Matthew Guy has promised to allow public hearings in anti-corruption investigations such as Operation Daintree – the probe into $3.4 million in union grants which questioned Premier Daniel Andrews in secret.
Asked about the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission (IBAC) inquiry at a press conference on Monday, Andrews refused to answer more than 15 questions about a statement he made on Saturday defending his integrity.
Victorian Premier Daniel Andrews addressing the media on Monday.Credit:AAP
“Regardless of any smear, innuendo or media reporting based on anonymous sources, the only IBAC matters I will comment on are those that are the subject of a final report,” the Saturday statement said.
Asked what “smear and innuendo” he was referring to he said: “I haven’t deleted my statement … I’m not here to add to that statement. It’s been issued. If I want to add to the statement, I’ll issue a fresh one,” he said. “Please read the statement … I have nothing further to add.”
Andrews referred reporters to his statement 31 times.
The Age last week revealed Andrews was the subject of an inquiry into funds awarded to a Labor-linked union in the dying days of the last term of parliament despite objections from Health Department officials.
The money was for a training program that was cut short by COVID-19, and a fraction of the funds were paid.
IBAC sought an injunction to stop details of the draft version of its final report from being published, setting off a debate about the circumstances in which the public has a right to know about investigations still afoot.
Andrews on Monday did not directly answer questions about whether his office alerted the corruption agency to The Age’s forthcoming story last week after the premier’s office received detailed questions. After The Age emailed questions to one of the parties involved in Operation Daintree, IBAC launched its successful Supreme Court injunction.
“My office behaves appropriately,” Andrews said.
“It’s a great honour and a privilege to be sworn in as the premier of this great state and to take those obligations and those responsibilities seriously; every minute of every day.”
In 2019, the Andrews government reformed the law to limit the circumstances that hearings could be held in public, to protect the welfare of witnesses. The reforms require IBAC to have reasonable grounds to believe “serious or systemic corrupt conduct” has taken place.
At the time then-Attorney-General Jill Hennessy told parliament: “The effect of this amendment is to reserve IBAC’s public examinations for the most serious investigations of major public importance.”
The state opposition wants more IBAC investigations held in public, as they are in NSW and some other jurisdictions, and on Monday the opposition leader confirmed that a Coalition government would remove the requirement for “serious or systemic corruption”.
Asked whether he would be comfortable being interviewed in public if he were the subject of a corruption probe, Guy said he did not intend to be investigated at all.
Matthew Guy in Manor Lakes in Melbourne’s west on Monday.Credit:Jason South
Guy’s reputation has also been tarred by integrity issues, including this year’s resignation of his chief of staff over a request made to a donor, a saga which remains the subject of an investigation by the Victorian Electoral Commission.
“I intend to run a government which is based around probity and integrity,” Guy said on Monday. “That’s why we’re going to expand IBAC’s remit, allow those sessions in public, and increase their budget by $20 million. I think that’s a good start to making sure we operate with integrity in this state.”
Honorary Professor Colleen Lewis, from the Centre for Public Integrity and the Australian National University, said state Labor had a particularly poor record on integrity but argued IBAC was justified in seeking to prohibit reporting on Operation Daintree.
“Neither of the two major parties are doing well on integrity related matters but the Andrews Labor government actually does badly,” she said on ABC Radio.
Peter Greste says Australian journalists face laws and secrecy provisions weighted against reporting.Credit:Eddie Jim
“What we’re dealing with here is competing values and therefore, competing priorities. The right to be afforded natural justice in any IBAC inquiry versus the media’s right to report on a matter of public interest, especially one that is directly relevant to the forthcoming state election.
“Which one here has the top priority? I’ve really come to the conclusion that IBAC did the right thing by going to the Supreme Court to seek that injunction. The right to be afforded natural justice is absolutely essential, even if it comes at the temporary cost of the freedom of the press.”
Alliance for Journalists’ Freedom spokesman Peter Greste said the debate over Operation Daintree highlighted the problem with running corruption probes in secret.
“Particularly when dealing with people in very senior roles in politics and government because those issues are critically important to the way that we run a democracy,” said Greste, the former journalist who was jailed in Egypt due to his reporting.
He said Australian journalists already faced defamation laws and secrecy provisions that were heavily weighted against reporters and inhibited the publication of stories.
“These systems always work better when hearings and judicial hearings are taking place in the open, so the public can make its own assessments about the importance and relevance of the issues,” Greste said.
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 National
From our partners
Source: Read Full Article
