Tuesday, 3 March 2026

 James NEWBURY (Brighton) (12:08): I move:

That I introduce a bill for an act to amend the Independent Broad-based Anti-Corruption Commission Act ‍2011 to expand the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission’s jurisdiction and provide further for public hearings and for other purposes.

Today is a test for this government, after this Parliament has said very loudly and very clearly that we cannot stand for the cover-up of corruption that has occurred in this state.

Members interjecting.

James NEWBURY: Only one sentence into seeking to speak to the procedural motion that would enable this bill to occur, and the government is calling out ‘no’. This is a test for our Parliament but more a test for this government and whether they have any integrity at all. The coalition, the Liberals and Nationals, have announced a package of measures because we want to clean up this state. We know and have seen the most shameful examples of corruption uncovered over recent weeks. I think it would be fair to say that every Victorian we have spoken to, and I am sure every Victorian the government members have spoken to, has raised their horror – there is no other word – at the corruption that has been uncovered: a minimum $15 billion of corruption.

As the member for Laverton herself has said, this issue has been raised with government members. The government members have belled the cat; it is being raised. So we are proposing to move a bill today which does something meaningful and significant and will bring about change, because what this bill will do is provide our chief anti-corruption agency with the powers it needs to chase down the crooks who are getting taxpayers money. How could any government stand to see Victorian taxpayers money go to crooks and turn a blind eye – turn their back on it? Shameful. We will not, and that is why today we are moving this bill, which has two significant powers. Firstly, it will allow the IBAC, the chief anti-corruption agency, the powers it needs to follow the money, to chase money, and to have oversight of public expenditure in terms of third parties. In terms of third-party expenditure IBAC will have the capacity to investigate, to look into, to understand where that money has gone, because a contractual shield should not protect integrity of taxpayers funds. At the moment IBAC cannot look beyond that shield and understand where taxpayers money has gone. Sadly, it has taken a significant effort by specifically the Age to uncover where a lot of this money is going, but we know it is only the tip of the iceberg. We know, sadly, it is only the tip of the iceberg. We know that this behaviour is rampant and it requires immediate investigation.

The second thing this bill seeks to do is change the exceptional circumstances rule for public hearings. So where a public hearing will be in the public interest, this new power will change the default level of when a public hearing occurs, because if it is in the public interest it should be public, not just where it is exceptional but where it is in the public interest. There is a balance on when public hearings occur. What this bill seeks to do is strike that right balance. I would say to the government: the members of that side of the chamber will have a chance in a moment, the members of that side of the chamber will have an opportunity to speak to what their level of integrity is, to whether or not they want to see corruption cleaned up in this state, and to say whether or not they believe it was okay for $15 billion of our money – taxpayers money – to be corrupted. Every Victorian is going to look on to see how members vote, how the Premier herself votes, how the Deputy Premier votes on this bill. This bill is important, we must do it today, and this is the right thing to do for Victorians.

 Paul EDBROOKE (Frankston) (12:14): Well, that was quite pious, but I think the member for Brighton just belled the cat in that we will see how people vote. The opposition have shown once again their proclivity for putting up very, very dubious propositions. Also I would like to say that –

Members interjecting.

The SPEAKER: Order! Member for Brighton! Stop the clock. The member for Brighton was given the courtesy to be heard in silence. I expect the same for all members on their feet.

Paul EDBROOKE: Thank you for your protection, Speaker. The right actions, the appropriate actions, were taken on this issue, and I cannot support this binary motion.

 Danny O’BRIEN (Gippsland South) (12:14): Well, I was interested to see who was drawing the short straws over there, but obviously nobody wanted to. Nobody wanted to, because nobody on that side wants to defend this corrupt government.

The SPEAKER: Through the Chair.

Jess Wilson interjected.

Danny O’BRIEN: They cannot say what they are doing, Leader of the Opposition, that is right, and that is why the opposition is acting to actually protect Victorians from the corruption that has been bedevilling this state – $15 billion of corruption as reported by Geoffrey Watson SC, the CFMEU-appointed investigator.

I have had people on my social media in the last couple of days saying ‘Where’s your evidence?’ It came from the CFMEU’s own appointed investigator and was only revealed because of a Queensland Parliament commission of inquiry, because those on that side of this Parliament are not interested in knowing anything about this. The Age has been raising this for years, and the government has said, ‘I referred it to the police. We did this, we did that. I referred it to IBAC –’

The SPEAKER: Order! Leader of the Nationals, this is a procedural debate. I would ask you to speak to the procedural motion.

Danny O’BRIEN: I am doing so, Speaker, because I am explaining why we need to have this legislation introduced and debated. This is very important for the Victorian people, who have seen $15 billion of their hard-earned taxpayers dollars diverted to bikies and criminals because a government absolutely turned its eyes away from what was going on despite repeatedly being warned over the years. That is why we need this legislation today. The member for Brighton has indicated exactly why we are bringing in this legislation – to give IBAC those follow-the-dollar powers. The Premier was advised by IBAC that IBAC could not investigate these claims because it did not have those powers, and what did the Premier do? Nothing. The Premier did nothing. The Premier did not respond to IBAC’s directions.

Mary-Anne Thomas: On a point of order, Speaker, the member on his feet is required to be factual. He is simply outlining things that are not true, and I ask that you call him back to –

The SPEAKER: Order! Under standing order 58 there is a requirement that all members be factual.

Danny O’BRIEN: Well, if we are going to be factual, let us remind ourselves that a couple of weeks ago the Premier released the letter that she wrote to IBAC, from 2024, asking them to investigate, but she neglected to tell the rest of the Victorian people that IBAC wrote back to her and said they do not have the power. I would invite the Leader of the House to explain what the government did after that. What did they do to actually satisfy themselves that anything was being done about the corruption on the Big Build projects? The evidence so far says they did very, very little. They have not given IBAC the powers. They have not followed up with police. They have not followed up with the AFP, with the ATO, with WorkSafe – any of those. They have sent off emails and said, ‘We referred it. We referred it and nothing has happened.’ And Victorians are continuing –

Mary-Anne Thomas: On a further point of order, Speaker, again, the member on his feet is defying your ruling. You have reminded him that contributions are required to be factual, and once again the member on his feet is neglecting –

The SPEAKER: I have made this point before. Standing order 58 requires members to be factual. It is not for me to determine. It is a rule of the house.

Danny O’BRIEN: Thank you, Speaker. I was not defying your ruling, because you gave that ruling. If the government would like to get up and explain the facts, it can do so.

The SPEAKER: Through the Chair!

Danny O’BRIEN: If the government would like to get up and explain the facts, Speaker, it can do so. We saw the first speaker from the government sit down after 30 seconds. They are so embarrassed about this. They know that they have overseen an abject corruption – $15 billion of taxpayers money. As the Shadow Minister for Roads and Road Safety, have a think about how many roads we could fix for $15 billion. The government is saying it is doing 200,000 a year. It could do 2 million a year if it was actually putting that money towards roads. And yet we have got a government that is not interested. It does not want to find out about the extent of corruption in this state.

Mary-Anne Thomas interjected.

Danny O’BRIEN: The Leader of the House says that that is not true. If it is not true, speak up and vote for this legislation today.

The SPEAKER: Leader of the Nationals, I remind you it is disorderly to respond to interjections, and to address your comments through the Chair.

 Nina TAYLOR (Albert Park) (12:20): I will remind the chamber that this is a strictly procedural motion and not a referendum on integrity, as the opposition are trying so very hard to claim. When we reflect on the seriousness of the matters that they are seeking to rush through here, we know that there is the Crimes Amendment Bill 2026, and we would love them to support that, because they purport to be the party of law and order but we are not seeing that here. So I would suggest that they allow the proper conduct of the Parliament to continue.

 Brad ROWSWELL (Sandringham) (12:20): Government member contributions will speak for themselves. Government member contributions on the introduction of this bill, as moved by the member for Brighton, will speak for themselves. Hansard will record the response of government members who are speaking for less than a minute on the introduction of a very important bill seeking to be introduced by the member for Brighton. It will be on the public record of this state forever and a day, and what will also be on the public record will be this government’s inability to address the largest issue facing this state: to unearth, to uncover, to get to the bottom of a $15 billion – billion with a ‘b’ – corruption tax, which has been enabled by government ministers sleeping at the wheel and a union that has just run rampant through this state.

Sarah Connolly: On a point of order, Speaker – I loathe to interrupt the member for Sandringham – may you remind the member for Sandringham that he is required to be factual, and he is not being factual in his contribution.

The SPEAKER: Order! I have ruled on this matter previously. Members are expected to be factual when they are on their feet.

