Wednesday, 17 June 2026

 James NEWBURY (Brighton) (09:37): I move:

That I introduce a bill for an act to amend the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission Act 2011 to facilitate timely reporting by the IBAC and for other purposes.

For too long there has been a cover-up occurring in Victoria. There has been cover-up occurring for corruption that is infesting our state. What the coalition is seeking to do today is move a bill to make sure that when IBAC do work, their reports are tabled fast. We want their work tabled. We look at what has happened recently with Operation Richmond, which commenced seven years ago. Seven years ago that investigation commenced, and today we are still seeing the run-around on that report. Frankly, I think most Victorians would say the court system is being misused. Whether or not that opinion is right, most Victorians would say it. They would say, ‘How, after seven years, can a corruption investigation report not be made public?’ We have seen the chief integrity agency IBAC publicly call for action on the speedy release of their work – well, so it should be. The test now for this chamber is: will this government continue to allow the cover-up? Will they allow the cover-up, because they are about to vote on it. The government is about to vote as to whether or not our corruption reports can have the light that they deserve to receive and the public scrutiny that they deserve. This is a test for the government. This legislation will enable speedy reporting, fast reporting, and a new legislative requirement that these reports are tabled speedily – and so it should be the case.

That does not take away from the court’s capacity in certain limited circumstances in relation to natural justice, and neither should that be the case when it comes to certain very unusual circumstances. When it comes to health and safety, these types of issues will still be as they should be – in the purview of the courts. This bill in no way has constitutional concerns because the courts should still have the capacity to intervene where it is appropriate and, as I said, where it is an unusual circumstance, not for people who, in a lot of Victorians’ minds, are simply using the courts to stop publication because they do not want their name bandied around for behaviour they may or may not have committed. It is wrong. It has to stop.

We saw the train wreck interview last night where calls and questions about cover-ups were put to the Premier. This goes to the heart of this bill, the urgency of this bill. The Premier was asked about the cover-ups that are occurring in Victoria, and four times she refused to answer. The test is now with the Premier. It is with the Labor government. Will they support the introduction of this bill? Will they allow the fast, speedy transparency when it comes to corruption work that we all deserve, that Victoria needs to see, to let the sunlight in?

Not only will this be a legislative requirement if this bill is put through in place, but it will allow the state government, in circumstances where you see someone misusing the court system, to intervene and participate in any application put by a person to the court where it is believed to be vexatious and to have the power of that law behind them, so the courts can hear from the state that we need to start to balance transparency more than certain individuals covering up their behaviour. That is what I think most Victorians believe.

Today is an important day. We are calling on the government to vote for the urgent introduction of this bill.

 Danny PEARSON (Essendon) (09:42): I rise to oppose the motion put by the member for Brighton. In doing so, I think what we have seen from the member for Brighton this morning is yet more hysteria. I would encourage the member for Brighton that he needs to really speak up, because I am here in the back stalls and I can barely hear him at times because he is yelling –

James Newbury: On a point of order, Speaker, sledging is not relevant.

The SPEAKER: I do not uphold the point of order.

Danny PEARSON: I listened to the audition for the leadership by the member for Brighton. What has become clear and apparent is that there is a –

Members interjecting.

The SPEAKER: The member for Essendon will resume his seat.

Members interjecting.

The SPEAKER: Member for Essendon, I ask you to resume your seat. Stop the clock. Members will cease interjecting while members are on their feet. Everyone has a right to be heard.

Danny PEARSON: Thank you, Speaker. In my time here watching and observing the member for Brighton quite closely, it is clear that he is an untrustworthy individual.

James Newbury: On a point of order, Speaker, firstly, I take offence. I ask him to withdraw.

The SPEAKER: The member for Essendon will withdraw.

Danny PEARSON: I withdraw.

James Newbury: Secondly, on relevance, the continued sledging is not relevant to the proceeding This is a procedural motion.

The SPEAKER: Thank you, Member for Brighton. The member for Essendon knows this is a procedural motion.

Danny PEARSON: Touchy, touchy – I mean, we are just warming up. Again, as soon as you look sideways at this bloke, he goes to water. The reality is that this is nothing more –

James Newbury interjected.

The SPEAKER: Member for Brighton, that is inappropriate.

James Newbury: On a point of order, Speaker, relevance.

The SPEAKER: Member for Essendon, come back to the procedural motion.

Kim Wells interjected.

The SPEAKER: Order! Member for Rowville!

Danny PEARSON: This is nothing more than a stunt. What is clear here is that this is an opportunity for the opposition to grandstand on issues where there is inherent complexity, because what you have got to do is strike the right balance between unreasonable delays in completing and publishing investigative reports, including due to litigation, and the fundamental principles of procedural fairness affecting individuals. The issue here is that you need to get that balance right. I have not spent a lot of time in relation to working in the justice portfolio, but what I do know is that IBAC forms an integral part of our justice system and that if you have an action that has an impact in relation to the way in which IBAC will do its job, it will have cascading implications across the broader sector. This is indeed reflected in IBAC’s own submission to Parliament’s Integrity and Oversight Committee inquiry into IBAC’s legislative framework, where IBAC says:

IBAC is one part of Victoria’s integrity system and changes to one part of the framework can have implications across the entire system. Any amendments to the legislative framework need to be considered in the context of this system …

What we are seeing from the member for Brighton is that he has got form – I know he might not like it, but let the truth be told – when it comes to being a low-altitude flyer who is all for the likes, all for the grabs, all for the hits. There is no substance. There is no detail.

The SPEAKER: The member for Essendon will come back to the procedural motion.

Danny PEARSON: The issue here, in opposing this motion, is that it demonstrates the fact that those opposite are not looking at this carefully and in a considered way. The reality is that this is a complex piece of legislation. The broader architecture in relation to integrity and oversight is that you have got integrated parts, As IBAC say themselves, you need to be very clear about what you might do in one part, for it affects another, and that is why you need to go and do the work. Things like this are more than just a stunt for the Assembly to kick off on a Wednesday morning. You have got to do the work, and you have got to do it properly. You do need to make sure you have the balance right between unnecessary and unreasonable delays and a right for an individual to procedural fairness. Those opposite have got form when it comes to trampling over conventions and trampling over what I think is fair and proper process, and this is yet again evidence of doing just that. The government is not supportive of this stunt by the member for Brighton. We will continue to do the serious work that needs to be done to get these things right, because it is complex work, and you need to weigh up carefully the implications of these sorts of actions. The sort of behaviour that we can see from those opposite has got nothing to do with substance; it has got nothing to do with improving integrity. It is all about a cheap hit.

 Jade BENHAM (Mildura) (09:47): In all honesty, this is getting embarrassing. This attempt by this corrupt Allan Labor government to –

Anthony Carbines: On a point of order, Speaker –

Danny O’Brien: Now who’s sensitive.

Anthony Carbines: I will follow the forms of the house, Leader of the Nationals, based on previous behaviour and will again go to relevance on this matter. This is a procedural matter, and if members cannot follow those arrangements, then I will be raising further points of order.

The SPEAKER: I remind all members who are speaking on this procedural debate to stick to the procedural debate. It is not a difficult thing to do.

Jade BENHAM: Now that I am allowed to continue, I was getting to the point that it is getting embarrassing for this corrupt government to keep blocking –

Anthony Carbines: I do raise a point of order, Speaker. This is not relevant to the procedural matter before the house. If the member cannot confine her comments to the procedural motion before the house, she should sit down.

The SPEAKER: There are reasons for a bill to be introduced to the chamber. I would ask members to stay with the reasons why the bill needs to be introduced to the chamber.

Jade BENHAM: I appreciate being mansplained to on how procedural motions work in this place.

The SPEAKER: I do not accept that you have referred to me as mansplaining, irrespective of whom it was directed at. All comments are made through the Chair.

Anthony Carbines: On a point of order, Speaker, I take offence to the comments from the member for Mildura directed at me and ask her to withdraw.

The SPEAKER: Member for Mildura will withdraw.

Jade BENHAM: I withdraw.

The SPEAKER: Member for Mildura to continue on the procedural debate.

Jade BENHAM: If I can finish a sentence this morning: it is getting embarrassing, the lengths that this corrupt Allan Labor government will go to to cover up the biggest corruption scandal this state has ever seen. The introduction of this bill is a key part in actually being able to answer some of the questions that Victorians are asking right now, because so far we have seen, like the car crash interview on the ABC last night with the Premier, that we are still failing to get any level of transparency, any answers whatsoever, and Victorians have had enough. And blocking the introduction of this bill to enable an efficient passage of these reports that will expose the facts behind this, again, corrupt Allan Labor government – a description – is embarrassing, and Victorians are angry.

