Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise tonight to raise an important matter concerning flow-on effects of the 2009 Victorian Ombudsman investigation into the alleged improper conduct of councillors at Brimbank City Council. At the outset, I wish to advise the Senate that I raise this matter as a senator for Victoria, not in my capacity as Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy. Furthermore, the principal set of circumstances I refer to centre on Mr Hakki Suleyman, a man who I am proud to have been able to call a friend for many years. Mr Suleyman is a respected member of the Australian Turkish Cypriot community. To this day he remains the Chair of the Migrant Resource Centre North West and the convenor of the Turkish Cypriot program on 3ZZZ community radio—a role he has performed for 20 years. He has been a proud member of the ALP for many years and is a passionate advocate for democratic processes and the importance of participating in these processes.

The facts are that a now discredited Ombudsman’s report, which has led to not one single charge being laid to date against those adversely named within it, has been used as cover for a relentless, personal hate campaign against Mr Suleyman. The Ombudsman’s report into Brimbank City Council is a torrent of vitriol that found no evidence of criminal acts, found no evidence for any charge to be laid and apparently targeted some individuals above others based on scurrilous allegations from unnamed parties. It undermined the basic right of all Australians to participate in the democratic process by recommending—and, sadly, having this recommendation agreed to—that no electorate officer or ministerial adviser may serve simultaneously as a councillor. The Ombudsman’s report into the City of Brimbank is now a laughing stock, save for the fact that it has disrupted people’s lives and left reputations in tatters. The calls for an Ombudsman’s inquiry were the result of a bizarre power play by disgruntled, mostly failed, councillors from the City of Brimbank. As a result of this investigation, many innocent political activists have been caught up in a long-running saga to defend their good names and rebuild shattered reputations.

The focus of this investigation was the so-called Suleyman group of councillors, allegedly a group of elected councillors tied to a very popular and electorally successful former mayor, Natalie Suleyman. Many false claims of misconduct were made against Natalie Suleyman. These accusations proved to be so baseless that no charges were laid. However, attention was then turned to her father, Hakki. And what test did the Ombudsman apply to this entire investigation? It was whether a person had exerted ‘undue influence’ upon council proceedings or had ‘acted inappropriately’. Such accusations are impossible to quantify and highly subjective. Moreover, such bizarre findings are one of many factors that have helped shine a light on the legislative underpinnings of the office of the Ombudsman in Victoria.

So profound has been the public’s loss of trust in those currently occupying the office of this important integrity watchdog and those serving as its investigators that the Victorian government charged the Public Sector Standards Commissioner, Mr Peter Allen, and the former Secretary of the Department of Premier and Cabinet, Ms Elizabeth Proust, with reviewing integrity processes across the state. The Proust review has identified an out-of-step legislative model that empowers the Ombudsman. The review explicitly calls for a modernised Ombudsman Act. A key recommendation was that a revamped act should require the publication of guidelines on the conduct of investigations in accordance with codified principles of procedural fairness. Additionally, those subject to any investigative procedures conducted by the Ombudsman would have the right to seek legal advice and a published reply. Further, such persons would have the right to disclosure of adverse material, affording individuals the right to be advised of evidence presented against them.

Sadly, during the Ombudsman’s inquiry into the City of Brimbank no such processes were in place. Indeed, my good friend Hakki Suleyman has suffered tremendously at the hands of those carrying out that investigation. Mr Suleyman has provided this information by way of formal complaint to the Ombudsman’s office. Before the interview processes had even begun, his basic rights were affronted. Mr Suleyman states that he was threatened by investigator Lachlan McCulloch, who asked, ‘Do you know who we are? Be careful.’ Such an off-the-record threat from a public official is unconscionable. Mr Suleyman states that he was belittled and harassed, suffered the implication that his job was in danger and was badgered with the threat of phone taps. He states that upon the conclusion of the interview—or inquisition as it may be better categorised—he was further threatened by Mr McCulloch, who closed on him and said with malice: ‘You lied today. I didn’t finish you off yet.’ He also said, ‘Don’t you talk to anyone about this, not even your wife, you got it?’ Such an intimidatory statement is hardly becoming of an office that investigates matters relating to professional integrity. Nor, in my view, does it constitute being formally appraised of one’s obligations during an Ombudsman’s investigation. This is a disturbing allegation about an official trusted to investigate others in the case of Brimbank.

Thankfully, the Proust review has taken important steps toward overhauling the procedures in place at the Ombudsman’s office and restoring transparency. To ensure that the independence of the Ombudsman remains accountable to the parliament, the review recommended that the Ombudsman be subject to oversight by parliamentary committee. However, such important proposals from this robust review have not spared people like Hakki, or indeed his family, from having their reputation continually attacked and left in tatters.

In no small part, this reputational damage has been wrought by a sustained, biased and prejudicial media campaign, mainly undertaken by a journalist at the Age newspaper in Melbourne. The reporting has been led principally by Royce Millar, whose pursuit of a grubby story—purporting political scandal—led in one instance in the week of 11 June last year to his harassment of ALP members by telephone calls late at night. I understand that Mr Millar did not even have the courtesy to apprise branch members of the fact that he was a journalist. Indeed, he masqueraded as someone conducting an ALP survey on behalf of the ALP. Mr Millar, as a longstanding employee of the Age, should be aware of the journalist’s code of ethics; one should identify themselves as a journalist, the organisation they represent and not exploit a person’s vulnerability or ignorance of media practice. In this clumsy piece of journalism, Mr Millar identified that there are a number of active ALP members who are, to use his words, ‘of Turkish background’. Seemingly by virtue of their heritage, Mr Millar is willing to condemn them as nothing more than stacks in thrall to Mr Suleyman. Moreover, Mr Millar has taken a perverse delight in explicitly naming and victimising Hakki Suleyman and his daughter, Natalie. Mr Millar has acted as the self-appointed judge, jury and executioner and has even questioned Mr Suleyman’s democratic right to participate in the ALP. Mr Millar sought to shame Mr Suleyman’s election to the ALP national conference as a miscarriage of due process, in an article on 19 June last year. The relentless conduct of Mr Millar fuelled calls for Mr Suleyman to be stood down from his employment. This was highlighted in Mr Millar’s report from 7 May last year in which he verballed the Ombudsman’s report—at that point still unreleased—by exaggerating an alleged impropriety around ‘MPs employing councillor comrades’. He further stated that ‘... the findings are likely to end some political careers and damage others’. Sadly, this has been prophetic: the matter of Mr Suleyman’s employment is still being disputed with the Victorian parliament. As such, I will say very little of it here save that Mr Suleyman, in my opinion, performed his duties in the community diligently and with the greatest degree of respect for the dignity of the office.

Mr Suleyman has been hounded out of his job by a combination of relentless persecution by Ombudsman employees and a journalistic campaign that borders on the xenophobic. Even now, when the Ombudsman’s report has been found to be a baseless document and to have resulted in not one charge being laid, Mr Millar and the Age newspaper have refused to acknowledge this or even apologise for their campaign. Mr Millar has misused his position to attempt to smear respected members of the community and has conducted a witch-hunt, based upon political affiliation, that has no place in an open democracy. Mr Suleyman’s family have suffered and, indeed, the Turkish Cypriot community of Melbourne’s north-west involved in the great Australian Labor Party have suffered by implication. Many innocent political activists have been caught up in the investigation of the Ombudsman and its attendant media coverage. However, none have suffered as grievously as Mr Suleyman. I thank the Senate for the opportunity to address this important matter.