Brad ROWSWELL: It is important for this bill to be first read. It is critical for this bill to be first read. The Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission has for some time called for these powers which this bill will enact. All we are asking the government to do is to allow it to be introduced, for it to be second read and for them to support very good public policy, which the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission has called for itself as recently as December 2025 in that very good parliamentary committee, the Integrity and Oversight Committee, contributed to by the member for Rowville and the member for Mildura. There was recommendation 5, which suggested that IBAC have ‘follow-the-dollar investigatory powers’. Respectfully to that committee, I suggest that the powers IBAC are actually seeking are not follow-the-dollar powers but follow-the-$15-billion powers. Every cent of it deserves to be uncovered – every cent of it. What members opposite do not recognise quite clearly, by the disdain with which they are conducting themselves through the course –

The SPEAKER: Member for Sandringham, I am not sure what you are looking at, but the Chair is here. Through the Chair.

Brad ROWSWELL: Speaker, to assist you, I am looking at the time.

The SPEAKER: Thank you, member for Sandringham.

Brad ROWSWELL: The $15 billion that needs to be uncovered – every cent of that is a cent of the hardworking Victorian taxpayers, who are being taxed to the hilt by a government who is ripping them off and does not give a stuff about them, frankly. Unlike them, unlike members of the government –

Sarah Connolly: On a point of order, Speaker, the member for Sandringham is not only casting wrong aspersions onto the government but also not telling the truth.

The SPEAKER: It is not a point of order.

Brad ROWSWELL: It is quite clear that this government is determined to turn the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission, the independent watchdog over these matters, from a watchdog into a lapdog. They want to under-resource it. They have been under-resourcing it year after year after year after year just to meet budget. The Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission has been relying upon Treasurer’s advance after Treasurer’s advance year after year just to meet budget. This government – a government who quite clearly do not value integrity, who quite clearly do not value hardworking Victorian taxpayers contributions – of course want nothing to do with this.

Of course they want nothing to do with this bill. Of course they do not want to give IBAC more powers and of course they do not want to give IBAC more investment, because they know the consequences of that: as soon as they give just a centimetre of acknowledgement that what has happened is the wrong thing to do, they will unearth a Pandora’s box of problems for the Premier, which goes to the heart of who they are, which goes to the heart of the labour movement, which goes to the heart of the union movement.

Mary-Anne Thomas: On a point of order, Speaker, again, I ask that you remind the member on his feet that this is a narrow procedural motion and that he is straying far and wide. I ask that you bring him back to the narrow procedural motion.

The SPEAKER: The member for Sandringham’s time has expired. I will take points of order at the end of the procedural debate.

 Nathan LAMBERT (Preston) (12:26): I rise to make a brief contribution on this procedural matter and to echo the comments of the member for Frankston and the member for Albert Park.

Members interjecting.

The SPEAKER: Order! Member for Polwarth!

Nathan LAMBERT: As the opposition are well aware, there are proper ways to deal with these important issues. I would also add while I am on my feet –

Members interjecting.

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Preston will be heard in silence.

Nathan LAMBERT: that there are proper ways to do quantitative analysis. I did a little bit of that work in a previous life, and I would just suggest some of the figures that have been quoted do not follow that proper work, but I will leave my contribution at that.

James Newbury: On a point of order, Speaker, before you put the question, I do want to raise with you from Rulings from the Chair Speaker Smith’s ruling of 21 March 2013 in relation to the principles of points of order, and I specifically draw your attention to principle (6) and principle (7) on continual repeating of points of order and frivolous and spurious points. Sorry, did I say something funny?

The SPEAKER: No. Your point of order is noted.

James Newbury: Can I finish my point of order?

The SPEAKER: Can you be direct with your point of order.

James Newbury: I am getting to it, as I am entitled to do. When one of our speakers spoke, the Chair did suggest that members from this side of the chamber were required to hear the speakers, and we did respectfully listen to the speaker – of course we did. We respectfully listened, and I put to you that there were repeated frivolous points of order and at no time was there protection given from that frivolous, spurious behaviour.

The SPEAKER: Order! I am not quite sure what the point of order is, member for Brighton. However –

Members interjecting.

The SPEAKER: Member for Laverton! Member for Frankston! I do remind all members to abide by the Rulings from the Chair and also the standing orders. It is incumbent on all of you to know the standing orders. It is my job to enforce them.

Assembly divided on motion: