The group is believed to have debated whether the recording could be released publicly to fuel tensions in the Liberal Party ahead of the November 29 state election. The senior ALP official who first listened to the dictaphone decided not to release its contents after seeking legal advice. Despite this - and against his wishes - a recording made its way to a third party, before it was released to hundreds of Liberal members and MPs on June 24. The Age is aware of the identities of the people involved but at this stage has chosen not to name them. Those believed to be involved were asked a series of questions about when they came into possession of the dictaphone or its contents, whether they listened to it, and whether they had any role in its dissemination. The Age also asked Mr Andrews whether he was aware any members of his staff were involved. All individuals declined to comment, but state secretary Noah Carroll did not deny that the contents of the dictaphone had been listened to by senior Labor officials and members of Mr Andrews' staff. ''The Victorian ALP categorically rejects any suggestion that it was involved in the theft of any Dictaphone or the distribution of the contents of any Dictaphone,'' he said in a statement.

''As this matter is currently being investigated, we shall not be making any further public comment. I wish to advise you that this is the collective response of all of the individuals that you have sent similar questions to this afternoon on this matter.'' Under section 11 of Victoria's Surveillance Devices Act it is a crime carrying a maximum two-year jail term to knowingly distribute a recording of a private conversation between other parties without their consent, unless it is in the public interest. It is also regarded as theft not to return property to its rightful owner. The retrieval of the recording device by security staff from the Moonee Valley Racing Club is captured on CCTV footage, which has now been viewed by The Age. The footage shows Tomazin sitting on a chair around 11am on May 17 - the first day of Labor's two-day conference. As she gets up to leave, the device slips out from between a notebook and conference papers onto the seat. Moments later, two security guards see the device and one of them eventually goes upstairs to hand it in. The alleged criminal behaviour and dirty tricks by senior figures in the Victorian party raise tough questions for Mr Andrews just four months from the November 29 state election. While the Liberal Party has been conducting an investigation into how membership details were accessed, amid suspicions that agitators from the Liberal Party's hard-right were responsible after being provided with a recording of the conversation, Labor has previously claimed to have nothing to do with the dictaphone.

''This is a completely internal Liberal Party matter. Completely internal to the Liberal Party. I want to be very clear about that,'' Mr Andrews said in June. Age editor in chief Andrew Holden said: ''At this stage we have chosen not to name the individuals involved in order to protect the identity of our sources. The information is completely trustworthy. However, there is a clear public interest in the moral and legal standards of those who seek to have a significant role in the government of Victoria. ''Accordingly, we call on the Leader of the Opposition to identify all those who were involved in this matter, to explain what disciplinary actions he will take against them, and to reassure the public of Victoria that he had no knowledge of this illegal activity.'' What they said ‘‘What should the penalty now be for Mr Baillieu? What about all of the others who have also leaked and been recorded by The Age?’’ Email from ‘‘Elizabeth McRobert’’, June 24

“This is a sideshow. What we are on about is getting on with governing for Victoria.” Premier Denis Napthine, June 24 “It shows that Ted is still upset, is still frustrated by a number of his parliamentary colleagues.’’ Former premier Jeff Kennett “This is a government tearing itself apart.” When asked by a reporter if the Labor Party had anything to do with the leaked tape, he replied, “No. We did not.” Deputy Opposition Leader James Merlino, June 25 “This is a completely internal Liberal Party matter. Completely internal to the Liberal Party. I want to be very clear about that.” Opposition Leader Daniel Andrews “There is no relevance for me to be involved in these investigations. They are investigations for the Liberal Party, not me, they are not government issues.” Denis Napthine, June 27

“Two weeks ago James Merlino denied the Labor Party had any involvement in this issue. Daniel Andrews now needs to explain what was meant by those comments, and does he stand by that denial.” Planning Minister Matthew Guy, July 6 Q & A What happened to the dictaphone? The dictaphone was left on a seat at Labor’s State Conference and a security guard handed in the tape to lost property. It was then listened to by senior ALP officials and kept at ALP HQ. Who emailed the tape of the conversation to Liberal Party members?

Labor officials made copies of the tape, but received legal advice it would be illegal to distribute them. It is unclear who passed a copy to a person with access to Liberal Party records, who distributed it. What is happening with the investigation from here? The Victoria Police are continuing their investigation, with a prospect of theft charges against at least one senior ALP official. What did Opposition Leader Daniel Andrews and the Labor Party know? On June 25, Deputy Opposition Leader James Merlino told reporters that Labor had nothing to do with the release of the conversation.

What charges could people face over not returning the dictaphone? Under the Victorian Crimes Act, a person is guilty of theft if he or she “dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it”. It can attract a penalty of up to 10 years’ imprisonment. What charges could people face for distributing the audio from the tape? Loading Under the Surveillance Devices Act, it is a crime to knowingly distribute a recording of a private conversation without consent, unless it is in the public interest. Offenders could face a maximum of two years in jail.



