A section 25(2) report concerning the constitutional validity of aspects of Victoria's new integrity legislation

 

VICTORIAN

A section 25(2) report concerning the

constitutional validity of aspects of Ombudsman Act 1973 Victoria’s new integrity legislation

October 2013

Ordered to be printed Victorian government printer Session 2010 - 13

P.P. No. 274

 

www.ombudsman.vic.gov.au

Letter to the Legislative Council and the Legislative Assembly

To

The Honourable the President of the Legislative Council and

The Honourable the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly

Pursuant to sections 25 and 25AA of the Ombudsman Act 1973, I present to Parliament my report titled A section 25(2) report concerning the constitutional validity of aspects of Victoria’s new integrity legislation.

G E Brouwer

OMBUDSMAN

15 October 2013

letter to the legislative council and the legislative assembly

 

1

 

 

 

 

 

www.ombudsman.vic.gov.au

Contents

Page

Constitutional validity concerns

3

Background

5

My November Letter

5

My December Report

5

Legal Advice

6

Mr Moran QC’s first advice

7

Solicitor-General’s advice

8

Mr Moran QC’s second advice

8

The nature of the diŽculties facing the State

9

Conclusion

11

Attachment A – Memorandum of Advice – Eamonn Moran PSM QC

8 March 2013

13

Attachment B – Joint Memorandum of Advice – Stephen McLeish SC

and Graeme Hill of Counsel

 

22 March 2013

41

Attachment C – Memorandum of Advice – Eamonn Moran PSM QC

3 June 2013

59

Attachment D – Letter from the Hon Dr Denis Napthine MP

 

29 August 2013

65

2report concerning the constitutional validity of aspects of Victoria’s new integrity legislation

 

www.ombudsman.vic.gov.au

Constitutional validity concerns

This report is made pursuant to section 25(2) of the Ombudsman Act 1973 and follows my earlier report to Parliament in December 2012 on the proposed integrity system. Section 25(2) allows me to: ‘at any time make a report to Parliament on any matter arising in connection with the performance of’ my functions.

I provide this report due to provisions in the Integrity Accountability Legislation Amendment Act 2012, (the IALAA) which undermine and hamper my ability to perform my independent role. Those provisions in the IALAA are of concern for that reason and because I have been advised that those provisions appear to be inconsistent with entrenched provisions in the Constitution Act 1975. If this advice is correct, the IALAA appears to be invalid in total.

My functions under the Ombudsman Act are broad. My primary function is to ‘enquire into or investigate any administrative action taken by or in an

authority’1. My other functions2 also include ‘any other functions conferred by or under this or any other Act’3. This includes investigating protected disclosure complaints under the Protected Disclosure Act 20124.

I have consulted with two Queen’s Counsel regarding my concerns about the validity of the IALAA and how this impacts on the functions of my oŽce.

The advice provided concerns the apparent constitutional invalidity of certain aspects of the Ombudsman Act as a result of the constitutional invalidity of the IALAA. The IALAA purports to have eœected numerous amendments to the Ombudsman Act, the Audit Act 1994 as well as other Acts within the IBAC suite of legislation.

This apparent invalidity of the IALAA arises from the inconsistency between provisions in the IALAA and section 94E of the Constitution Act 1975, which provides that the Ombudsman is an ‘independent OŽcer of the Parliament’. Section 94E of the Constitution Act is ‘entrenched’ by section 18(1B) of the same Act, so that any Bill which seeks to repeal, alter or vary it must be passed by both Houses and ‘approved by the majority of the electors voting at a referendum’.

The IALAA was not approved at a referendum. As a result, if provisions in the IALAA are inconsistent with section 94E of the Constitution Act then not only will those inconsistent provisions in the IALAA be invalid, but the entire IALAA will be invalid.

This presents a significant diŽculty to the eœectiveness and operations of my oŽce; but it also strikes at the heart of the new integrity system in the State, as the invalidity of the IALAA will strike down numerous new provisions in other pieces of integrity legislation, particularly:

the Audit Act

the Victorian Inspectorate Act 2011

the Independent Broad Based Anti-Corruption Commission Act 2011.

