18 November 2022 Our Ref: 220323:DF

Warwick Gately AM
Electoral Commissioner
Victorian Electoral Commission
Level 11
530 Collins Street
Melbourne VIC 3000

By email: complaints@vec.vic.gov.au

Dear Mr Gately,

RE: Politicisation of VEC in relation to referral of Catlin Matter to IBAC

As you are aware, we act for the Liberal Party of Australia (Victorian Division) and the Hon
Matthew Guy MP.

We are writing to you to express the serious concerns our clients have regarding the conduct of
the VEC, and its apparent failure to act independently and impartially, in breach of its Values and
Obligations.

Our clients consider the public referral of matters relating to Mr Catlin to IBAC, and subsequent
media commentary from the VEC during pre-poll and at nine days prior to the State Election,
suggests an intent to damage the Liberal Party in the State Election and which could potentially
erode trust in the electoral process.

We suggest you carefully review the previous correspondence in this matter. At all stages Mr Guy
has fully co-operated with the VEC and on 21 September provided all relevant documents in his
possession.

Specifically, we note:

1. The last correspondence received from the VEC 21 October 2022 stated that the VEC
would:

“…continue with other lines of inquiry into the this [sic] matter and continue the
investigation into the general matter that brought the compliance officer to the original
decision to issue the notice.”
To: Victorian Electoral Commission 18 November 2022

At no stage did the VEC indicate that there was any proposal to refer the matter to IBAC
and the first our clients heard of this referral was through your media statement dated 17
November 2022.

2. On 13 November 2022, the VEC made a statement to The Sunday Age saying that it would
not “compromise its processes or rush to end an investigation” and that, consequently:

“Based on the investigation to date, the Victorian Electoral Commission acknowledges

that the matter will not be resolved prior to the state election.”

3. Contrary to this statement, the VEC stated publicly on 17 November 2022 that they had
referred the matter to IBAC. We question the basis for the change of position.

4. In the Statement of the VEC on 17 November 2022, the VEC also stated that:

“The VEC will provide no further comment on this case now that is has been referred to
IBAC.”

5. Despite this written statement not to comment further, it has come to our attention that
Sue Lang, the Director Communication and Engagement for the VEC gave two media
interviews:

a. Firstly, to Tom Elliot on Melbourne Radio 3AW on 17 November where Ms Lang

commented on the matter, stating inter alia that:

SUE LANG: I can’t discuss the particulars but I can tell you that the matter
itself has been referred to IBAC

TOM ELLIOTT: If you’ve had to refer them because people haven’t

cooperated and he says had cooperated-

LANG: Yes

ELLIOTT: Both these statements can’t be correct

LANG: That’s correct.

b. Second, to Neil Mitchell on Melbourne Radio 3AW on 18 November 2022

commenting on the investigation. During that interview, on the subject of the
referral to IBAC, transcript as follows:

MITCHELL: I understand, I understand and what I’m saying is in the middle

of an election campaign where integrity is a key issue it is only fair to say
whether that involves the leader of the opposition

SUE LANG: All the key players in that initial issue were invited to ask ah to
respond to questions

MITCHELL: Did they all refuse to respond?

SUE LANG: We received no satisfactory response from anybody.

2
To: Victorian Electoral Commission 18 November 2022

MITCHELL: Well that does put Matthew Guy into it because he was one of
them, you would have gone to him

SUE LANG: And there you are, it’s over to IBAC for further investigation.
We don’t have powers to investigate at the same level as IBAC and the
police

Conduct contrary to VEC Values and Obligations

We consider the various above media releases, VEC comments and statements from Ms Lang to
be an extraordinary and unprecedented entry into political debate from the VEC, which has the
potential to prejudice the election outcome.

The VEC’s role is to impartially manage Victoria’s electoral process, not take part it in it as a
player.

I note your website which states under the “About us” section that:

“We are an independent and impartial body established under Victoria's Electoral Act 2002.”

I also note that the VEC website lists its first value as:

• “Independence: we act with impartiality and integrity”.

The actions I have outlined above are clearly contrary to these values and the role of the VEC.

Request for Action

Our clients request the following immediate actions:

1) The VEC to immediately cease and desist in any further public commentary about this
matter, either official or unofficial, for the remainder of the election campaign, save;

2) A public statement confirming that our clients have indeed responded to your enquiries
and provided relevant documents on 21 September 2022 in accordance with the
timeframe stipulated by the VEC;

3) Ms Sue Lang, Director Communication and Engagement at the VEC to be immediately

stood-aside from her role pending a full external and transparent investigation into her
comments and on whose authority she made them; and

4) You immediately commission a full external and independent review of the VEC’s actions
regarding the Catlin matter, including but not limited to the timing of the referral to IBAC,
and all public commentary from the VEC and its spokespeople around this matter.

Given the proximity of the election, our clients regard this as an extremely serious matter and we
demand your urgent attention to the above requests.

Subject to your response, our clients may make a formal complaint about the conduct of the VEC
to IBAC and/or Victorian Ombudsman.

3
To: Victorian Electoral Commission 18 November 2022

Our clients otherwise reserve their rights.

Yours faithfully,

Dan Feldman
Partner