Sukkar argued for probe report to stay secret

Assistant Treasurer Michael Sukkar argued strongly that a Finance Department report into allegations he was involved in rorting public resources for political purposes be kept secret.

The department has revealed in response to a freedom of information request by The Age and Sydney Morning Herald that Mr Sukkar, a federal minister and Liberal Party conservative faction leader, had “made strong representations that release is not authorised”.

Michael Sukkar. Credit:

The main reasons provided for refusal of the request were that release would breach legal professional privilege, that the report contained material obtained in confidence and that it could breach personal privacy. Overall, the department said releasing the report would “on balance, be contrary to the public interest”.

The investigation was requested by Mr Sukkar after he was accused in August 2020 of encouraging an improper scheme in which factional operatives were given taxpayer-funded jobs in Mr Sukkar’s office and the office of fellow Victorian Liberal MP Kevin Andrews in 2017 and 2018.

Evidence suggests the operatives did not only undertake electoral and constituent duties that they were paid by taxpayers to perform, but also worked to increase the power of the Sukkar conservative faction, including by mass recruiting Liberal Party members.

The Finance Department last year released a one-page statement saying it had found insufficient evidence of any wrongdoing by Mr Sukkar.

Had the department’s full inquiry report been released, multiple sources say, it would have revealed that investigators failed to interview or contact key witnesses. Those witnesses say they could have given evidence alleging Mr Sukkar’s faction and his office rorted taxpayer-funded electorate office jobs as part of a scheme to boost factional power.

Three witnesses, including one who contacted the department but was never interviewed, have claimed to have critical evidence about the alleged rorting. They have requested anonymity for fear of repercussions.

“It’s a disgrace,” said one of the witnesses about the extent of the department’s probe.

Another said: “I spent weeks waiting for the department to contact me, but they never did.”

The department also failed to obtain or examine documentary evidence that casts light on the alleged taxpayer-funded job rorting, including emails and texts revealed in The Age and Sydney Morning Herald on Sunday.

Former Liberal prime minister Malcolm Turnbull has joined Labor in calling for a public inquiry into Mr Sukkar and his office, and describing the department’s investigation as “utterly inadequate”.

Treasurer Josh Frydenberg has previously described the department inquiry process, which was outsourced to a legal firm for which Mr Sukkar once worked, as “appropriate”.

The Finance Department’s handling of the Sukkar scandal stands in contrast to the scrutiny being applied to members and staffers of the Victorian Labor government.

Victoria’s anti-corruption inquiry is using public hearings, compulsory questioning powers, phone taps and search warrants to probe allegations that former Andrews government minister Adem Somyurek rorted taxpayer-funded electorate officer jobs to obtain factional power. In NSW, the Independent Commission against Corruption recently examined in public hearings former premier Gladys Berejiklian’s failure to disclose her intimate relationship with a former MP.

The federal Finance Department has, in a recent letter to The Age and Herald, justified in part its decision to block the release of its inquiry into Mr Sukkar by pointing to its lack of investigative powers.

The department’s first assistant secretary David De Silva wrote that, given it had no power to force witnesses to help it investigate alleged impropriety, the release of its report into Mr Sukkar would mean the department would have even less chance of getting witnesses to voluntarily assist future investigations.

“Finance has no powers of compulsion and requires the voluntary co-operation of” potential witnesses, Mr De Silva wrote. “I consider that if this information was released, it would reasonably follow that [potential witnesses] … would be reluctant to voluntarily provide confidential information for any future investigations.”

While the department failed to interview witnesses with adverse information about Mr Sukkar, it confirmed it had spoken to Mr Sukkar and Kevin Andrews, the member for the Victorian seat of Menzies.

“Mr Sukkar and Mr Andrews provided information to finance for the sole purpose of the review, on the basis that the information was ‘strictly private and confidential’. All parties maintain that the information was given and received in circumstances of confidence.”

Mr Sukkar, who declined multiple interview requests but has denied all wrongdoing, used the department investigation to claim he had been exonerated.

Mr Andrews, who also declined to be interviewed, also blocked the release of the departmental inquiry report, according to the finance department.

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