1Section 13(1) Ombudsman Act 1973.

2 See sections 13AAA and 13AA Ombudsman Act 1973. 3 Section 13AA(1)(d) Ombudsman Act 1973.

4Part IV Division 1A Ombudsman Act 1973.

summary 3

 

www.ombudsman.vic.gov.au

Pending a definite resolution of this matter, either by the courts or by legislation, the validity of various actions of integrity organisations will be exposed. It is essential, in my view, for this uncertainty to be resolved at an early date so as to ensure that the integrity system for the State operates on a sound basis.

4report concerning the constitutional validity of aspects of Victoria’s new integrity legislation

 

www.ombudsman.vic.gov.au

Background

My November Letter

On 14 November 2012, The Hon Andrew McIntosh, MP second read the IALAA and the Protected Disclosure Bill in the Legislative Assembly. As I had not been consulted regarding either of those Bills5 and my requests for access to the draft legislation prior to their introduction had been rejected, it was not until that date that I had the opportunity to consider the Bills.

Having examined those Bills I was concerned as to elements of what was then the proposed integrity scheme for the State. As the Bills were to return to the Assembly in December 2012 to complete their enactment, I considered it necessary to write to the then Premier, The Hon Ted Baillieu, MP to advise him of my concerns and to recommend that consideration of the Bills be deferred until February 2013 in order that I might make a comprehensive report to the Parliament.

On 26 November I provided the letter to Mr Baillieu, with copies sent to the Presiding OŽcers of the two houses of Parliament and the leaders of the other parties. In it I outlined my initial views regarding the diŽculties of the IBAC scheme and raised my concerns as to the inconsistency between elements in the IALAA and section 94E Constitution Act:

If the Bills are enacted in their current form, I do not consider that it will be possible to properly refer to the oŽce of the Ombudsman as being ‘independent’ or as being an ‘independent oŽcer of the Parliament’. Accordingly, if the Bills are not to be amended, section

94E of the Constitution Act 1975 should be repealed to recognise the new reduced status of my oŽce and to avoid misuse of the terminology ‘independent oŽcer of Parliament’.

My December Report

As my recommendation to defer the consideration of the Bills until February 2013 was not adopted, I considered it necessary to present a report to Parliament detailing my concerns about the content of the Bills to ensure that the Parliament was fully informed.

I tabled my report on 10 December 20126. It discussed my concerns about the weaknesses and defects in the IBAC suite of Bills. Prior to the completion of the report my oŽce consulted with a Queen’s Counsel experienced in State Constitutional law regarding the constitutional inconsistency between the IALAA and section 94E of the Constitution Act. In that report I stated, using words endorsed by that Queen’s Counsel, the following:

5Despite the assurances provided to Mr McIntosh (see Hansard 27 November 2012).

6A section 25(2) report to Parliament on the proposed integrity system and its impact on the functions of the Ombudsman, December 2012.

background 5

 

www.ombudsman.vic.gov.au

Section 94E(1) of the Constitution Act 1975 provides that the Ombudsman is an ‘independent oŽcer of Parliament’. That provision is ‘entrenched’7 by section 18(1B)(o) of the Constitution Act so that section 94E cannot be repealed, altered or varied without approval at a referendum. Accordingly, any ordinarily passed legislative provision which seeks to alter section 94E(1) is invalid to the extent of the inconsistency between that provision and section 94E.

Any provisions in the IBAC legislation which seek to require the Ombudsman to act in a manner inconsistent with the essential elements of being an ‘independent oŽcer of the Parliament’ will be seeking to alter or vary section 94E(1) and, to that extent, will be invalid or inoperative unless approved at a referendum.

This is the eœect of legal advice recently provided by Queen’s Counsel, an experienced State constitutional law expert. Counsel considers that there are provisions in the Integrity Accountability Legislation Amendment Bill that could, if enacted, require the Ombudsman, an entrenched independent oŽcer of the Parliament, to act in manner that is inconsistent with the status and role of an independent oŽcer of the Parliament. Counsel also considers that those provisions may be constitutionally invalid if enacted without approval by a referendum. However, because of the limited time available to undertake a full analysis and the complexity of the various Bills, Acts and provisions involved, the extent of that invalidity is not clear at this time.

I went on to state that ‘given the importance and ramifications of this advice, it would be unwise to finalise the Parliament’s consideration of the Bills until this issue is clarified’ and I considered it was in the ‘public interest to defer consideration of the two IBAC Bills [then before the House] until February 2013’. This was to allow further consideration to be given to the constitutional validity of those Bills before the passage of those Bills.

I note that Mr McIntosh advised the Assembly on 11 December 2012 that:

The government does not accept the Ombudsman’s categorisation of its integrity reforms. The government has considered this matter at all stages of its legislative program and has taken significant advice about all those matters. As I said, the government disagrees with the Ombudsman’s interpretation. The government has developed the reforms taking into account the independence of the oŽcers of Parliament such as the Auditor-General and the Ombudsman, and the government is confident that the proposed legislation is valid.

Both Bills were passed by both Houses of Parliament in December 2012 before the issue of constitutional validity had been clarified. Assent was provided on 18 December 2012.

Legal Advice

Given my continuing concerns about the inconsistency between section 94E of the Constitution Act and the IALAA, I sought advice from a second Queen’s Counsel, also with considerable State Constitutional law experience, Mr Eamonn Moran PSM QC. Mr Moran previously had been the Chief Parliamentary Counsel for the State.

7That is, it cannot be changed or repealed in the same way as normal legislation, but, in this case, it requires the passage of a referendum.

6report concerning the constitutional validity of aspects of Victoria’s new integrity legislation

 

www.ombudsman.vic.gov.au

Mr Moran QC’s first advice

Mr Moran provided his advice on 8 March 2013. This advice confirmed the advice of the first Queen’s Counsel consulted and echoed the concerns that I held regarding the inconsistency between the IALAA and section 94E

Constitution Act. Mr Moran’s conclusion was that he considered that the entire IALAA was invalid.

Mr Moran’s advice is attached (See Attachment A). Mr Moran considers that the better view is:

Section 94E of the Constitution Act 1975 is validly entrenched by section 18(1B) of that Act

Section 94E of the Constitution Act 1975 is purportedly altered or varied by at least the following sections of the Integrity Accountability Legislation Amendment Act 2012: section 227 (inserting a new section 13AB8 in the Ombudsman Act 1973), section 243 (inserting a new section 25A9 in the Ombudsman Act) and section 278 (inserting new sections 8210 and 8311 (as renumbered) in the Victorian Inspectorate Act 2011)

The Integrity Accountability Legislation Amendment Act 2012 is a law “respecting the constitution, powers or procedure of the Parliament” within the meaning of section 6 of the Australia Act 1986

The Integrity Accountability Legislation Amendment Act 2012 was not made in the “manner and form” required by section 18(1B) of the Constitution Act 1975

Consequently, the whole of the Integrity Accountability Legislation Amendment Act 2012 is of no force or e†ect with resulting implications not only for the Ombudsman but for the Victorian Inspectorate, the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission, the Auditor- General and the Freedom of Information Commissioner among others. [My emphasis]

I also note that Mr Moran stated (at page 17 of his advice), in relation to the inconsistencies between the IALAA and section 94E, that:

It may also be argued that the overall scheme of oversight of the Ombudsman by the Victorian Inspectorate alters or varies that section. The oversight is not being carried out directly by the Parliament or a parliamentary committee. The Victorian Inspector is an independent oŽcer of the Parliament. If it is accepted that an attribute of such a status is that the oŽcer is independent from directions from Parliament and its committees then necessarily the oversight is not been [sic] controlled by the Parliament and, accordingly, the independent status of the Ombudsman as an oŽcer responsible only to, and accountable directly to, Parliament is interfered with. [My emphasis]

There is also a similar inconsistency between the IALAA and section 94B Constitution Act which concerns the Auditor-General and changes to the Audit Act.

8Which requires that I do not perform or exercise my powers and duties in a way that would prejudice criminal proceedings or investigations or IBAC or Victorian Inspectorate investigations.

9Which prevent me including in my any reports certain types of finding or Cabinet information, even if had been voluntarily provided to me.

10This provision allow the Inspectorate to make recommendations to the Ombudsman for actions that the Ombudsman should take; make public recommendations if the Ombudsman has failed to ‘take appropriate action’ in relation

to recommendations; and to ‘require’ the Ombudsman to make a report justifying why he has not adopted any recommendation.

11This provision allows the Inspectorate to refer a complaint regarding Ombudsman oŽcers to the Police, the DPP and certain other oŽces.

background 7

 

www.ombudsman.vic.gov.au

Solicitor-General’s advice

I provided the opinion of Mr Moran QC to the Premier and to the Attorney- General who sought the opinion of the Solicitor-General, Mr Stephen McLeish SC. Mr McLeish with the assistance of Mr Graeme Hill of Counsel provided an advice dated 22 March 2013 which disagreed with Mr Moran’s conclusions. That opinion was provided to me and is attached (See Attachment B).

Mr Moran QC’s second advice

Mr Moran was asked to consider the Solicitor-General’s advice and inform my oŽce whether this caused any alteration to his views. Mr Moran provided a second advice on 3 June 2013 which confirmed his earlier advice. This opinion is also attached (See Attachment C).

At the Attorney-General’s suggestion, Mr Moran and Mr McLeish met to discuss this issue on 12 June 2013. However, they were not able to reach any common views on this issue.

8report concerning the constitutional validity of aspects of Victoria’s new integrity legislation

 

www.ombudsman.vic.gov.au

The nature of the diŠculties facing the State

Eminent and experienced legal counsel have reached diœerent views as to the constitutional validity of the IALAA. While I express no opinion as to who is correct, such a disagreement concerning the validity of one of the central elements of the State’s integrity system is indicative of fundamental uncertainties inherent in that system. These uncertainties in my view require early resolution.

The consequences are serious if the legal advice provided to me are correct, particularly as Mr Moran is of the view that section 94E of the Constitution Act and the IALAA are inconsistent and this inconsistency causes the entire IALAA to be invalid.

The result of this invalidity is that all of the amendments purportedly made by the IALAA to over more than forty Acts of Parliament, including the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission Act, the Victorian Inspectorate Act, the Ombudsman Act and the Audit Act will be ineœective. That invalidity will fundamentally undermine the eœectiveness of the new integrity scheme. Further, the uncertainty as to the validity will place integrity agencies in the undesirable position of either acting in accordance with legislation that Queen’s Counsel have advised is invalid, or to treat the IALAA as invalid and function as if it had not been passed.

This problem is not merely a diŽculty presented to heads of integrity agencies in operating those agencies. It also places individuals within those oŽces in

a diŽcult position when their duties necessitate that they undertake certain actions, the legality of which is dependent on provisions added by the IALAA to protect them from any liability that would otherwise arise in relation to those actions.

For example, section 97 of the IALAA seeks to add a provision to section 130 of the Firearms Act 1996 to allow authorised senior IBAC oŽcers to carry

or use a loaded firearm without breaching that provision12. If the IALAA is invalid, oŽcers relying on the new provision by carrying weapons appear to be breaching the Firearms Act and at risk of being penalized under that Act. Similarly, Division 3 of Part 4 of the IALAA purports to amend the Crimes (Controlled Operations) Act 2004 so as to allow IBAC to conduct controlled operations, being operations for which otherwise persons would or may be criminally liable. The Crimes (Controlled Operations) Act provides protections from prosecution for activities authorised in relation to those controlled activities. If the IALAA is invalid, IBAC oŽcers and others involved in those operations may be criminally liable for their activities.

The IALAA also purports to allow integrity agencies to undertake certain activities, including:

The Victorian Inspectorate’s jurisdiction over the Chief Examiner, the Auditor-General and the Ombudsman purportedly provided for by Part 3, Division 2 of Part 6 and Division 5 of Part 7;

12 The maximum for breaching section 130 Firearms Act is 60 penalty units or 12 months imprisonment.

the nature of the diŠculties facing the State

 

9

 

 

 

 

 

www.ombudsman.vic.gov.au

The considerable alterations to the Ombudsman Act purportedly made by Part 7. Those alterations concern the structure of the Act, my functions and powers, bodies subject to my jurisdiction, confidentiality obligations, sharing of information, exempt bodies, investigation powers and processes and my interrelationship with IBAC and the Victorian Inspectorate; and

The ability of IBAC to allow persons to acquire or use an assumed identity purportedly allowed by amendments made to the Crimes (Assumed Identities) Act 2004 by Division 2 Part 4 IALAA.

The ability to undertake these activities will be uncertain until the validity of the IALAA is resolved.

In addition, the jurisdiction of the Parliamentary Accountability and Oversight Committee over the Ombudsman is dependent on the IALAA13 and, accordingly, its function must also be in doubt until the validity of the IALAA is resolved.

The potential invalidity of the IALAA is also of relevance to those subject to the actions of integrity bodies and can provide means by which their jurisdiction could be challenged. As an example, if the IALAA is invalid, my ability to receive and act on matters referred by IBAC would be in doubt, as this function derives from section 16B of the Ombudsman Act, a provision added by section 231

of the IALAA. A subject of such an investigation may seek to challenge my jurisdiction on that basis.

The consequences of such a challenge, if successful, would be considerable. It could impact not only on the matter disputed, but also on all elements in the integrity scheme added by the IALAA. This could potentially invalidate many integrity agency actions taken since 10 February 2013, the commencement day of the IALAA. It is, therefore, clearly in the public interest for remedial action to be taken as early as possible to ensure the continuation of an eœective integrity scheme.

13 Division 4 Part 7 of the IALAA.

10 report concerning the constitutional validity of aspects of Victoria’s new integrity legislation

 

www.ombudsman.vic.gov.au

Conclusion

There are two apparent means to overcome the uncertainties regarding the potential validity of the IALAA.

First, for a declaration to be sought from the Supreme Court as to the validity of the IALAA and the provisions it purports to add to various Acts. Should such a declaration be granted, this would remove any concern regarding any invalidity of the IALAA. The diŽculty with this course is that it will take some time to complete, during which time the uncertainty will remain unresolved. Indeed, due to the nature and complexity of the issues involved this matter may require resolution by the High Court. It will also require a public airing of the apparent deficiencies of the legislation. Furthermore, if the declaration is not granted, an urgent legislative solution will be required at the completion of the litigation process.

The other and I believe preferred option is the passage of remedial legislation. This legislation would not seek to amend the IALAA to remove the provisions inconsistent with sections 94E and 94B of the Constitution Act, as it not possible to amend an invalid Act. Instead it would repeal the IALAA and replace the IALAA with new legislation to re-enact the IALAA other than the provisions considered inconsistent with sections 94E and 94B of the Constitution Act. That replacing legislation would need to operate retrospectively, from the same date as the IALAA so as to ensure that there is no hiatus in the coverage of the integrity system.

In my view, the latter option is preferable as it will allow the earliest resolution of this potential invalidity.

I provided a draft version of this report to the Premier, The Hon Denis Napthine, MP who advised that ‘the Government will be relying on the advice of the Solicitor-General, who has given clear advice that the State’s integrity legislation is constitutionally valid’ (See Attachment D).

Given the consequences to the independence of my oŽce and that of the Auditor-General arising from the IALAA; and given the consequences to the validity of actions taken within the integrity scheme if a court were to find that the Solicitor General’s opinion is incorrect, I consider that I have no option but to draw these matters to the attention of the Parliament.

conclusion 11

 

www.ombudsman.vic.gov.au

12 report concerning the constitutional validity of aspects of Victoria’s new integrity legislation

 

www.ombudsman.vic.gov.au

Attachment A – Memorandum of Advice – Eamonn Moran PSM QC (8 March 2013)

attachment a

 

13

 

 

 

 

 

www.ombudsman.vic.gov.au

14 report concerning the constitutional validity of aspects of Victoria’s new integrity legislation

 

www.ombudsman.vic.gov.au

attachment a

 

15

 

 

 

 

 

www.ombudsman.vic.gov.au

16 report concerning the constitutional validity of aspects of Victoria’s new integrity legislation

 

www.ombudsman.vic.gov.au

attachment a

 

17

 

 

 

 

 

www.ombudsman.vic.gov.au

18 report concerning the constitutional validity of aspects of Victoria’s new integrity legislation

 

www.ombudsman.vic.gov.au

attachment a

 

19

 

 

 

 

 

www.ombudsman.vic.gov.au

20 report concerning the constitutional validity of aspects of Victoria’s new integrity legislation

 

www.ombudsman.vic.gov.au

attachment a

 

21

 

 

 

 

 

www.ombudsman.vic.gov.au

22 report concerning the constitutional validity of aspects of Victoria’s new integrity legislation

 

www.ombudsman.vic.gov.au

attachment a

 

23

 

 

 

 

 

www.ombudsman.vic.gov.au

24 report concerning the constitutional validity of aspects of Victoria’s new integrity legislation

 

www.ombudsman.vic.gov.au

attachment a

 

25

 

 

 

 

 

www.ombudsman.vic.gov.au

26 report concerning the constitutional validity of aspects of Victoria’s new integrity legislation

 

www.ombudsman.vic.gov.au

attachment a

 

27

 

 

 

 

 

www.ombudsman.vic.gov.au

28 report concerning the constitutional validity of aspects of Victoria’s new integrity legislation

 

www.ombudsman.vic.gov.au

attachment a

 

29

 

 

 

 

 

www.ombudsman.vic.gov.au

30 report concerning the constitutional validity of aspects of Victoria’s new integrity legislation

 

www.ombudsman.vic.gov.au

attachment a

 

31

 

 

 

 

 

www.ombudsman.vic.gov.au

32 report concerning the constitutional validity of aspects of Victoria’s new integrity legislation

 

www.ombudsman.vic.gov.au

attachment a

 

33

 

 

 

 

 

www.ombudsman.vic.gov.au

34 report concerning the constitutional validity of aspects of Victoria’s new integrity legislation

 

www.ombudsman.vic.gov.au

attachment a

 

35

 

 

 

 

 

www.ombudsman.vic.gov.au

36 report concerning the constitutional validity of aspects of Victoria’s new integrity legislation

 

www.ombudsman.vic.gov.au

attachment a

 

37

 

 

 

 

 

www.ombudsman.vic.gov.au

38 report concerning the constitutional validity of aspects of Victoria’s new integrity legislation

 

www.ombudsman.vic.gov.au

attachment a

 

39

 

 

 

 

 

www.ombudsman.vic.gov.au

40 report concerning the constitutional validity of aspects of Victoria’s new integrity legislation

 

www.ombudsman.vic.gov.au

Attachment B – Joint Memorandum of Advice – Stephen McLeish SC and Graeme Hill of Counsel (22 March 2013)

attachment b

 

41

 

 

 

 

 

www.ombudsman.vic.gov.au

42 report concerning the constitutional validity of aspects of Victoria’s new integrity legislation

 

www.ombudsman.vic.gov.au

attachment b

 

43

 

 

 

 

 

www.ombudsman.vic.gov.au

44 report concerning the constitutional validity of aspects of Victoria’s new integrity legislation

 

www.ombudsman.vic.gov.au

attachment b

 

45

 

 

 

 

 

www.ombudsman.vic.gov.au

46 report concerning the constitutional validity of aspects of Victoria’s new integrity legislation

 

www.ombudsman.vic.gov.au

attachment b

 

47

 

 

 

 

 

www.ombudsman.vic.gov.au

48 report concerning the constitutional validity of aspects of Victoria’s new integrity legislation

 

www.ombudsman.vic.gov.au

attachment b

 

49

 

 

 

 

 

www.ombudsman.vic.gov.au

50 report concerning the constitutional validity of aspects of Victoria’s new integrity legislation

 

www.ombudsman.vic.gov.au

attachment b

 

51

 

 

 

 

 

www.ombudsman.vic.gov.au

52 report concerning the constitutional validity of aspects of Victoria’s new integrity legislation

 

www.ombudsman.vic.gov.au

attachment b

 

53

 

 

 

 

 

www.ombudsman.vic.gov.au

54 report concerning the constitutional validity of aspects of Victoria’s new integrity legislation

 

www.ombudsman.vic.gov.au

attachment b

 

55

 

 

 

 

 

www.ombudsman.vic.gov.au

56 report concerning the constitutional validity of aspects of Victoria’s new integrity legislation

 

www.ombudsman.vic.gov.au

attachment b

 

57

 

 

 

 

 

www.ombudsman.vic.gov.au

58 report concerning the constitutional validity of aspects of Victoria’s new integrity legislation

 

www.ombudsman.vic.gov.au

Attachment C – Memorandum of Advice – Eamonn Moran PSM QC (3 June 2013)

attachment c

 

59

 

 

 

 

 

www.ombudsman.vic.gov.au

60 report concerning the constitutional validity of aspects of Victoria’s new integrity legislation

 

www.ombudsman.vic.gov.au

attachment c

 

61

 

 

 

 

 

www.ombudsman.vic.gov.au

62 report concerning the constitutional validity of aspects of Victoria’s new integrity legislation

 

www.ombudsman.vic.gov.au

attachment c

 

63

 

 

 

 

 

www.ombudsman.vic.gov.au

64 report concerning the constitutional validity of aspects of Victoria’s new integrity legislation

 

www.ombudsman.vic.gov.au

Attachment D – Letter from the Hon Dr Denis Napthine MP (29 August 2013)

attachment d

 

65

 

 

 

 

 

Ombudsman’s Reports 2004-13

2013

Ombudsman Act 1973 Own motion investigation into unenforced warrants August 2013

Whistleblowers Protection Act 2001

Investigation into allegations of improper conduct by a Magistrates’ Court registrar May 2013

2012

Own motion investigation into the governance and administration of the Victorian Building Commission

December 2012

A section 25(2) report to Parliament on the proposed integrity system and its impact on the functions of the Ombudsman December 2012

Whistleblowers Protection Act 2001

Investigation into allegations concerning rail safety in the Melbourne Underground Rail Loop

October 2012

Whistleblowers Protection Act 2001

Investigation into allegations of improper conduct by CenITex oŽcers

October 2012

Whistleblowers Protection Act 2001

Investigation into allegations of improper conduct involving Victoria Police October 2012

Whistleblowers Protection Act 2001

Investigation into allegations against Mr Geoœ Shaw MP

October 2012

Investigation into the temporary closure of Alfred Health adult lung transplant program October 2012

Investigation into an alleged corrupt association

October 2012

Whistleblowers Protection Act 2001

Investigation into allegations of detrimental action involving Victoria Police

June 2012

Own motion investigation into Greyhound Racing Victoria

June 2012

The death of Mr Carl Williams at HM Barwon Prison – investigation into Corrections Victoria April 2012

Whistleblowers Protection Act 2001 Conflict of interest, poor governance and bullying at the City of Glen Eira Council

March 2012

Investigation into the storage and management of ward records by the Department of Human Services

March 2012

2011

Investigation into the Foodbowl Modernisation Project and related matters

November 2011

Investigation into ICT-enabled projects November 2011

Investigation into how universities deal with international students

October 2011

Investigation regarding the Department of Human Services Child Protection program (Loddon Mallee Region)

October 2011

Investigation into the OŽce of Police Integrity’s handling of a complaint

October 2011

SafeStreets Documents – Investigations into Victoria Police’s Handling of Freedom of Information request

September 2011

Investigation into prisoner access to health care

August 2011

Investigation into an allegation about Victoria Police crime statistics

June 2011

Corrupt conduct by public oŽcers in procurement

June 2011

Investigation into record keeping failures by WorkSafe agents

May 2011

Whistleblowers Protection Act 2001

Investigation into the improper release of autopsy information by a Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine employee

May 2011

 

Ombudsman investigation – Assault of a Disability Services client by Department of Human Services staœ

March 2011

The Brotherhood – Risks associated with secretive organisations

March 2011

Ombudsman investigation into the probity of The Hotel Windsor redevelopment

February 2011

Whistleblowers Protection Act 2001

Investigation into the failure of agencies to manage registered sex oœenders February 2011

Whistleblowers Protection Act 2001

Investigation into allegations of improper conduct by a councillor at the Hume City Council

February 2011

2010

Investigation into the issuing of infringement notices to public transport users and related matters

December 2010

Ombudsman’s recommendations second report on their implementation

October 2010

Whistleblowers Protection Act 2001

Investigation into conditions at the Melbourne Youth Justice Precinct

October 2010

Whistleblowers Protection Act 2001

Investigation into an allegation of improper conduct within RMIT’s School of Engineering (TAFE) – Aerospace

July 2010

Ombudsman investigation into the probity of the Kew Residential Services and St Kilda Triangle developments

June 2010

Own motion investigation into Child Protection

– out of home care May 2010

Report of an investigation into Local Government Victoria’s response to the Inspectors of Municipal Administration’s report on the City of Ballarat

April 2010

Whistleblowers Protection Act 2001

Investigation into the disclosure of information by a councillor of the City of Casey

March 2010

Ombudsman’s recommendations – Report on their implementation

February 2010

2009

Investigation into the handling of drug exhibits at the Victoria Police Forensic Services Centre December 2009

Own motion investigation into the Department of Human Services – Child Protection Program November 2009

Own motion investigation into the tendering and contracting of information and technology services within Victoria Police

November 2009

Brookland Greens Estate – Investigation into methane gas leaks

October 2009

A report of investigations into the City of Port Phillip

August 2009

An investigation into the Transport Accident Commission’s and the Victorian WorkCover Authority’s administrative processes for medical practitioner billing

July 2009

Whistleblowers Protection Act 2001 Conflict of interest and abuse of power by a building inspector at Brimbank City Council

June 2009

Whistleblowers Protection Act 2001

Investigation into the alleged improper conduct of councillors at Brimbank City Council

May 2009

Investigation into corporate governance at Moorabool Shire Council

April 2009

Crime statistics and police numbers March 2009

 

2008

Whistleblowers Protection Act 2001 Report of an investigation into issues at Bayside Health October 2008

Probity controls in public hospitals for the procurement of non-clinical goods and services

August 2008

Investigation into contraband entering a prison and related issues

June 2008

Conflict of interest in local government March 2008

Conflict of interest in the public sector March 2008

2007

Investigation into VicRoads’ driver licensing arrangements

December 2007

Investigation into the disclosure of electronic communications addressed to the Member for Evelyn and related matters

November 2007

Investigation into the use of excessive force at the Melbourne Custody Centre

November 2007

Investigation into the OŽce of Housing’s tender process for the cleaning and gardening maintenance contract – CNG 2007

October 2007

Investigation into a disclosure about WorkSafe’s and Victoria Police’s handling of a bullying and harassment complaint

April 2007

Own motion investigation into the policies and procedures of the planning department at the City of Greater Geelong

February 2007

2006

Conditions for persons in custody July 2006

Review of the Freedom of Information Act 1982

June 2006

Investigation into parking infringement notices issued by Melbourne City Council

April 2006

Improving responses to allegations involving sexual assault

March 2006

2005

Investigation into the handling, storage and transfer of prisoner property in Victorian prisons

December 2005

Whistleblowers Protection Act 2001

Ombudsman’s guidelines October 2005

Own motion investigation into VicRoads registration practices

June 2005

Complaint handling guide for the Victorian Public Sector 2005

May 2005

Review of the Freedom of Information Act 1982

Discussion paper May 2005

Review of complaint handling in Victorian universities

May 2005

Investigation into the conduct of council oŽcers in the administration of the Shire of Melton

March 2005

Discussion paper on improving responses to sexual abuse allegations

February 2005

2004

Essendon Rental Housing Co-operative (ERHC) December 2004

Complaint about the Medical Practitioners Board of Victoria

December 2004

Ceja task force drug related corruption – second interim report of Ombudsman Victoria June 2004

The Victorian Ombudsman

Phone 03 9613 6222

Level 9 North Tower

Fax 03 9614 0246

459 Collins Street

Email ombudvic@ombudsman.vic.gov.au

Melbourne VIC 3000

www.ombudsman.vic.gov.au