I wouldn’t want to tell IBAC how to do their job, but I think Victorians would be stunned if he didn’t give evidence. He’s a central player to this whole scenario, this whole saga … It would be bizarre if the Premier then didn’t give evidence.”