As soon as Geoffrey Watson had dropped his report in Queensland and mentioned a conservative figure of $15 billion, that hit Victorians hard. They understand how many hospitals that is, how many new schools that is, how many police that is. They understand that their tax dollars have been funnelled into the pockets of criminals, bikies and organised crime by this government, under this watch. And the current Premier is the architect of that. She has been the minister since the beginning. We want answers.

Anthony CARBINES: On a point of order, Speaker, there is a procedural debate with regard to whether the house will consider the bill that has been sought to be brought forward by the Manager of Opposition Business.

Brad Rowswell interjected.

The SPEAKER: Member for Sandringham, you are warned.

Anthony Carbines: We have heard no arguments from the member as to how that is relevant, and I would draw your attention to relevance in relation to the procedural matter.

The SPEAKER: Yes. Member for Mildura to come back to the procedural debate, please.

Jade BENHAM: If the Leader of the House was listening to the argument – perhaps part of the problem of why Victorians are so angry right now is that those of us on this side of the house are trying to uncover the truth. We are just trying to uncover the truth; that is why this bill should be introduced.

 Nina TAYLOR (Albert Park) (09:52): We are seeing a paucity of substance from those opposite, a lot of emotion, and I think what is most disturbing are the attempts to distort and diminish the significance of the complexity of matters at hand, noting they have been reluctant to support a definition of ‘corrupt conduct’. It is also inappropriate to cherrypick one element in an entire integrity system and effectively run on that for the purposes of media when in fact we know we must not underestimate the importance of each and every part of the integrity system. And that is what is at risk when transacting a bill in this manner which, I would dare say, undermines and does not in any way go to all facets of the appropriateness in terms of the requisite overhaul of the integrity system as a whole. I am also going to quote IBAC’s own submission to the Parliament’s Integrity and Oversight Committee inquiry into IBAC’s legislative framework:

IBAC is one part of Victoria’s integrity system and changes to one part of the framework can have implications across the entire system. Any amendments to the legislative framework need to be considered in the context of this system …

Hence a domino effect with who knows what consequences could effectively undermine the purposes which we are all seeking here, and they are to ensure that integrity is supported and maintained in our great state of Victoria, which at least the members on this side of the house love. We love our state, and we certainly back it in at every moment we can. We respect the individuals that work hard in our integrity system, and because of that, we must show them due respect and allow any amendments to the integrity system to factor in the entire integrity system as a whole and not cherrypick one element, which could have perilous consequences in the near or distant future.

 Brad BATTIN (Berwick) (09:55): This bill needs to be introduced for one simple reason: justice delayed is justice denied. Whilst those on that side can make jokes around this, the reality is I have sat here and seen what has happened when it comes to some of the IBAC reports in Victoria. It is a shame in this state that the Operation Richmond report has not been released, and not just for people like Tony Bates, who may have been caught up with it and who has now been appointed as Secretary of the Department of Education. I think the community would love to know what he did, how he was involved and what corruption was involved with Tony Bates and the discussions with Daniel Andrews.

Anthony Carbines: On a point of order, Speaker, for members to use cowards castle to slander and attack public servants is out of order, and I say that that should be withdrawn.

The SPEAKER: That is not a point of order, but I do ask the member for Berwick to speak to the procedural debate.

Brad BATTIN: That is the exact reason why we need to bring in this legislation, because we need to understand who in the government has been involved in the discussions between Peter Marshall, the United Firefighters Union, Daniel Andrews, Tony Bates and Eccles. The problem here is when it does not get released. This is for people like Stephanie Rotarangi, who was a fantastic leader in the CFA, who stood up for integrity, who stood up for the CFA, who did everything right to ensure the protection of her members. It is for Jane Garrett, who stood up for what was right, who did the right thing. Operation Richmond will show that Jane Garrett was right and Daniel Andrews was 100 per cent wrong. There are so many ministers still sitting at the table today who need to be named in this report, who need to go out there and publicly apologise. Operation Richmond will tear down what happened between Daniel Andrews and Peter Marshall, the corrupt behaviour in this state.

We know that this government loves to deny justice here in Victoria, and let us be honest, it is not new. That is why it is retrospective. But we can look back on this Labor government, whether it is red shirts rorts, whether it is a previous Speaker who stole money from the Victorian people, which this government covered up.

Anthony Carbines: On a point of order, Speaker, I am still struggling to find how the member for Berwick is being relevant to the procedural matter before the house in relation to his contribution.

Members interjecting.

The SPEAKER: Order! Member for Eildon! Member for Brighton! Member for Berwick, I ask you to come back to the procedural debate.

Brad BATTIN: It is so important that we introduce this legislation, because we have got a Labor government that continues to hide corruption here in Victoria, and as I said, they have a history of it. That is why we need to introduce it. A Speaker and a Deputy Speaker both stole money from this Parliament. The Labor Party stole $380,000 from Victorian taxpayers. It is important that it goes to IBAC when we find out the truth, because this government thinks that if they pay it back, it is okay. Going by that scenario, those that are doing ag burgs and stealing cars, if they return the cars, then they should get off and not get charged at all. The reality is they will get bail, so they do not have any stress in this state. They have got no stress with what they steal. No wonder car theft is at the highest level it has ever been. This legislation is vital to ensure –

Anthony Carbines: Speaker, I again renew my point of order with regard to relevance to the procedural debate before the house.

The SPEAKER: Come back to the procedural debate, member for Berwick.

Brad BATTIN: That is why IBAC in Victoria needs to have the powers to investigate, to ensure natural justice. I have spoken specifically about this with the member for Brighton. The one thing we could not take away was natural justice, because we have spoken to people who need the opportunity to look at those reports. But why is it that any IBAC report that does not involve the Victorian Labor Party seems to have been tabled and IBAC reports involving the Labor Party are all being hidden and never get released? That is why this legislation is so vital, because on this side we know that those that are investigating parliamentarians must have free rein to do so to ensure that any corrupt behaviour is called out. And any person who is found guilty of corrupt behaviour should be charged; I do not care where you sit in this place.

That includes previous premiers and current premiers if it is in relation to something like a $15 billion cost to the Victorian taxpayers for their Big Build projects. We should be able to 100 per cent look at what the Premier is doing at the moment. IBAC should be able to do that, but not just do the report and use it as a doorstop later so no-one sees it. That report should be released to the public. Operation Richmond needs to be out before the election. Only then can we have faith in the system.

 Nathan LAMBERT (Preston) (10:00): I rise to oppose the motion by the member for Brighton, and I might just echo the comments made by the Leader of the House with respect to the member for Berwick’s contribution. I do think it is very important that if people are going to come into this place and make very serious allegations of corruption they should take them, as the Leader of the House said, to the appropriate integrity bodies. Certainly they should not bring them to this place and then fail to do so. I thought the comments made by the member for Berwick with respect to Tony Bates should be addressed in that matter and not in the manner –

Brad Battin interjected.

Nathan LAMBERT: For the benefit of the member for Berwick I will reiterate my point. These things should not be brought up cheaply in this place but should be brought up through the full process. If the member has serious integrity questions to raise, the member knows where to take them.

Brad Battin interjected.

The SPEAKER: Member for Berwick!

Nathan LAMBERT: It is particularly important on integrity matters that we follow the correct process. There is a correct process here. All members are aware that the Integrity and Oversight Committee – the chair is here with us – had an extensive investigation into the adequacy of the legislative framework around IBAC.

Members interjecting.

The SPEAKER: Order! Members will come to order.

Nathan LAMBERT: Speaker, if I can raise a point of order, it is very difficult to make my contribution with constant interjections from the member for Berwick.

The SPEAKER: Order! I have called members to order.

Nathan LAMBERT: Thank you. And as I was saying –

Members interjecting.

The SPEAKER: Member for Brighton, you are very close to being removed from the chamber this morning.

Nathan LAMBERT: As I was saying, the Integrity and Oversight Committee completed a report. We have read that report. The government has responded to that report. The report, of course, addresses recommendation 27, which is pertinent to what we are discussing. There is an expert reference group being set up and there is an appropriate process being followed, and we will see the output and the further consideration of that process when it is complete. My personal preference is that instead of addressing this matter today we follow that appropriate process, which is particularly important for integrity matters, and that we should move to members statements, which are coming up next. I know the member for Pascoe Vale has some important matters to raise on behalf of his community. I am certainly hoping to raise some matters with respect to the Yarra Avenue drop-off for Reservoir East Primary School, where there are some safety issues. The school crossing there is not quite in the right place. It is a fantastic local school run by James Cumming and Linda Lavelle, and they do a great job, but there are some issues there that I would like to raise in my members statement.

As I have set out for you, I think the matters raised by the opposition here are best dealt with by the well-established process that all of us have already agreed upon, including through the work of the Integrity and Oversight Committee. I reject the motion by the member for Brighton.

The SPEAKER: Member for Melbourne, by leave. Is leave granted?

Leave refused.

Assembly divided on motion: