Tuesday, 8 September 2026

 Nina TAYLOR (Albert Park) (14:40): I am very pleased to rise to speak on these important reforms. Fundamentally, if we look at the core elements of these reforms, the bill implements the government’s commitment to enabling IBAC to follow the money and broadening the definition of ‘corrupt conduct’ to complement the work of the royal commission and special prosecutor and provide a holistic and comprehensive response to allegations of misconduct on government-funded construction projects. I think it is important to see these reforms within the precise context in which they operate and not in a silo that could potentially distort the extent and the seriousness of what these reforms will undertake in terms of the manner in which they will be able to deliver on integrity in this state. I was concerned that there was a potential diminution – a reducing of the significance – of the reforms which are being undertaken, and I am not sure that that is in any way helpful when we look at the deep and profound way that the reforms are being delivered today before us in the chamber.

There are a couple of other points that I want to go to before exploring in a deeper way the elements of the bill. Initially the Leader of the Opposition was hesitating on the expansion of the definition of ‘corrupt conduct’. I think that that should be duly noted when those opposite are seeking to artificially create a perception of moral superiority on these matters, because we know that with this bill in particular the expansion of the definition of ‘corrupt conduct’ is an incredibly significant part of the reforms that are before us. That changed position in itself certainly illustrates that their seeking to have some sort of superior status when it comes to the integrity that is being underpinned through these reforms is somewhat artificial.

The other point that I think it is necessary to make is that one of the very fundamental elements of the royal commission is having an independent position – that is, the position of the royal commissioner. I think that the member for Brighton assuming or purporting to assume the position of the commissioner in terms of the selection of who should come before the commission was interesting, not in a good way, and intriguing, again not in a good way, because no politician should be deciding who comes before the commission. That is absolutely the premise of that independent position, so I think that that is also unhelpful when we are talking about a fundamental element of this debate, and that is integrity.

Where does the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission Act 2011 sit as we speak, and why are we making these reforms? Under the IBAC act conduct must meet certain requirements to constitute corrupt conduct, such as conduct that adversely affects the honest performance by a public officer or public body of their functions, the misuse of information or material in the course of their performance or conduct that involves recklessly breaching public trust. Currently conduct must also constitute a relevant offence before IBAC can commence an investigation.

‘Relevant offence’ is defined narrowly in the IBAC act, so therein we can see one of the premises upon which we are making or putting forward these reforms to the chamber today. ‘Relevant offence’ is defined narrowly in the IBAC act as ‘an indictable offence’ or any of the common-law offences of ‘attempt to pervert the course of justice’, ‘bribery of a public official’, ‘perverting the course of justice’ or ‘misconduct in public office’. The current definition of ‘corrupt conduct’ limits IBAC from investigating other integrity-compromising behaviours that may not meet the threshold of a criminal offence. To address this issue and give full effect to the government’s commitment, the bill amends the IBAC act to provide that corrupt conduct means conduct that will constitute any offence or a serious disciplinary matter.

I want to come to the issue of follow-the-money powers. These changes provide IBAC with powers comparable to the Victorian Auditor-General in order to investigate corrupt conduct by third-party and private subcontractors where there is a connection between alleged corrupt conduct and the performance of a public function funded by government. To do this, the bill will amend the definitions of ‘public body’ and ‘public officer’ in the IBAC act to include reference to associated entities, drawing on the definitions in the Audit Act 1994. This is in line with the Integrity and Oversight Committee’s report recommendation. The bill seeks to ensure that IBAC’s jurisdiction is enlivened where there is conduct by an associated entity in the performance of a public function on behalf of the state, a public officer or body, with a nexus or connection between the suspected corrupt conduct and the expenditure or use of those public funds or publicly funded project, function or undertaking.

Now I would like to come to the expansion of the definition of ‘corrupt conduct’. The IBAC Commissioner has publicly stated that any proposed follow-the-money reforms should be accompanied by other legislative reforms, including changing the definition of ‘corrupt conduct’. I just want to remind the chamber of what I said at the outset – that the Leader of the Opposition originally did not want to expand the definition of ‘corrupt conduct’. I believe now she has changed her position, but obviously that should be confirmed through debate in the chamber. The bill removes the relevant offence requirement – and this is what I was explaining up until the present moment – and sets a new threshold to enable IBAC to investigate conduct that would constitute either an offence or a serious disciplinary matter. ‘Serious disciplinary matter’ is defined as:

serious misconduct; or:

any other matter that constitutes or may constitute grounds for –

termination of employment, appointment or engagement … or

a significant employment, appointment or contractual penalty … or

a serious contravention of –

the Code of Conduct set out in Part 3 of the Members of Parliament (Standards) Act 1978; or

the Model Councillor Code of Conduct within the meaning of the Local Government Act 2020; or

a code of conduct … that applies to a responsible Minister of the Crown or a Parliamentary Secretary ‍…

I think we can all agree that these are comprehensive reforms. No stone is being left unturned, so to speak, when you see the depth in terms of the manner in which these matters can be pursued. They are certainly very comprehensive, and we are not resiling from the significance of these important reforms, because I would like to think, at least on this side of the house, we do have the goal of ensuring that the appropriate matters are brought to light that should be brought to light for the benefit of all Victorians. We are not in any way resiling from those processes, and hence we are driving these reforms in the chamber. I think it is important – and I did speak from the outset as to the context in which we operate – that the royal commission will have broad terms of reference, so nothing is off limits, and it will be backed by the office of the special prosecutor, so wrongdoers face consequences.

I do not know why the opposition cannot seem to grasp the seriousness of the royal commission’s remit. It should not be in any way underestimated. The terms of reference are broad. I am going to take the liberty of saying that, broadly speaking, those terms of reference have had broad approval. We have done that deliberately because it is the right and proper thing to do to ensure transparency in these processes and that the reforms do honour integrity in this state.

 Danny O’BRIEN (Gippsland South) (14:50): I am pleased to rise on the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission Amendment Bill 2026 – although this bill should be called the ‘dragged kicking and screaming bill’, because that is exactly what is happening with the Labor Party in this state on this legislation and on this issue. After years of ignoring it, after years of saying that there was no evidence, after years of denigrating those who raised concerns about evidence of corruption on the Big Build, after attacks on the Queensland Commission of Inquiry into the CFMEU and Misconduct in the Construction Industry and the whistleblower there, after attacks on the CFMEU’s own paid staff and administrators who were investigating the corruption that had occurred in that union on the Big Build, now we finally have a government purporting to act. It is purporting to act, I would say, in the shadow of an election, at a time when those opposite, particularly those on the back bench facing obliteration in this coming election, have finally said, ‘Enough is enough.’

Members interjecting.

Danny O’BRIEN: One Nation is not just coming here. One Nation is coming for lots of you over there – coming for your seat, coming for that seat, coming for lots of them.

The SPEAKER: Leader of the Nationals, you have been here long enough to know that you direct your comments through the Chair.

Danny O’BRIEN: Yes, Speaker, I should not pick up interjections from those who are not going to be here next term, including those who have chosen to go but who would have been going anyway. It would be remiss of me to do that. I think there is some false bravado from those opposite. That goes to the heart of this legislation, because this government for so many years, for at least four years now, has been denying there is a problem, has been denying there is as an issue on the Big Build. And yet we know that there has been an estimate of at least $15 billion of taxpayers money lost to corruption on the Big Build. In fact it is surprising that no-one has disputed that, because normally when that figure is raised in this place, someone does dispute it. The government acknowledges there is a problem but always says, ‘No, that figure’s not right’. If it is not right, what is it? Is it $10 billion? Is it $20 billion? Is it a billion dollars? If it is half a billion, is that okay? That seems to have been the issue from those opposite: well, it is not a big problem; it was taxpayers money; no-one got hurt; the CFMEU got looked after; and we are building big things, and people like big things. But in fact people do not like to see their money wasted, and they do not like to see corruption.

I do not think I have seen in my time in politics, let alone as an MP – 25 years around this game – a figure take hold in the public consciousness more than the $15 billion one.

Members interjecting.

Danny O’BRIEN: There it is. Now those opposite are saying it is not true. Well, if it is not true, what is this legislation for? If it is not true, what is the royal commission for? That is exactly the point that we have been making for a long time: this government cannot get its story straight. It cannot decide whether there is corruption and it might be $15 billion or whether there is corruption maybe but it is definitely not $15 billion. We saw the former Premier get into all sorts of strife on 7.30 a couple of months ago, where she could not answer the simple question, ‘If it’s not $15 billion of corruption, what is it?’ That is the problem for the member for Narre Warren South, the member for Narre Warren North and all of those over there who are concerned, saying that it is not true. Well, if it is not true, let us see what the royal commission throws up.

This legislation only goes part of the way. We will support this legislation, as the member for Brighton has indicated, because we have been calling for it for years now. Indeed we have moved private members bills and those opposite have opposed them. They opposed those bills, and here they are. That is why I say this bill should be called the ‘dragged kicking and screaming’ legislation, because finally the Labor Party has realised, on the eve of an election, that Victorians have had enough. They have had enough of the corruption. They have had enough of a Labor government that has turned a blind eye to all of what has been going on on the Big Build, that has been warned about it repeatedly and that has chosen to do nothing.

We heard in question time about one of the centrepieces of this issue where the former Premier, the member for Bendigo East, wrote to IBAC asking them to investigate some of the issues that had been raised in the ‘Building bad’ series in the Age and on Channel 9. She wrote to IBAC knowing – the Premier must have known at the time – that IBAC could not investigate because it did not have follow-the-dollar powers. We heard in question time, and we know from this legislation, that that referral that the member for Bendigo East, the former Premier, made will not be followed up under this legislation. That is why that is one of the amendments the member for Brighton has moved, an amendment that I support.

Those of us on this side support a retrospective element to this. If the current Premier is serious about addressing the corruption that went on on the Big Build, that is probably still going on on the Big Build, then he must allow this legislation to have that retrospective element to it. The royal commission can only go so far; IBAC needs to have the powers to do this, whether that is on the royal commission issues or whether there are other issues. The member for Brighton mentioned in his speech, whether it is the lotto deal that was done on the eve of the budget this year or whether it is other matters that this government has been involved in in its entire 12 years, that it is only half facetious to say that the entire 12 years could be referred to IBAC. But there are things that need to be done, and that is one of the amendments that we have put forward to ensure that this bill is fully retrospective. If Labor is serious about addressing the issues that have been raised in the ‘Building bad’ series and the issues that Geoffrey Watson SC has raised repeatedly in Queensland, if we want to get to the bottom of it, if we want to genuinely follow the money, then the government needs to address that issue of retrospectivity, and it can do so by supporting the member for Brighton’s amendment.

We have other amendments. With respect to timely reporting, we saw the unedifying spectacle of Operation Richmond by IBAC being dragged out for years and years and years. Again, this is an issue that the opposition has sought to have addressed through a private members bill as recently as June, that there be timely reporting of IBAC reports. We have also circulated an amendment with respect to repealing that examinations generally be held in private, which again was a private members bill that the opposition raised back in March. That is to flip the proposition if you like that where it is in the public interest IBAC examinations should be held in public more often than now. Certainly we know that has been a problem. We know that the former Premier, the former member for Mulgrave, was interviewed a number of times by IBAC but none of those examinations were in public. Victorians had no opportunity at the last election to understand why and what had been said by the then Premier, because that was done all in private. We think that there should be a flipping of that and where the public interest is to have those investigations undertaken in public that should be the case.

Finally, our other amendment is to repeal the public interest immunity which enables cabinet ministers to refuse the sharing of certain cabinet material with IBAC. We are not blind to the consequences of this. This is a big public policy decision. But we think that particularly in the last term and a half or so of government there has been too much hidden from public view on the basis of cabinet confidentiality. When it comes to corruption, when it comes to $15 billion of corruption or more, there needs to be a level of public interest and that public interest immunity should be removed for these certain purposes. For ministers and former ministers who have access to cabinet material that is of importance to IBAC’s investigations, IBAC should have access to that, because we know what the $15 billion has cost us.

Imagine if we had spent $15 billion on fixing our roads. Our roads would be in incredible shape if the government had spent some of that money on our roads. What if it had put it towards police to address the crime issues in the state or if it had put it towards the health system where we have got 68,000 ‍people still languishing on waiting lists? That is what this is about. It is about the opportunity cost of corruption that has been allowed to flourish by a government that is now being dragged kicking and screaming to bring in this legislation. We will support it, but it needs to go further.

 Nathan LAMBERT (Preston) (15:00): I rise to make a contribution to the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission Amendment Bill 2026, and I want to begin by expressing my very strong support for our new Premier and his commitment to a package of integrity reforms. I think it is important to remind those opposite that it is a package, and it includes the Royal Commission into the Integrity of Major Public and Civil Infrastructure Construction Projects in Victoria that will deal with many of the issues that the member for Gippsland South has raised and indeed the special prosecutor that is the subject of a different bill before the house that will also address many of those issues. As a third component, the bill in front of us right now brings forward two key changes to IBAC.

I want to set out my support for this bill and for the Premier’s broader integrity packages in the context of the rise of One Nation that concerns all of us in this place. I think we all understand that the rise in One Nation is not directly due at all to discussion around Victorian corruption or construction sector corruption – if you look at the timing of it, obviously it is a national trend that has its origins elsewhere ‍– but in the conversations that I have had locally with people who are voting One Nation or are One Nation–curious, as they say, there is no doubt in my mind that some of the issues around the CFMEU and corruption have fuelled the fire of the particular world view that they have.

I say this because I raised in Parliament a few months ago what I thought was a relatively small matter involving the LMCT petrol station on the corner of Gower Street and Plenty Road. It turned out that people who were supporters of LMCT and people who were One Nation voters overlapped a lot, and for some reason that particular post was circulated in a lot of One Nation–voting circles and I received literally thousands of messages, many of them from interstate but a significant number of them – certainly dozens – from people who were local to Preston and Reservoir. I did take the opportunity to talk to them to try and understand where they came from in saying that they were voting for One Nation. Of course amongst One Nation supporters there is a significant component of bigotry and misogyny – some really dark parts to their vote. But another thing that I picked up is that there is, in the minds of One Nation voters, this very common populist narrative. Amongst these One Nation voters there is this belief in a mythical golden age that our country apparently used to enjoy and this notion that our country is in decline from that nostalgic, mythical past. Not only do they believe that our country and our state are in decline but they believe there are simple solutions to this decline that all of the community agrees upon and the only reason that the government is not implementing the solutions that all ordinary Victorians apparently agree upon is because the government is corrupt or captured by these vested unionist woke interests. That is what they believe.

I hear this come through time and time again, and that is the rationale for why you should join Pauline Hanson, who is seen as this kind of plucky outsider who is taking on this evil empire that is corrupt and so forth. It is a very pervasive attitude amongst One Nation voters, and it is one that we recognise: that notion of being plucky outsiders taking on an evil empire is a Hollywood narrative to a certain degree, but unfortunately it is also a narrative that has a much darker history with right-wing authoritarianism over a very long period of time – that notion that everyone agrees with these right-wing people, these right-wing insurgents, and the only reason that people are not acting the way they would like to see policy enacted is because the government is somehow corrupt or wrong.

I have spent some time trying to talk these One Nation voters out of their views, and it is very hard to talk them out of this notion that society is in sort of terminal decline. It is hard to talk them out of the notion that Pauline Hanson is some sort of plucky outsider, as remarkable as that might be. I have found that you can talk them out of this bit that the government is a corrupt institution acting against the community’s interests. And you do that, Acting Speaker Tak – I know you of all people know this very well. You are famous for the amount of doorknocking that you have been doing. We all know that when we knock on doors, we send that really powerful message to people that the system is not a conspiracy against them. In fact what more proof do they need than the fact that someone in a position of authority and power, an elected representative like you, is nonetheless prepared to walk along the streets, as you do – as we all do – and talk to people? That sends a very powerful message that their votes and their views matter.

I do think, Acting Speaker – I wonder if you may have encountered this in your own doorknocking – that the changes we are making with the Premier’s integrity package and with this bill before us today also help, because as I say, I think that in that populist narrative that has taken over the discourse amongst these One Nation voters there is that notion that the government has sort of a corrupt conspiracy against them looming large, and the CFMEU and corruption allegations were really fuel on the fire of that particular view. I have certainly noticed doorknocking myself now that the integrity measures that the Premier has announced really do give you some useful ammunition as a way to step them down from voting One Nation, as they are intending to do. I will be honest with you that most of those voters are still pretty conservative people. I often feel that when I am talking them down from One Nation they are just going to vote for the Liberals and not necessarily for me, but I still think it is an important thing to do, because we need to isolate that very bigoted and discriminatory end of the One Nation spectrum and pull people away from that and back to a politics that is more respectful and more inclusive.

I just want to touch on one other matter in the bill, and that is the changes to the definition of ‘corrupt conduct’, which are a critical component of the bill. I just want to pick up on the fact that within the changes we now incorporate serious contraventions of the code of conduct that we find in the Members of Parliament (Standards) Act 1978 and indeed any serious contraventions of the ministerial and parliamentary secretary code of conduct. I think it is worth just reflecting that the bill is well designed to ensure we do not go too far there and allow people to use IBAC to essentially prosecute what are just policy differences. I did think the member for Brighton, in his statement there, disagreed with some things that we have done under the Gambling Regulation Act 2003 with respect to a public lottery deal. I think it is important that those policy differences that people might have are not caught up in this process and are not the basis for frivolous referrals to IBAC.

If I can give you one example of a similar gambling-related issue that we have had locally, and this this comes back to LMCT, that rewards club that I spoke about earlier. I remind you that these rewards clubs that I am talking about are quite extraordinary businesses. If you look at the typical sort of arrangement you might see in these large rewards clubs, they may take $100 million a year in revenue from members. They will then pay out about $20 million a year in prizes, and they may have another $10 million or so in other expenses, mainly Facebook advertising. But notably that means they then have a $70 million earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortisation result, and they then of course have no depreciation because they have no assets, they have no payroll tax to pay because they have no employees, they have no interest because they have no liabilities and they have no land tax because they own no land, and that $70 million is pure profit. Of course the owner has to pay company tax. They get all of that back as franking credits, and after they pay their income tax, essentially sole traders are walking away with a $35 million post-tax income. As you would appreciate, anyone who owns a business that can do that can effectively call themselves a billionaire.

I am the last person to stand up in this place and defend Gina Rinehart or Clive Palmer, but you would have to say that at least they earned their billions by organising to go to remote places and extract iron ore and nickel and other commodities that are vital to everyone’s lives every day, whereas these new rewards club billionaires have made their billions by making Instagram reels that fleece people on the internet. When the Liberal Party stand up and say, ‘This is the next wave of great Australian entrepreneurialism,’ I could not disagree more strongly. I think there is good reason for us to actually legislate to make these people reveal their payout ratios – how much are they taking in, how much are they paying out in prizes – just like every other gambling business has to do. I think there is a reason to ask them to do that retrospectively, and I think there are reasons to ask them how much money they have taken from hardworking Victorians and transferred into their bank accounts in Abu Dhabi.

I put all that to you because that is not something this Parliament has currently done and thought to do. We may yet get to it, but nonetheless, to make this point, that is a particular disagreement that we may have about gambling regulation that I have just set out and that comes up locally. I do not think that alone should be a reason to refer any of us in this place to IBAC because we have not made the changes to section 5 of the Gambling Regulation Act that I just set out. I heard the member for Brighton doing that when he talked about the act, as I say, in a different context of the public lotteries decisions. I just make the point to him that I do not think any of us should be disagreeing about public policy that way in order to generate referrals to IBAC.

But overall I think it is a very important set of integrity reforms that the Premier is bringing forward. I thank him and his team for all the work they have done on it. I commend this bill to the house, and I oppose the amendments circulated by the member for Brighton.

 Brad ROWSWELL (Sandringham) (15:10): I also rise to address the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission Amendment Bill 2026, which I have in my hand, which the opposition was briefed on in the last 24 hours or so and which was introduced and second-read with urgency in this chamber earlier today. I say that there is one reason we are here today in this particular circumstance, because the journey that certainly IBAC and I dare say the Victorian people have been on to get us to this today has been a darn long one and perhaps even an unnecessary one. Not to delve too far into ancient history, but I was first elected to this place in 2018, and for my first term in this place between 2018 and 2022 it was a genuine privilege to serve on the Parliament’s Integrity and Oversight Committee as its deputy chair. In preparing for this contribution today, I reviewed some of the reports that that committee worked on during the course of the term in which I served as the deputy chair, with evidentiary point after evidentiary point and report after committee report stating quite clearly that the provisions afforded in law to Victoria’s Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission were – are – inadequate. And it takes us to this point, the death knock before a Victorian election in some 80-or-so days time, with this Labor government, under its third Premier in this term alone, coming here proposing the bill that we are currently debating.

As previous speakers on behalf of the opposition have stated, we do not oppose this legislation. In fact we support this legislation. We support it because it is something that is better than nothing. But that does not mean that we think this legislation is perfect, and that is entirely why the member for Brighton, the Shadow Attorney-General, has proposed a number of amendments, which I wholeheartedly support and back. Those amendments include the ability for the bill to be made fully retrospective – that is, to remove the limitations of the current bill before us, as per the private members bill which the opposition previously introduced in this place and in the other place. The second of these four amendments is to insert a timely reporting requirement for reports to stop the Operation Richmond–style delay that many in this place and outside this place will be familiar with. It is important that justice is delivered swiftly. Justice delayed is justice denied. The delay in the delivery of that particular report and the delay of the findings of that particular report was frankly unacceptable.

The third amendment that we are proposing repeals that examinations generally be held in private. We believe that if we are to have things such as transparency and accountability as the overarching tenets of good government and the overarching principles on which we enable transparency to be a focus of everything that a state government should do, why is it the preference for hearings or examinations to be held in private? Why should that not be the exception as opposed to the rule? So there is an amendment proposed by the member for Brighton which I commend to the house in relation to that.

Finally, the repeal of the public interest immunity, which enables, for example, cabinet ministers to refuse the sharing of certain cabinet material with IBAC. If we take the framework of transparency and accountability, if we truly believe in integrity in this state, then why shouldn’t the considerations of the executive arm of this state, this subnational jurisdiction of Victoria, subject to tight parameters and a tight framework, be made available for consideration by the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission? Do not think I am making an unfounded assertion here, but it is known that to bypass an FOI process or to bypass integrity or scrutiny of a particular thing – a document or a piece of information – all that needs to happen is that it is introduced via the cabinet secretary’s office with a cabinet-in-confidence stamp on it and it will never see the light of day under current provisions. If that mechanism is being used to hide information that may in fact shed light on the way hardworking Victorian taxpayers money is being spent and the actions – or in some cases, inaction – of particular government ministers, government departments or senior bureaucrats, then that should very well be the purview of the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission.

For this side of politics – for the opposition, for the state’s alternative government – integrity is simply not optional. That is why on a number of occasions in this place and in the other place we have sought to introduce a bill that enables IBAC to be strengthened with follow-the-money powers, amongst other things. I remember when that bill was introduced and when the opportunity to debate and to consider that bill in any form was denied by the government who has now brought this piece of legislation to this place at this time. The response from members of the government at the time was, ‘Well, you know, if something needs to be investigated, the powers are there, and if it is not IBAC, it is Victoria Police. The powers are there.’ But they are clearly not. The same people who were claiming that the powers were there now say that the powers are inadequate and that the powers need to be expanded. The government frankly cannot have it both ways on this point.

When it comes to the alternative government’s position on matters of integrity and matters of transparency, we have been quite clear for some time now. We do have a plan to clean up crime and corruption in this state, to enforce the law, to find the money and to stop the rorts. It is what the Victorian people expect of us. They entrust us with the obligation to do that to the very best of our ability. Sadly, over the last 12 years under Andrews and then Allan and now Carroll what the Labor government has demonstrated in my view is that they are incapable of doing that to a degree that is respected, appreciated and expected by the Victorian people.

Victorians are hardworking people, Acting Speaker; you know that. The Victorians in your community and in my community, those mums and dads who work as hard as they can to earn the money to provide for themselves and their families and to pay their bills, and it is only getting harder. For their government, to which the Victorian people gave a degree of trust, to turn around and say, ‘We are going to disrespect your money and we are going to allow your hardworking taxpayer money to be rorted’ is completely unacceptable. For that reason alone, in November this year we need a change of government.

 Eden FOSTER (Mulgrave) (15:20): I rise today to support the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission Amendment Bill 2026, and in doing so I recognise how important this institution and the capabilities it has are to the enduring performance of government and therefore this state. Governments are best when they are active, building a better future and doing what matters. A term in power spent managing business and tinkering around the edges is a waste. Every four years we are given a mandate to represent and advocate for brighter prospects and an improved Victoria, and at the heart of that mandate is trust. Trust is not a given for every day in power; it has to be earned. The confidence of the public is a constant pursuit, and where it falters we should do everything in our power to earn it again. That is why Victoria’s Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission exists, why the Ombudsman exists and makes the contributions it does and why our parliamentary system is open, accountable and accessible. These are the hallmarks of a balanced system of governance and integrity, but there is more that can be done.

That brings me to the amendments considered today. IBAC does well with the remit and powers it has, but we know that it could do more and be more effective if it had the power to follow the money as this bill prescribes. As a member of the Integrity and Oversight Committee, which made recommendations to the effect of the amendments tabled today, I know how the absence of these powers has frustrated IBAC’s work in recent years. As money moves through third parties and associated corporations, IBAC can stall and struggle to compel disclosure. That is annoying, but it is also an easy fix – this bill looks to do just that. Specifically, the bill seeks to investigate suspected corrupt conduct by third parties and private subcontractors where there is a connection between alleged corrupt conduct and the performance of a public function funded by government. Further, it amends the legislative definition of ‘corrupt conduct’ to capture a broader range of criminal conduct and other integrity-compromising behaviours. Taken together, these reforms complement the work of the royal commission and special prosecutor to prosecute and advance the high standards for public investment and government conduct that we hold so close in our roles as community representatives.

Victorians work hard for their money. They pay their taxes, they contribute to their communities and they place their trust in governments to deliver the services and infrastructure that they need. Whether that money is being used to build a hospital, a school, a road or a rail project or any other piece of public infrastructure, Victorians should be confident that every dollar is being used for its intended purpose. And when there are allegations that public money has been misused, the institutions responsible for investigating corruption must have the powers necessary to follow that money wherever it goes. It is an important reform, because government does not deliver everything itself. Modern government relies on a complex network of contractors, subcontractors, suppliers and other private entities to deliver public services and infrastructure. The public interest does not disappear simply because a government contract is signed, a dollar does not become private money simply because it has passed from a government department to a contractor and a public project does not cease to be a public project because some of the work is performed by a subcontractor. Put simply, accountability cannot stop at the boundary of government; there are checks and balances that we need throughout.

The bill does not allow IBAC to investigate simply because an organisation receives public money. There must be a connection between the suspected corrupt conduct and the performance of a public function, government funding or a publicly funded project. The bill specifically does not allow IBAC to investigate conduct that is unrelated to the performance of public functions merely because public money is somewhere in the background. That is an important safeguard.

Elsewhere the concept of a serious disciplinary matter is particularly important. It captures serious misconduct; conduct that may constitute grounds for termination or a significant employment or contractual penalty; and serious breaches of relevant codes of conduct applying to members of Parliament, ministers, parliamentary secretaries and local government councillors. In other words, this bill recognises that integrity is about more than whether someone has technically committed a particular criminal offence. People entrusted with public power have responsibilities that go beyond the criminal law. They have responsibilities to the public, to their institutions and to the taxpayers who fund the work those institutions undertake. That is particularly important for those of us in this place. Victorians elect us to make decisions in their interests. They expect us to act honestly, transparently and in accordance with the standards attached to public office. This bill makes clear that serious breaches of those standards can fall within IBAC’s jurisdiction. It strengthens public confidence in our institutions because it tells Victorians that integrity standards are not merely words written in a code of conduct, they have consequences.

I also welcome the bill’s relevance to Victoria’s major infrastructure program. While the Big Build has undeniably propelled our state into the 21st century and improved our infrastructure across the board, allegations of impropriety are serious and must be addressed. The royal commission will provide an important mechanism for examining the broader circumstances surrounding allegations of corruption, criminal conduct and serious misconduct in major construction projects. IBAC, as Victoria’s independent anti-corruption agency, must have the jurisdiction to investigate corruption that falls within its remit, and where appropriate information can be shared between IBAC and the royal commission, ensuring that these institutions can work together while respecting their respective independence and responsibilities. That matters, because Victorians should be able to implicitly trust that their concerns will be taken seriously. They should be able to trust that the right institution will have the right powers to follow the evidence and address wrongdoing where it exists.

As the member for Mulgrave I know how much Victorians value the services and infrastructure that governments provide. People want good schools, accessible hospitals and reliable public transport. They want safe roads and thriving communities, and through it all they want and they deserve to know that the money they contribute towards those things is being used for those purposes, not lost through corruption, misconduct or abuse of public trust. The vast majority of people who work in government, the public sector and the private organisations that deliver public projects do the right thing. This scrutiny does not attack, it honours and evinces them and the work they do for our state and all the people who call Victoria home.

I was a member of the Integrity and Oversight Committee that went through the process of writing the report on the adequacy of the legislative framework for IBAC. In putting together the report as a committee we made 31 recommendations with respect to IBAC’s legislative framework and broader integrity structures, 29 of which were directed to government. The two remaining recommendations were directed to IBAC specifically, and so it is only appropriate that IBAC responds to those as it sees fit. But of the 29 that were directed to government, the government’s response was to take on board 21 of those recommendations and review the other eight. I wish to just thank the members on the IOC with me and the chair, the member for Brunswick, for putting together this report and the recommendations. I thank the government for following through with the majority – 21 of the 29 – and reviewing eight. I think this is really important for our communities. The follow-the-money laws are going to be really important, demonstrating trust and integrity. I commend this bill to the house.

 Roma BRITNELL (South-West Coast) (15:30): Labor’s Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission Amendment Bill 2026, introduced today, shows exactly why Victorians cannot trust this government. This bill is a test of the Premier’s integrity. Labor denied, dismissed and downplayed corruption within Victoria’s Big Build, and now, after promising Victoria decisive action, Labor has introduced a bill that strengthens IBAC’s powers but deliberately prevents those powers from reaching back into the corruption that has occurred already and that forced this legislation to be put forward in the first place.

This is reform with the rear-view mirror deliberately blacked out. The Premier declared integrity was no longer optional. But integrity is not a slogan. It is not something government discovers three months before an election. Integrity means uncovering what happened, following the money and holding everyone involved to account regardless of their position, their union, their company or their political connections. Without retrospectivity this bill protects the past instead of exposing it and instead of holding those who need to be held to account to account. Victorians are entitled to ask: what is Labor so determined to prevent IBAC from discovering?

The purposes of this bill are to strengthen IBAC’s powers, clarify the definition of ‘corruption’, give IBAC the ability to follow the money and hold the community who were involved in this corruption, whether it was criminals or politicians, to account. We support the objective that IBAC must have the powers and resources required to investigate corruption and hold perpetrators to account, but members came into this chamber this sitting week without knowing any of the detail of this long-promised legislation. It was not until last night that we discovered the fundamental flaw in the strengthening powers of this bill, which is no retrospectivity. That means IBAC may still be unable to investigate the very conduct that exposed the need for these reforms.

Labor cannot spend years presiding over a system, finally acknowledge that corruption has occurred and then draw a legislative line underneath everything that has already happened. The former Premier, Jacinta Allan, who spent a lot of time saying there was nothing to see here, eventually agreed to refer the allegations to IBAC. IBAC responded to that referral by saying they did not have the legislative powers to investigate this fully. I am convinced that she knew that was the answer. And now, with this law passing as is, the police cannot investigate it. The people cannot be held to account. The government knew about that limitation, it knew the existing law was inadequate, yet the bill before the house still refuses to give IBAC the power to go back and properly examine what has already occurred. It is not good enough.

The new Premier Ben Carroll cannot distance himself from that record. He was not an innocent bystander. He sat at the cabinet table. He stood beside the former Premier. He was part of the government when these decisions were made, when warnings were ignored and when demands for accountability were rejected. He promised a royal commission, he promised to get to the bottom of corruption, but this bill prevents IBAC from looking back at the conduct Victorians most urgently want investigated and holding those involved to account.

That is why the opposition has put forward four essential amendments. The first one is full retrospectivity. IBAC’s strengthened powers must have retrospectivity so it can investigate past conduct, follow the money and hold responsible individuals to account. We demonstrated our commitment to this last March when we introduced a private members bill that gave that strength and made those powers fully retrospective. That legislation passed the upper house as a law, but when it reached the lower house the Labor government would not even allow it to be introduced to this lower house and be debated. That is just disgraceful. And now Labor wants the credit for strengthening IBAC while holding back the very power needed to investigate the corruption that brought us here today.

The second amendment is timely reporting. IBAC investigations and reports must be subject to appropriate reporting timeframes, and Victorians cannot endure another situation and the cost of matters such as we saw with Operation Richmond, where the report was caught in delays and legal arguments for seven years. Justice delayed is accountability denied, and reports cannot be allowed to remain hidden until political damage has passed or the people responsible have moved on.

The third amendment is public examinations. Where it is in the public interest, IBAC examinations should have the capability to be held publicly. Labor’s model allows critical examinations to continue behind closed doors. Public examinations improve transparency, build community confidence – which really needs rebuilding – and allow Victorians to see that powerful individuals are being subjected to proper scrutiny. Corruption thrives in secrecy. Accountability requires sunlight. I come to our fourth amendment, but firstly let me just recap on those three amendments. We put three private members bills into the Parliament. The Liberal–Nationals have been committed to integrity all along.

The fourth amendment is a new concept that we have introduced today, and that is that the public interest immunity must not become a shield that allows former Premiers, ministers or cabinet members to withhold documents from IBAC. As it currently stands, Premiers or cabinet ministers or previous cabinet ministers can simply say, ‘No. That document is held in private confidence of the cabinet.’ That will be removed. I believe that if IBAC believe they need that information, they will only ask for it in those circumstances, and they should be given what they need to properly investigate. Political office must never place someone beyond scrutiny. Cabinet confidentiality cannot become a hiding place for the evidence of corruption.

This is not an abstract debate without legal wording. Corruption has consequences for every Victorian family. An estimated $15 billion has been lost through corruption – possibly up to $30 billion – criminal infiltration and misconduct associated with major projects. That is taxpayers money, earned through hardworking Victorians. Imagine what that money could have delivered: better hospitals, properly maintained roads, police stations, more schools, stronger mental health services, essential infrastructure and roads, roads, roads – the very symbol of how degraded this state is. Our roads are in an appalling state.

Victorians do not simply want IBAC to identify corruption. They want to follow the money, recover it where it can be recovered and hold every participant accountable, whether they are criminals, contractors, union officials, public servants or members of the government. That is what the new Premier said he would do. The Premier’s words repeatedly collide with this government’s actions. He said crime would be a priority and police stations would remain open, yet another four closed this week. He said he would fix Victoria’s roads, but let us remember he was the roads minister when he presided over a $214 million reduction in our annual roads budget. He said road maintenance would be brought back in-house – after the government had already privatised spray sealing work essential to road maintenance a week earlier. He promised to scrap the government’s hidden public transport tax, but only after he had been caught and he had his hand in the till. He declared that integrity was no longer optional, yet his government had secretly engaged consultants to examine a further tax on home owners to fund his Suburban Rail Loop. Now he promises to confront corruption while introducing legislation that cannot reach back into the corruption already uncovered.

This is not a fresh start. It is the same government, the same cabinet and the same pattern, with only a different person standing in front. We will support as Liberals under a Jess Wilson government a fresh start that offers stronger powers for IBAC because Victoria desperately needs them. But we will not pretend this bill is complete and we will not allow Labor to use the language of integrity while shielding its own record from investigation. Our amendments are straightforward: we make the powers fully retrospective, require timely reporting, allow public examinations and prevent cabinet secrecy from obstructing IBAC. If the Premier wants genuinely to restore trust, he will support these amendments. If Labor votes them down, Victorians will see this bill for exactly what it is: a carefully constructed promise of accountability that stops precisely where Labor’s own accountability begins. The Premier cannot erase years by changing the name on his office door. He was there. He sat at the cabinet table. He supported the decisions. He cannot now distance himself from their consequences. Integrity is demonstrated through action, not declared in a press conference.

 Paul MERCURIO (Hastings) (15:40): If Labor votes down the amendments presented by the opposition, somehow Labor lacks integrity? I have sat in this chamber and listened to the opposition howl for a royal commission, and now what are they doing? They are howling that it is no good. The terms of reference are open, and people have admitted that the terms of reference are transparent, and they are howling and saying, ‘It’s no good. Don’t do it.’ What else? They have been howling and saying, ‘Give IBAC follow-the-money powers.’ We are giving it that in this bill, and what are they doing? They are actually howling about it again, so whatever we do is never good enough for them. And it is a shame, because we have listened to the community, we have listened to all sides of Parliament and we are actually doing the work that we are doing and that I am pretty sure they on that side are incapable of doing, especially as a Liberal–One Nation coalition.

I am very pleased to speak to the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission Amendment Bill 2026, and I am very happy to say that this bill amends the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission Act 2011 to implement recommendations of the Integrity and Oversight Committee’s report into the adequacy of the legislative framework for IBAC to broaden the definition of ‘corrupt conduct’ and give IBAC the ability to follow the money. They are probably the two most important things in this bill. They are the two things that the opposition have been calling for and the public have been asking for.

Before I get into what this all means and how we will go about it, I would just like to thank my colleagues on the Integrity and Oversight Committee (IOC) for the work done in the report that was handed down last year. I thank the chair, the member for Brunswick, for his calm guidance and his ability to always listen and hear. I thank the member for Rowville, the member for Southern Metro and the member for South-Eastern Metropolitan, both in the other place, and the member for Mildura, the member for Mulgrave and of course the member for Narre Warren North. It was great being on the committee. I would also like to thank the secretariat, who did so much work: Sean Coley, Dr Chloë Duncan, Tom Hvala, Whitny Kapa, Emma Daniel –

Dylan Wight interjected.

Paul MERCURIO: you did a little bit, but not that much – Maria Marasco and Bernadette Pendergast. My thanks to you all. And the member for Tarneit, thanks for quite a bit.

I want to acknowledge the work that has been going on over the last 24 months that has resulted in the Labour Hire Authority cancelling construction licences for 164 firms and refusing 47 licence applications. Additionally Victoria Police’s Taskforce Hawk has laid more than 90 criminal charges as part of the ongoing investigations into corruption, extortion, drug trafficking and secret commissions on the Big Build. Good work has been done, but clearly that is not enough, so I am extremely pleased that the Premier in his first act as Premier not only called a royal commission, setting out broad and transparent terms of reference, but also listened to the report handed down by the IOC recommending IBAC have, among other things, the ability to broaden the definition of ‘corruption’ and the granting of follow-the-money powers.

Let me tell you a little bit about what that actually means for this bill in plain terms, because at the end of the day that is what matters. People do not want the legal detail. They want to know: can the watchdog actually do its job? Right now IBAC’s hands are tied more than most people realise. Before IBAC can even open an investigation, whatever has happened has to line up with a very short list of specific crimes – things like bribery of a public official or perverting the course of justice. If it is not on that list, IBAC cannot touch it. That means real misconduct, the kind that should absolutely be looked into, can slip through the cracks simply because it does not fit a narrow legal box. IBAC itself has said this and so has the Integrity and Oversight Committee. It is a gap, and everyone who has looked at it agrees that it needs fixing. We heard IBAC loud and clear.

This bill fixes it. It widens what counts as corrupt conduct so that it is not just about a short list of specific crimes anymore. Any criminal offence can now be considered. On top of that, we are adding something new – serious misconduct that is bad enough to get someone sacked or bad enough to breach the codes of conduct that apply to MPs, ministers, parliamentary secretaries and local councillors – so if an elected official does something so far out of line that it would cost anyone else their job then IBAC can now look into it. That is a fair standard. If you hold public office, you should be held to it, the same as anyone else.

Here is the part I think most people will actually care about, and that is follow-the-money powers. At the moment, IBAC’s ability to investigate gets murky the second a private company or a subcontractor or a sub-subcontractor gets involved. Even if the company is being paid with public money to deliver a public project, the lines get blurry about what IBAC can and cannot look at, and that has created real headaches when a project involves a mix of government and private players, which let us be honest, most big projects do these days. This bill sorts that out. It brings private contractors and subcontractors, what the bill calls ‘associated entities’, into IBAC’s reach, using the same kind of definition the Auditor-General already works with. So if a private company is doing work funded by the public and there is a link between the work and alleged corrupt conduct, IBAC can now follow the money and investigate. It does not matter whether the dollar passes through a government department first or goes straight into a construction site; if it is public money being spent on a public project, IBAC can now look at where it went and how it was used. That is a good thing.

I want to be up-front about the limits here too, because this is not a blank cheque for IBAC to go poking through every private business that has ever cashed a government cheque. The conduct still has to be connected to a public project or public function. This is not about giving IBAC unlimited reach, it is about closing an obvious loophole that has let bad behaviour hide behind private contracts.

There is also some sensible housekeeping in the bill, tidying up a few gaps that IBAC itself flagged and making sure other integrity laws work properly alongside these changes – nothing flashy, just making sure the machinery actually runs the way it was meant to run.

On timing, IBAC will be able to apply these new powers to complaints and investigations that are already sitting with them but have not finished yet. What it will not do is let IBAC go back and reopen cases that have already been dealt with and closed. I believe that is the right call. We are not rewriting the past, we are making sure the tools are sharp enough for what is in front of IBAC right now and what is still to come. Of course if there is new information or if there are new referrals, then IBAC have the ability to investigate those if they wish, which I would call retrospective in some cases. These new powers will kick in the day after this bill gets royal assent, so IBAC is not left waiting around. The one exception is for those newly captured private contractors and subcontractors, who will get six months before they are required to start reporting corrupt conduct themselves. That is a reasonable amount of time to let those organisations get their heads around a whole new set of obligations, and it was actually IBAC who asked for that runway.

I will also say that IBAC and Integrity Oversight Victoria have both been consulted through this process, and they are both broadly supportive of what is in this bill, and that matters. This is not something dreamed up in isolation. It has been shaped with the very agencies who will be using these powers. And this bill does not stand alone; it sits alongside the royal commission the Premier set up, with real powers to compel evidence and hold public hearings, looking across the construction industry, from companies to unions to labour hire firms and to the government itself. It is the commissioner who decides what is relevant and who needs to answer questions, not the government. That is exactly how it should be, and that is exactly how it should work.

There is more to come. The committee’s report made 31 recommendations. The government has backed a large majority of them, with the rest being worked through by a group made up of IBAC, the Ombudsman, Integrity Oversight Victoria and Victoria Police. It will report back next year ahead of a further round of reforms.

This bill delivers the two big things that people have been asking for. It is a positive step forward, and I am proud to support it. I thank the Premier for his steadfast commitment and approach to this government’s integrity, for his fearless fight for transparency and for doing the right things so the people of Victoria get the answers they are asking for and the answers they deserve. I commend the bill to the house.

 Ellen SANDELL (Melbourne) (15:50): I rise to speak on the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission Amendment Bill 2026. By my count, this is the third time in this term of Parliament alone that I have risen to speak in favour of legislation to expand the jurisdiction of IBAC by broadening the definition of ‘corrupt conduct’ under the act to finally give our anti-corruption watchdog in Victoria the powers that it has been calling for and that the community have been calling for for years and to make it work to the same standard as other jurisdictions, like New South Wales. Three times this term the Greens introduced this legislation and three times it was voted down, so this is the first time that I have risen to speak in favour of this legislation without being greeted with howls of derision and the first time, we hope, the bill will not indeed be voted down by both Labor and the Liberal–National parties.

In 2022, again in 2024 and again earlier this year in 2026 my Greens colleague the member for Brunswick Tim Read tried to introduce legislation to strengthen IBAC’s jurisdiction by expanding the definition of ‘corrupt conduct’ beyond what is currently in the act. As is, it needs to be an indictable offence in order for IBAC to investigate. An indictable offence is an incredibly high bar, and it is a high bar that does not exist, for example, in the New South Wales or federal legislation. But it did exist here in Victoria, which meant our IBAC, our anti-corruption watchdog, had so many things referred to it that it simply could not investigate. The member for Brunswick also chaired the Integrity and Oversight Committee for the last four years and did an incredible job – I know that has been recognised across the chamber – and the IOC that he chaired recommended the reforms that we see in this bill today. I know that he is following this debate at home, and I want to acknowledge that we would simply not be here today without his bloody-minded determination to continually campaign on this issue, to continue to talk about our anti-corruption watchdog and integrity and to continue to talk about expanding IBAC’s jurisdiction.

I remember Tim taking me aside about a year ago and saying, ‘Just let’s wait, Ellen. Integrity might be a key issue at the election in November.’ What foresight he had. It was like he had a crystal ball and could see what was going to happen in the future, because integrity has become the key issue this election. He did this campaigning. He was concerted and determined in seeing this through to the end to fix our anti-corruption watchdogs, despite opposition from both the Labor and the Liberal parties. When the member for Brunswick previously introduced legislation, Labor, as I said, opposed it.

As I was writing this speech, I looked back at some of the reasons that Labor Party MPs gave for their opposition to giving IBAC the powers that it needed. I have to say their reasons were dubious, to say the least. One Labor MP said the Greens were inviting mayhem in proposing that we allow IBAC to investigate politicians’ dodgy behaviour if that behaviour was legal. I mean, how dare we? How dare we create mayhem by suggesting that our integrity agencies actually investigate matters of integrity? How dare we suggest that dodgy politicians be held to account for their behaviour to the same standard as in New South Wales? But here we are. Those excuses given by the Labor government clearly do not hold water anymore. Now that Labor is under threat at the election, with an electorate that is simply fed up with a lack of integrity in politics, what does Labor finally do? They have come to the table; they have had to be dragged kicking and screaming to the table, but they are finally here.

I do not take any pride in pointing this fact out, only immense frustration that it has taken this long and that Labor only brought this legislation at the eleventh hour before an election, when they were forced to by the electorate. I know that frustration is also felt in the community. We have a Victorian community that is aching for just the bare minimum of political integrity standards here in Victoria. All the community is asking for is the equivalent of what we have in other states: an anti-corruption watchdog that can actually do its job and is not hobbled by the government of the day, who is scared about what it might find.

In looking back at the speeches that I have given over this term, at the times we have tried to introduce it, it did cause me to reflect on something that I often hear again and again from Labor MPs and candidates. I have run in elections three times now up against Labor candidates. What I hear time and time again from Labor MPs or candidates running in progressive seats, where we have a progressive population, is things like, ‘Look, I accept that Labor are too weak on issues like climate change or social justice or integrity and that the Greens have stronger policies. But despite this, you should elect me, because I will work to change things from inside the Labor tent and try and change the Labor Party.’ And they desperately seek to reassure voters that they will secretly be doing the right thing behind closed doors, even when the Labor Party continues to do the wrong thing on the floor of Parliament. So if there is one reflection or lesson to be drawn from Labor MPs blocking the Greens IBAC legislation over all these years, it is what complete and utter dog poo those statements from Labor politicians about working inside the tent are. We have witnessed – I have witnessed over 12 ‍long years – that Labor MPs were not secretly working inside the tent to try to fight corruption or change our integrity systems. They were not doing that. What they were doing instead was spending their time in this place voting against, speaking against and blocking the Greens bill to reform our IBAC legislation. And at every turn, they were deflecting, they were defending and they were trying to desperately turn attention away from the Labor government’s own corruption and misconduct.

It was a Greens-led IOC, Integrity and Oversight Committee, inquiry report and a Greens MP, the member for Brunswick, who had to bring many of the inadequacies of the IBAC legislation to light. That is what has led to these reforms, and much of this bill is directly lifted from that work. To people who come to me and say, ‘How do you make change? How do you make change in our political system?’ I often say that it is often our job as people –

Juliana Addison interjected.

Ellen SANDELL: Someone from the other side is saying ‘Join the Labor Party.’ I do not think she has listened to the speech that I just gave about why joining the Labor Party is the exact opposite of what gets you this change. It is actually voting Greens that gets you these bills. So many times people come to me and they ask, ‘How do you make change?’ and I say that people in civil society who want to make change, part of what they need to do, part of what civil society, the Greens and others who want to make change do, is put ideas on the table or on the shelf. What often happens is the Greens or the community put ideas on the table and they sit there for years while Labor laughs at them or ignores them or fights them. You know that old saying, ‘First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win’? Well, often it is the community, civil society or the Greens who put ideas on the table and say, ‘This needs to be fixed,’ and Labor do everything they can to stop that happening. They ignore it, they laugh at it or they fight it. Yet one day an event comes along – a scandal, a corruption scandal, an external event, an internal event – that changes the political climate and changes the political game, and all of a sudden Labor have a problem that they need to fix. And what do they do? They do not have any ideas of their own, so they go to that table and they go, ‘Oh my goodness, what ideas can we pick up from this table that someone else has already written down for us?’ Then they pick up the easiest one to implement.

That is exactly what has happened here. The Greens have been putting IBAC reform on the table for years and years, and finally when Labor is engulfed in a huge corruption scandal – $15 billion – and has a huge political problem they go, ‘Oh my God, what are we going to do about this? We need to fix this quick. Go to the table and see what ideas people have put down. The Greens have put down an IBAC reform idea. Let’s pick it up and run with it.’ They pretend that they were going to do it all along, but we all know they were never going to do it unless they were forced to. I think we should rename this bill. Maybe I should move an amendment. I do not get a chance to move amendments, because the Labor government will not go into consideration in detail, so I do not get to move any amendments. But I would like to move an amendment that renames this bill the ‘Tim Read, Greens member for Brunswick’ bill, because I think he deserves so much credit for this bill coming before the house.

I have spent a bit of time talking about the Labor Party, but let us have a talk about the Liberal Party. Let us remember that the Liberal Party also repeatedly voted down the Greens’ attempts to reform IBAC, expand its jurisdiction and allow for public hearings. Today it looks like they have changed their tune. They have read the political mood. They have realised that the Victorian people want some integrity in politics and that they cannot hide behind a weak Labor Party anymore on a unity ticket, so now the Liberals pretend that they have always held this position of wanting to reform IBAC. All I will say is ‘Welcome to the party.’ This Liberal opposition to IBAC reforms happened as recently as this year. At the same time as they were out in public and in the media calling out corruption on the Big Build they were in this chamber voting with Labor to make sure IBAC could not investigate that same corruption. I mean, you could not write about it.

When the Liberal Party created IBAC – it was the Liberal Party who created our anti-corruption watchdog in the first place – they deliberately ignored a recommendation from the Honourable Stephen Charles AO KC, who chaired the committee to set up the agency. He recommended narrowing the definition of what they could investigate. As Premier Baillieu’s chief of staff at the time Tony Nutt said:

… we’ve put in all sorts of constraints and controls to ensure that the kind of generalised allegation … has been much more severely constrained …

Essentially what this means is that from the outset Victoria’s IBAC was established not to investigate and expose corruption, but to protect politicians’ reputations, to ensure that the definition of ‘corruption’ was so narrow, that the bar was so high, that dodgy behaviour from politicians that might get them sacked in any other workplace could not be investigated. This was borne out almost immediately after IBAC became operational in 2013, which was just before I got elected, when the Deputy Premier and Leader of the Nationals Peter Ryan, then member for Gippsland South – my nanna was a huge supporter – was engulfed in an alleged conspiracy to overthrow the police commissioner. That was unable to be investigated by IBAC. As far as Labor and the Liberals were concerned, that outcome was exactly how it should be. Serious allegations, allegations that went fundamentally to the integrity of a politician, were unable to be investigated by IBAC, and thus political reputations were maintained. It was a pattern that was to be repeated again and again under the Andrews government and under the Allan government.

In fact IBAC’s definition of ‘corrupt conduct’ having to be an indictable offence so handicapped what corruption it could investigate and was so effective in protecting the reputations of politicians and public figures that Victorian politicians were falling over themselves to self-refer their dodgy shenanigans to the agency, knowing that that would look good in the media: ‘Oh, I’ve referred myself to IBAC. I can’t possibly have done anything bad.’ They knew full well those allegations could not be investigated and that the referral was meaningless. This happened with Matthew Guy’s lobster with a mobster meal. It happened with former Premier Jacinta Allan and the Big Build. She referred the allegations to IBAC, but that really came back to bite her because it was exposed very quickly that she knew full well that those allegations could not be investigated by IBAC because they did not have the jurisdiction.

We had all of these politicians out there waving around fake IBAC referrals, trying to look good to the public but knowing full well they meant nothing and they were simply there to try and hoodwink the public. Even the dodgiest public agencies got in on the act: VicForests, for example, an agency that has a long history of losing taxpayer money, dodgy behaviour and allegedly surveilling ordinary citizens to protect their reputation, referred themselves to the anti-corruption commission in 2022 after some truly dodgy practices, again knowing full well that those practices could not be investigated.

I think when we are talking about integrity we should not just talk about anti-corruption; we should talk about broader integrity reforms that are needed in this place, because we know that Labor and the Liberals have also worked together to block a bunch of other really important integrity reforms that we still do not have in Victoria. At the same time as the Liberals, for example, have been publicly calling out Labor’s debt and ability to fund and manage major projects, they also voted against Greens amendments which would have put a non-government chair on our Public Accounts and Estimates Committee. At the moment our Public Accounts and Estimates Committee, which is supposed to oversee and hold the government to account when it comes to their budgets, is chaired by a government member and cannot do the work that it is supposed to, like they do federally, to hold governments to account on their budgets. But the Liberals and the Greens had the numbers to change that. We put forward an amendment to change that. The Liberals, had they voted with us, would have changed that, and we would have had a non-government chair of PAEC. But the Liberals chose not to do that because they also do not want scrutiny and transparency and integrity when they happen to get into government, if that, God forbid, ever happens. Just last week in fact the Liberals voted with Labor to oppose a commonsense motion calling on the government to uphold the ministerial code of conduct and ban ministers from accepting gifts and VIP tickets from the gambling industry and other industries that they are supposed to regulate. We had Labor and Liberals vote against that.

We know that the Westminster tradition of ministerial responsibility and deliberative cabinet decision-making has really gone by the wayside, particularly over the last 12 years, and departments providing frank and fearless advice to government are frozen out by an expanded executive style of political government; that much of the public service has been politicised; and that government no longer respects the standing orders of this place or the other house with regard to releasing documents or conventions allowing non-government business to be brought before this house. We know that ministers are free to accept gifts and inducements from lobbyists and corporate interests in areas they are supposed to be regulating and that the same ministers, when they retire, go onto board positions in these same corporations, accept unadvertised positions with government agencies or get jobs as lobbyists for the gas industry or for the racing industry et cetera. These are all deeply concerning integrity issues in our politics that need addressing, but unfortunately we have Labor and Liberals on a unity ticket in opposing them.

This IBAC bill that is being brought forward today, of course the Greens will be supporting it, but it was urgent 15 years ago. Let us be clear about that. It was urgent 15 years ago, and in true Labor fashion, they have brought it here at 5 minutes to midnight, right before an election, and they have brought it here with a whole bunch of loopholes and carve outs, which is also a very common thing for Labor to do. When they want to do a good thing, you have always got to look for the big loophole. So there are a number of amendments that the Greens will be moving in the other place. I will not circulate them here because we do not have a consideration-in-detail stage. The government has blocked us from being able to even put forward our amendments in the lower house, but in the upper house we will be putting them forward. They will be things like moving amendments to enable IBAC to make findings of corrupt conduct rather than findings some may pass off as ‘educational’ findings; to better enable IBAC to table reports in Parliament without undue delay; removing exceptional circumstances as the threshold for public hearings to have greater transparency and align it with New South Wales, where it is just things that are in the public interest, for example; and also making the ministerial code of conduct public, because now you can be taken to IBAC for a breach of the ministerial code of conduct, but that ministerial code of conduct is not actually public, so how would anyone –

Nathan Lambert interjected.

Ellen SANDELL: Sorry, member for Preston, it is not required to be made public. That is up to the government of the day. We also have some concerns about the retrospectivity clauses and whether they are being limited in this bill, and we will seek to look at amendments around that as well.

I want to acknowledge a few things in my last 30 seconds. I want to acknowledge the Honourable Stephen Charles AO KC; the Honourable Robert Redlich AM KC; Geoffrey Watson SC; the team at the Centre for Public Integrity for their expertise and long-running campaigns to expand IBAC’s jurisdiction; the work of Nine reporter Nick McKenzie, who in many ways has been left doing the anti-corruption investigations that IBAC was prevented from doing; and of course the member for Brunswick for his tireless work in campaigning, in legislating, in being the chair of the IOC and in holding governments to account, whatever their stripes. I think Victorians expect a high standard of integrity in our Parliament, and you cannot get any higher standard of integrity than the Greens member for Brunswick. I know he is watching at home, and he should be very proud.

 Josh BULL (Sunbury) (16:10): I am pleased to have the opportunity to make a contribution on what is a very significant and important bill that is before the house this afternoon and follow on from the half an hour that we had from the previous speaker, who took us through some of the changes and the mechanics within the piece of legislation that is before the house and some of the so-called achievements of the Greens political party over the past 12 years. I, as you will accept, have a different view and believe in the record of this government when it comes to investment in community services, in protection of our environment and in public transport, education and health. This government have indeed made sure that we have always focused on local communities and not just made commentary from the sidelines.

Notwithstanding that, I do want to make the observation that the vast majority of Victorians in our state I believe do do the right thing. They support their family, they work hard in their local community and they go about their business, whether it be any form of employment, with the very best interests at heart. What we know and understand is that we have got a growing population and a growing economy in this state, and we have set out to deliver a record amount of public infrastructure, including roads and schools – and I can see some young people in the gallery today – and we have made sure that we are delivering for all of those communities across all of those services. It has required sustained and significant long-term investment to deliver projects like the Metro Tunnel and the removal of 94 ‍dangerous and congested level crossings and so many more projects right across this state. I want to take the opportunity to acknowledge all of the people that work incredibly hard on those projects, all of those people that do the right thing each and every day.

What this bill before the house this afternoon deals with is making sure that for those people that do the wrong thing, IBAC has the powers and the resources to be able to tackle corruption when and where it occurs. That is in the context of all of our agencies doing incredibly important work in making sure that when those criminal elements and others conduct themselves in a way that is not appropriate, that is dangerous and hurts others or that steals money from the state, we have got an opportunity to call it out. We have got an opportunity to do that via our integrity agencies.

I do love listening to the member for Hastings’ contributions, because he is a very fine speaker – as are you, Acting Speaker Kathage. I am not reflecting on the Chair. The member for Hastings said in his contribution that it is indeed the commissioner who makes determinations on the matters that come before him or her around what is corrupt conduct. I will go to some of the changes in the legislation soon, but it is an important point that the member made, because sometimes when you come into this place, whether it be in question time or at other opportunities, you hear those opposite making all sorts of assertions and all sorts of wild claims and accusations that effectively put the leader of the government, the Premier, or other responsible ministers in charge of our integrity agencies. We know that is just not how the Westminster system of Parliament operates.

We know that we equip our agencies, whether that be Victoria Police, IBAC, the courts or any other agency that deals with these matters, with the powers and the resources that they need to do the job. That effectively enables the Parliament to provide for that power, but it also enables the process whereby we have independence. No-one in this place would want to see any form of cutting across those processes, and this is why this is really important, and it is a really important point that the member made.

I do also want to take the opportunity to acknowledge that those processes can always be strengthened and they can always be improved. Listening to some of the contributions from those in other parts of the chamber from other parties through the course of debate on this fine Tuesday, what is really clear is that we as a government always reserve the right to improve and change legislation when and where it need be. Those opposite, as I mentioned before, always want to go for the cheaper road, always want to blur the lines on what is a separation of powers, and we make sure that those processes are followed and that those processes are done in a timely, effective and efficient way. We will do that at each and every opportunity that we get, because it is really important to be able to do that.

The legislation before the house this afternoon – and others have gone to these matters – enables for the beefing-up, the strengthening of powers that IBAC has to follow the money and investigate suspected corrupt conduct by third-party and private subcontractors where there is a connection between alleged corrupt conduct and the performance of a public function funded by the government, and amend the definition of ‘corrupt conduct’ to capture a broader range of criminal conduct and other integrity-compromising behaviours. The bill implements the government’s commitment to enable IBAC to follow the money, broaden the definition of ‘corrupt conduct’ to complement the work of the royal commission and special prosecutor and provide for holistic and comprehensive responses to allegations of misconduct on government-funded construction projects – there are a lot of words in that. It is about beefing-up, and it is about making sure that they have got the power and the resources to be able to do the job.

As I mentioned before, there are dangerous and serious and criminal outfits that have indeed got their mitts on a part of our state’s money. As has been alluded to in other contributions, and as has been outlined by the Premier, this of course is never okay. The work of the royal commission, the beefing-up of IBAC powers and the work that is done by these arrangements make for a more robust and stronger system, and that is what we should be striving for. I go back to that point around making those powers, and the work that is done by IBAC is really important. The work that they do right across all of our integrity agencies is really important. I want to take the opportunity to thank those that have been involved in the process of bringing this to the house. It sends, again, a serious message to those that want to do the wrong thing: you will inevitably be found out, and you will be dealt with in the strongest possible fashion.

For the changes that are contained within the bill that is before the house this afternoon, on top of the announcements that have been made by the Premier and by others, we know that the work that needs to be done to ensure that the right thing is done is the most important opportunity that we have. For those people that want to do the wrong thing, then you indeed will be dealt with. For those that work within the industry – and I make this point again that it is the vast majority of people – this is really important and makes for a better, stronger system. There have indeed been so many that have been harmed by others who want to use intimidation, who want to be violent, and that is never appropriate and nor will the government ever accept that. We know that the changes in this legislation will give IBAC those strengthened powers. The work of the royal commission and the special prosecutor does as well, and we will deal with those matters through the Parliament over the course of the week.

But I do want to take the opportunity, as I have done, to thank those that have done this important work, that continue to contribute to making Victoria a fairer and better place, for making Victoria a place where every single worker is valued, every single worker is respected and everyone is treated in a way that makes all of our agencies and all of those groups of workers proud of the work that they do. That is the goal, and we want to make sure that those powers are used in an appropriate way. We want to make sure that those powers that are needed are given. I want to say thanks for all the work that has been done. With those comments, I commend the bill to the house.

 Emma KEALY (Lowan) (16:20): I rise today to speak on the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission Amendment Bill 2026, and from the outset I would like to support the amendments that were put forward by the member for Brighton, which in my view address some of the key limitations of the legislation that is before us today. We know that the Liberals and Nationals have been leading the way when it comes to fighting for improved powers, particularly follow-the-money powers, when it comes to IBAC. We know that this is required, and we, the Liberals and Nationals, have been fighting for this because we have seen, and I have seen over the past 12 years in my time in the Victorian Parliament, an increasing level of what would be termed grey corruption within the system to a point where it is becoming quite overt. We have got a very strong history now of former Premiers who have deliberately tried to subvert the course of IBAC and deliberately tried to use loopholes within IBAC’s own rules and powers in order to protect their own political future and own political gain, and that is outrageous. It is outrageous because it undermines democracy and governance and the trust that every Victorian has that members of the Victorian Parliament are doing the right thing with taxpayer money when they are elected to this place.

The specific clauses I would like to speak to today involve clauses 7 and 8. The current clauses within the government’s legislation before us today give the expanded regime limited retrospective application to certain precommencement conduct, including pending complaints and incomplete investigations, but exclude matters already dismissed, referred to another body or completed. In particular, members of the Liberal and National parties are very concerned, because while we have a Premier that today says that integrity is no longer optional – it is interesting to hear that, might I add, from the current Premier given that on the Monday when he was Deputy Premier apparently integrity was optional over the past time that he has been in cabinet – it has always been optional within the Labor Party to have integrity. I do not know when it first became a concept that when you are in government, you do not have to always hold integrity, that it is sometimes optional. What an outrageous thing for the current Premier to say, to try and put a line in the sand and say, ‘I’m not like those ones before me, those other ones.’ And the Premier actually named former Premier Andrews and former Premier Allan as being those two premiers that he was nothing like – that integrity was optional under Labor’s Premier Andrews and Labor’s Premier Allan, but now we are supposed to believe in some alternate universe that, weeks out from an election, all of a sudden we have got a new Premier who believes that integrity is not optional.

But what is one of the first things that he has done? The Premier has introduced IBAC laws that would mean that IBAC still cannot investigate any of the corruption claims over the past 12 years. That is not what the public expect. It does not pass the pub test. It does not pass the pub test that we want IBAC to have more powers, including follow-the-money powers, but not for the past 12 years when we have had a Labor government in Victoria. That does not cut it. That is what I hear from Victorians right around my electorate of Lowan. They know that this is the same old Labor government that are trying to use legislation to hide their deceit and corruption in order to get ahead. It is simply not believable.

Members interjecting.

Emma KEALY: I note the interjections from across the chamber from Labor members. What a surprise that Labor members are saying, ‘Oh, no, this wouldn’t be right.’ Well, it is in the legislation. If you do not believe that what I am putting forth today is right, I suggest that you support the member for Brighton’s amendments, because they will remove the limitations around retrospectivity. They will ensure that IBAC have the powers to do a full investigation of the concerns that have been very heavily covered through the media over the past year. In fact let us go into that, because I think that is an important timeline so that all Victorians can understand why we need to have an IBAC with retrospective powers. We need a corruption watchdog that has retrospective powers.

When it comes to corruption on Big Build sites we need to commend Nick McKenzie, who has done an incredible job – putting his life on the line, I am sure, in many instances – with the level of corruption that he has been able to detect in the state of Victoria, overseen by a Labor government. We look at this, and I just want to outline this, because Labor knew that there was a gap in IBAC’s powers. They knew because IBAC told former Premier Jacinta Allan directly. IBAC said it could not investigate allegations involving the Big Build. Now here we are almost two years later, and Labor is finally acting, with weeks to go until the election. Victorians have had enough of the waste and the corruption and they want change in the state of Victoria. Now Labor are acting, but they want to limit IBAC’s ability to use those strengthened powers to give any proper scrutiny to what has been happening in the state of Victoria over the past 12 years under Labor. Back in July 2024, following revelations involving the CFMEU and Big Build sites, Premier Jacinta Allan wrote to IBAC asking it to investigate. In October 2024 IBAC told Premier Allan –

John Mullahy: On a point of order, Acting Speaker: correct titles.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Lauren Kathage): I ask the member for Lowan to use correct titles.

Emma KEALY: Former Premier Jacinta Allan wrote to IBAC asking for it to investigate.

Members interjecting.

Emma KEALY: She is the former Premier. It is within the standing orders.

John Mullahy: On a point of order, Acting Speaker: correct titles – the member for Bendigo East in this chamber.

Emma KEALY: She is the former Premier. You might want to hide it like you want to hide everything else that IBAC want to investigate. But, guess what, the member for Bendigo East is the former Premier. You cannot just delete that. You cannot just put that into legislation and say –

Mathew Hilakari: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, she is defying your ruling.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Lauren Kathage): Member for Lowan, please use correct titles for members of this place.

Emma KEALY: I think we all know who we are talking about, even if Labor want to hide their former leader in the cupboard and not have her investigated ever again.

For the next 16 months Labor did not fix the jurisdictional problem and did not publicly reveal that IBAC could not investigate that referral. On 15 February 2026, facing renewed scrutiny over alleged Big Build corruption, the member for Bendigo East publicly released –

Steve Dimopoulos: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, I believe the member for Lowan is reading.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Lauren Kathage): Is the member for Lowan reading?

Emma KEALY: I am referring to notes. Allan publicly released her July 2024 IBAC referral as evidence that she had acted. In February 2026 Allan was challenged in Parliament about what she did after learning that IBAC could not investigate. In September this year Labor finally brought forward laws expanding IBAC’s ability to follow public money to private contractors, but they restrict the new powers from being used to revisit matters previously dealt with. This is not an isolated integrity problem. Labor’s record includes red shirts using taxpayer-funded parliamentary staff for Labor’s 2014 election campaign. In Operation Watts IBAC and the Ombudsman uncovered extensive misconduct involving taxpayer resources being used for Labor factional and branch-stacking activities. In Operation Daintree IBAC found that a $1.2 million government contract was compromised by political pressure and ministerial interference. Now we have Big Build corruption allegations involving billions of dollars of Victorian taxpayers money.

Steve Dimopoulos: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, the member is required to be factual, and we saw that her former leader was having lunch with mafia leaders and –

The ACTING SPEAKER (Lauren Kathage): That is not a point of order.

Emma KEALY: Labor knew IBAC could not follow the money because IBAC told the Premier so in October 2024. Sixteen months later Jacinta Allan, the member for Bendigo East, released the very referral she already knew IBAC could not investigate and presented it as evidence she had acted.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Lauren Kathage): Member for Lowan, this is the third time you have been asked to use correct titles.

 Dylan WIGHT (Tarneit) (16:31): It gives me great pleasure to rise this afternoon to make a contribution on this incredibly important piece of legislation, the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission Amendment Bill 2026. I do not want to say it has been a great pleasure to sit here and listen to a lot of the contributions from those opposite. To be frank, the notion of having to sit here and receive a lecture on integrity from those opposite grows tiresome pretty quickly. They have got about as much integrity as a cat at a goldfish convention. They want to come in here and sit there and lecture us on integrity. I mean, the Leader of the Opposition, the member for Kew – yes, I will use correct titles – has, when it comes to this issue, no integrity herself at all. She gave that away some time ago when she argued against broadening the definition of ‘corruption’ within this very piece of legislation. Some months ago she came out and spoke against broadening the definition of ‘corruption’, which is exactly what we are doing today because we know how important it is to Victorians. I do note that she has changed her tune, the member for Kew, in respect to our position on broadening the definition of ‘corruption’.

When it comes to this issue, the opposition have been all over the joint. They have not quite known what their position is. They have not quite known whether they want to broaden the definition of ‘corruption’. They have not quite known how exactly they were going to oppose the bill, because they were always going to. We could write this bill 100 times and 100 times they would say no, and we could say yes to 100 amendments and 100 times they would say no, because the issue of integrity, the issue of making sure that IBAC has the powers it needs to investigate corruption and indeed the issue of a royal commission into Victoria’s construction sector have nothing to do with policy, with integrity or with what is right for Victorians when it comes to the Liberal Party. The only thing that matters for them is politics. How can they try and wedge the government when it comes to an election on an issue that they think is important, and it very well should be important. Integrity should be on the table at every single election; it should be an issue that is important at every single election. But all those opposite care about is trying to wedge the government for some sort of election campaign stunt or negative ad. That is all they care about. They do not care about what is best for Victorians. They do not care about what is best for this place. They most certainly do not care about making sure that IBAC has the appropriate powers to investigate corruption.

When the Premier took office the first action that he took was to call a royal commission into Victoria’s construction sector, because we know that nothing less than a royal commission will do the work that needs to be done, the investigative work that needs to be done, to find out exactly what has happened through this sector and on some of these building sites.

I am not going to foreshadow debate, but we know that royal commissions are inquisitive by nature. We know that they are information-gathering processes. A royal commissioner cannot prosecute, obviously. To establish a special prosecutor next to that royal commission is to make sure, if necessary ‍– I do not want to pre-empt what may be heard at the royal commission – that prosecutions can be brought in a timely and speedy manner, far faster than if that special prosecutor was not appointed. That piece of legislation is on the notice paper to be debated later in the week. The royal commission is integral. We all agree with that. The Liberal Party were calling for it for a couple of months, and then all of a sudden when we do it, it is not quite good enough. Can you imagine being such a bunch of deadbeats that your plan is to provide your own witness list to an independent inquiry? ‘We need an independent royal commission, but here are the people that you’ve got to have in the box, Commissioner.’ Honestly, no wonder the member for Mulgrave is leaving. He is a legal professional. Surely, sitting in the party room when that was being devised, he would have absolutely had his head spinning.

A member interjected.

Dylan WIGHT: Did I say Mulgrave? The member for Malvern is what I meant. The member for Mulgrave would also have a great legal mind, I am sure, if she had done the training, but I am of course talking about the member for Malvern. The gall of those opposite to try and interfere with an independent royal commission is absolutely staggering. As I said, it is pretty painful then to sit here in my seat in this place and listen to them lecture us on integrity. How about the integrity of standing up at a press conference and trying to pre-empt a witness list to a royal commission? Absolutely absurd.

As I said, this royal commission that we will undertake in this state is integral, and we know that. We have seen clearly through media reports that there has been some bad behaviour on some of these sites. None of us walk away from that, and nor should we. The powers of a royal commission are the appropriate powers to fully uncover what has perhaps transpired. I do not want to pre-empt that. But what I want to say as well is that absolutely for the most part the people, the construction workers that work on these sites, that work on these projects, are good people. They are good, hardworking Victorians that are building, frankly, state-building projects here in the state of Victoria.

The West Gate Tunnel was a project simply aimed at outer-suburban people in the western suburbs and people in Geelong. It also takes trucks off roads in those inner-western suburbs, Yarraville and Footscray – an absolutely integral project for this state, a second river crossing. As somebody who travelled from the west into Carlton every single day over the West Gate Bridge, I can tell you how welcome the West Gate Tunnel is for people in my community that do that every single day. Whether you live in Tarneit or Hoppers Crossing or Geelong or Point Cook, you now have the option to take the West Gate Tunnel into the city because of the amazing work of these thousands of construction workers that worked on that project. I am sure that 99.999 per cent of them were good, law-abiding, fantastic citizens. I am not sure exactly what happened on the West Gate Tunnel. As I said, really the only way to figure that out is to have a royal commission.

What we should not do, what we should not get trapped in and what we should not get led into is demonising construction workers in this state, who keep our state running. They build the projects that we need, but also the economic boost and economic development that come from these projects in added productivity and also in wages are incredibly important, and that should not be lost on any of us. Like I said, integrity and transparency are at the heart of everything that this government does, and the Victorian public should expect nothing less from this government or from any government. Like I said, to sit here and take a lecture on integrity from those opposite is nothing more than laughable. This piece of legislation will give IBAC the powers that it needs to investigate corruption at its core, and I commend it to the house.

 Nicole WERNER (Warrandyte) (16:41): I rise to speak on the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission Amendment Bill 2026. As to where the coalition stands, to be clear, we support the intent of this bill in principle. Victorians have waited years for IBAC to have the powers it needs to properly investigate corruption. IBAC itself has been saying for years that its hands were tied. Former commissioners have said it, integrity experts have said it, Transparency International has said it, and yet here we are in September 2026, weeks before an election, with a government finally scrambling to deliver what should have been done years ago. In fact we have time and again in this place moved and introduced legislation to strengthen IBAC, as they have requested, yet Labor has seen fit time and again to vote against it and vote it down.

What do they do in the closing weeks of Parliament, the second-last week of Parliament? They decide to agree to it in cabinet on a Monday and then let the opposition know about the details of it on a late Monday evening, for us to then debate it all day on a Tuesday with little to no notice. Of course we support stronger powers for IBAC. We have always supported stronger powers for IBAC. It was a Liberal government that actually introduced IBAC, this anti-corruption watchdog, to Victoria. What we cannot support, and what no reasonable member of this house should support, is a bill that gives with one hand and takes away with another.

With all of the corruption and chaos that has surrounded this government, the average Victorian could be forgiven for being confused about what this bill actually means. To put in simple terms why we are even here: Victorians will be very familiar with the $15 billion of taxpayers money that has been lost to corruption on Big Build worksites. They will be familiar with this money lost to taxpayer-funded strippers on government worksites, money poured into illicit drug distribution rings on government worksites and money lost to criminals and gangsters on government worksites – in fact money poured into the hands of criminals, with $15 billion being a conservative estimate from the esteemed corruption buster Geoffrey Watson SC. Every Victorian is then rightly asking, ‘Where did that $15 billion go? Where is that $15 billion? Why is it that this Labor government can’t find the money to properly fund our roads or fund our police or our health services but they can find $15 billion to pour into the hands of criminals?’ There are serious questions about where that money went, and Victorians deserve answers. You would think that the obvious thing to do would be to give Victoria’s anti-corruption watchdog the power to investigate those allegations.

Steve Dimopoulos: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, the member is required to be factual. She talks about $15 billion that went into the hands of workers and completely misrepresented that statistic.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Lauren Kathage): That is not a point of order.

Nicole WERNER: That is not what this government is doing. Instead it is saying to the independent anti-corruption watchdog, IBAC –

Steve Dimopoulos: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, I know the member wants to produce a TikTok video, but she is reading. After all these years you would think she would be able to speak without reading.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Lauren Kathage): Is the member reading?

Nicole WERNER: I am referring to notes. They say to us, ‘Sure. What we will do is give you more powers to investigate corruption, but let’s exclude a whole bunch of stuff. Let’s exclude any old corruption allegations they have dismissed, let’s exclude any corruption allegations they referred elsewhere and let’s exclude any corruption allegations they have finished investigating.’ Do you know what this means? That this is one big cover-up from this corrupt Labor government. What can’t the anti-corruption watchdog look at? Number 1, former Premier Allan’s referral to IBAC ‍– they have no powers to investigate that; and number 2, multiple referrals that we have made regarding the Big Build corruption – they have no powers to investigate that either. Before I am point-of-ordered endlessly by Labor again, the new Premier said:

I am not Daniel Andrews. I am not Jacinta Allan.

Well, sir, that may be, but you have just stitched up the biggest cover-up by designing this bill so that IBAC specifically cannot investigate the Big Build corruption –

Mary-Anne Thomas: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, the member on her feet is required to be factual at all times, and I ask that you call her back to dealing with the facts and not making things up for, as has already been observed, her TikTok videos.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Lauren Kathage): That is not a point of order; that is a matter for debate.

Nicole WERNER: The chief anti-corruption agency calls for expanded powers for years, and what Labor decides to do is offer watered-down powers and tie IBAC’s hands behind its back. That is why we have circulated an amendment in the house, which I support, proposing that this bill be redrafted to remove the limitations preventing IBAC from applying its new powers and jurisdictions to previously examined, dismissed or referred allegations, making the legislation fully retrospective; to insert a timely reporting requirement to ensure IBAC reports are provided to Parliament within a specific timeframe; to repeal section 117(1)(a) to remove the presumption that examinations be held in private; and to repeal the public interest immunity provisions that enable cabinet ministers to withhold cabinet material from IBAC.

That is our amendment. That is what I am supporting today, and I am explaining what this bill actually does, because the government would very much like Victorians not to look too closely. This bill does expand IBAC’s working definition of ‘corrupt conduct’, which is genuinely welcome. Right now IBAC can only investigate conduct that constitutes a criminal offence punishable by five years or more in jail. This is the narrowest definition of ‘corruption’ used by any peak anti-corruption body in this country. Every other state and the National Anti-Corruption Commission at the federal level has a broader remit. This bill would bring Victoria into line by extending the definition to cover serious disciplinary matters and misconduct, which is what former commissioner Robert Redlich calls grey corruption. That makes sense; that is good. This bill also provides IBAC with follow-the-money powers, which would allow it to pursue investigations into major government contractors and into subcontractors and labour hire firms receiving taxpayer funds.

A member interjected.

Nicole WERNER: If the member would like to continue interrupting and interjecting, I am happy to speak louder. I will speak louder instead of having to hear these people interrupt and interject endlessly, needlessly. I am sorry that I am striking a nerve, Acting Speaker.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Lauren Kathage): If you want to take up the interjection by the member, as is normal practice, you may do so, but there is no need to yell in response.

Nicole WERNER: But here is where the government, true to form, has stuffed it up. Hidden in this legislation is a provision that explicitly prevents IBAC from applying its new powers –

Mathew Hilakari: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, the member continues to read from a prewritten speech.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Lauren Kathage): Is the member reading?

Nicole WERNER: I am referring to notes. The stitch-up is that IBAC gets new powers to investigate but not into any of the things that count to Victorians. The allegations that former Premier Allan referred to IBAC after she got exposed for her complicity in this corruption of $15 billion – that does not count. The referrals that the Shadow Attorney-General made –

Steve Dimopoulos: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, the member is impugning another member by alleging that she was complicit in corruption.

Nicole WERNER: She referred herself to IBAC, mate.

Steve Dimopoulos: I’m not your mate, and I never intend to be. Acting Speaker, she is implying that the member for Bendigo East, who is a current member, is somehow complicit in corruption. That is impugning a member. You should know better than that.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Lauren Kathage): The member for Warrandyte will be mindful of parliamentary rules around impugning.

Nicole WERNER: That is it. This is a live demonstration of what this Labor government does to gag debate and stop genuine debate about matters that are important to Victorians. Time and again I have been interrupted and interjected by men on that side of the chamber as I have tried to stand up for Victorians and fight for them in this place. This is symptomatic of what this tired and corrupt Labor government is and looks like. They are exhausted and tired and out of touch. Again and again if they want to get up and interrupt me to stop debate and to stifle and stymie debate, so be it, but we will continue to fight for Victorians every single day. Every single day in this house, that is our duty, so we will not shy back from doing that. We will not stand back from doing that. That is our job here in this place, so I will not apologise for standing up for my community. I will not apologise for standing up for Victorians. I will not apologise or take lectures from members on that side opposite about integrity, take lectures from them and mansplaining from them about what corruption is and is not. No, we will not.

 Daniela DE MARTINO (Monbulk) (16:51): I would like to state at the outset – and I deliberately did not take a point of order there, because I have the opportunity to speak right now – that open debate is incredibly important in this chamber. Absolutely, I concur. But it is to be conducted as per the rules and conventions of this place and the Westminster system. There are particular rules and conventions, especially in casting aspersions against other members, and it is incredibly important and it behoves all of us to conduct ourselves in this chamber with integrity as well, which means sometimes less performance and more substance. What I would like to say, further to that –

James Newbury: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, the ongoing bullying of the member for Warrandyte this afternoon has been absolutely outrageous. It is continuing. It has been bullying. You, you and you have been bullying all afternoon, and it is disgraceful.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Lauren Kathage): Through the Chair, member for Brighton. I believe this is something you could take up with the Speaker, if you wish to, at a later time.

James Newbury: Thank you, Acting Speaker. I did not expect you to protect the member for Warrandyte from bullying.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Lauren Kathage): I would ask you not to place words in the Acting Speaker’s mouth. I am just saying if you have an issue to raise, as is normal practice, please raise it with the Speaker.

Daniela DE MARTINO: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, I take offence at the aspersion that I have been bullying the member for Warrandyte. I stood up and made a very simple contribution, acknowledged that there are rules and conventions in this place and tried to calm the situation down to a degree as well to ensure that we conduct ourselves in this chamber with a different manner, sometimes, in order to ensure that debate is productive.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Lauren Kathage): The member has left the chamber, so I cannot ask them if they would like to withdraw. Are you happy to leave that there?

Daniela DE MARTINO: I am happy to leave that there and place it on the record. I will address some of the opposition’s concerns regarding retrospectivity with four key points. I do hope that some of them will listen to this: (1) if IBAC receive a new complaint or notification, they can investigate that with new powers; (2) if IBAC are yet to assess a complaint or notification they already have, they can investigate that with the new powers; (3) if IBAC get notification of new conduct related to a dismissed or referred complaint, they can investigate that with the new power; and (4) if IBAC are currently investigating something, the new powers will apply. I hope that assuages some of the concerns of those opposite.

This is an important bill that will strengthen Victoria’s integrity framework and delivers on the government’s commitment to ensure that our anti-corruption watchdog has the powers it needs to investigate misconduct wherever it occurs and wherever public money is involved. At its core, this bill is about public confidence, which is why it is so important to us all that this debate be conducted in a calm manner, because public confidence is everything when it comes to integrity – public confidence in our institutions; public confidence in our lawmakers; public confidence in our opposition; public confidence in this place, the legislation it creates and the conduct of all players to that part. It is absolutely fundamental to our democracy that the public have confidence in us.

We see a rise in populism at the moment, not just here in Victoria – we see it across the nation, we see it across the world. We see populism rising because public confidence is being eroded through horrific algorithms, tech bros based in Silicon Valley who seek to further their own pursuit of power and wealth by controlling us all through social media. We are watching the destruction and corrosion of our society in real time, and it is fast and it is frightening. And when we sit here and slurs are cast and the government is claimed to be corrupt, and people that are part of it are labelled corrupt by those opposite, it undermines public confidence in our institutions. We stand here today in this chamber with a piece of legislation which is going to make significant changes to IBAC, to the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission. We are giving it extended powers. We are broadening the definition of ‘corruption’. We are doing the work to ensure there is integrity. And those opposite, still they throw shade on us, to quote the younger people. It does not do anyone any good for them to cast shade against us. It is simply so undermining, and it worries me greatly.

As I said before, at its core this bill is about public confidence, and Victorians expect that public funds are spent properly. They expect integrity in public administration. They expect transparency and accountability from those who exercise public power or benefit from public resources. And most importantly they expect that where corruption or serious misconduct is suspected, appropriate authorities have the ability to investigate thoroughly and effectively. That is what this help actually seeks to achieve. There are two central objectives to this bill. Firstly, it enables IBAC to better follow the money by expanding its ability to investigate suspected corrupt conduct involving third parties and private subcontractors, where there is a connection to government-funded public functions. And secondly, as I mentioned before, it broadens the definition of ‘corrupt conduct’ to capture a wider range of conduct that undermines integrity and public confidence. Together these reforms represent a significant strengthening of Victoria’s anti-corruption framework. We should all be cheering that, not deriding it.

These two reforms recognise a very simple reality: that the delivery of public services and major government projects increasingly involves a range of entities beyond traditional government departments and agencies, and our taxpayer funds – we are all taxpayers in this chamber as well, and all Victorians who pay their taxes – often flow through contractors, subcontractors, consultants and other organisations engaged to perform public functions. If we are serious about integrity and accountability, our oversight framework must reflect that reality. And I would like to actually take up the member for Tarneit’s point before. I would like to be very clear about something: there are so many wonderful people working in construction and building this incredible public infrastructure that is going to be here servicing the public for decades if not centuries to come. I have visited building sites across my electorate of Monbulk, including the Belgrave car park, the Angliss Hospital’s new expansion and redevelopment and multiple schools that we have upgraded and modernised, including Emerald Secondary College, which is underway, Ghilgai Steiner School, where I just turned the sod last week, Billanook Primary, which we completed last year, and The Patch Primary as well. These are fabulous, fabulous pieces of public infrastructure that have been built by very fine people, from the architects to the project managers to the people on the tools, the sparkies, the chippies, the plumbers, all of them. I have come across so many who have acted in good faith, who have brought their skills and contributions to create wonderful lasting infrastructure for our children, for our people, for our community to enjoy.

There are fabulous people across construction, but we know that there are some elements out there who have not acted in good faith – in fact that is putting it mildly – some who have conducted themselves horrendously and have been corrupt in that conduct. They need to be held accountable for it and they need to suffer the consequences of their bad behaviour of using our taxpayer funds inappropriately to feather their own nests and to enrich themselves.

This legislation will enable IBAC to do the necessary work to uncover and reveal any and all corruption. That is fundamental to it, and that is why it is so jarring to hear those opposite with their attacks on this legislation. The attacks that have come from them have been beyond the pale.

I understand an opposition has a role to play in holding government to account. That is healthy. That is a Western democracy. That is the Westminster system, and that is fine to see, but there is a point where it goes beyond that. There is a point where it becomes farcical, and then there is a point where it can become dangerous. That is the path we are heading down now because we are feeding the populists out there. The end result will be pretty ugly for Victoria if we continue on this path, because we will see in chairs over there One Nation people, and who knows what calibre we will see with some of them coming into this place. It is a frightening thought for us all. I commend the bill to the house.

 Will FOWLES (Ringwood) (17:01): I thank the member for Monbulk for her very considered and substantial contribution. It presented a welcome contrast to earlier contributions today. I particularly enjoyed that it was delivered at a volume that did not rupture eardrums that others may have considered as a more appropriate way of delivering their material. I am grateful for that.

This is clearly an important bill, and this is one of those rare occasions where I rise and say I accept the government’s timeframe on bringing these matters to the house and I accept the government’s timeframe on dealing with them. In fact I am a little bit curious about why we are not guillotining it earlier than Thursday, to be honest. I think the quicker it gets upstairs, the quicker it gets back and the quicker we all get to go home – or, in the case of some, go out and start campaigning. Nonetheless, I am supportive of the timeframe, and broadly speaking I am supportive of the bill.

I am one of the perhaps many who may have concatenated in their minds the various integrity matters that are before the Parliament and before the people of Victoria at the moment. I refer to the royal commission into the Big Build, these changes to IBAC’s powers and the other bill, which I will not anticipate debate on but obviously relates to the special prosecutor. That is something that is ultimately a bill that attaches to, if you like, the royal commission. Those matters are related, in a sense, in that they are all about integrity changes. But it is important to remember that the matters we are debating in this specific bill are not the matters that are subject to the royal commission into the Big Build. They are different matters. These are prospective rules about future things that might come before the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission. It is for that reason that I support this bill with one reservation, which I will get to in a moment.

For that reason I want to tease out a little bit the important distinctions between those matters that relate to the royal commission and those matters that we are dealing with under this specific legislation. From my assessment many of the contributions made by members of the opposition particularly have focused on Big Build matters, and there is a royal commission on foot to deal with those. The letters patent have been issued. That is a real thing that is really happening, and I commend the government and I commend the Premier for doing that. Let us face it: it is why the leadership of the government changed. It was the need to have that royal commission. It was a sensible change of leadership and a sensible advance in public policy and governance in this state to have that royal commission called. I am very glad that the Premier did it. He should be congratulated for that. That is not an easy thing to do, to win the leadership of the Labor Party and to then bring about a policy change that had previously been so publicly and strongly defended. These are all good things.

These reforms are overdue, and I say that because the Integrity and Oversight Committee has spent a fair bit of time talking about the need for things like follow-the-dollar powers inside the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission Act 2011, and that is what these amendments do. The follow-the-dollar powers are absolutely critical, and I am very pleased that they have come before the chamber. But you cannot talk about the follow-the-dollar powers coming before the chamber without mentioning the fine work of the member for Brunswick, because the member for Brunswick, who is too ill to be here sadly, has his DNA right in this bill with all the very, very good work he did on the Integrity and Oversight Committee and in continuing to bring pressure on the government to introduce these very necessary reforms. I congratulate him, I thank him for his work and I hope that he is doing okay.

These reforms are not just reflexive reforms relating to the politics of the day. They are reforms that are very important, reforms that go to bigger issues than just the current news cycle. It is very important, given the complexity of modern contracting arrangements, particularly on a very ambitious infrastructure program, that follow-the-dollar powers exist. They are powers that allow IBAC to look beyond the head contractors, who typically have very strong and robust governance in place. I say typically; that is not without exception. But as you work down the chain necessarily you will be in contact with organisations that may not have the same robust governance architecture, and it is against those organisations that I think there has been some evidence put into the public domain that they have been subjected to pressures to be corrupt or in fact have behaved corruptly. Whilst there is a royal commission to deal with those matters – I do not want to concatenate the two; it is very important that we understand these are separate processes – it does point to the need for IBAC to have that flexibility, because if you think about some of the IBAC successes, whether on corruption in the education department or corruption inside Casey council, quite often the matters IBAC is called upon to review or delve into are quite granular in nature. They can be in part relatively small transactions that speak to a bigger ill. It is always important that we make sure that any beneficiary of corrupt behaviour is able to be brought into the IBAC investigative network, or web if you like. These reforms do that, and for that the government ought to be congratulated.

The member for Monbulk spoke very elegantly about integrity and public confidence and how they are in fact related. It is so important that we reach a point where Victorians once again have confidence in their political system, once again have confidence in there being proper anti-corruption mechanisms and once again have confidence in the way in which public funds are spent. It is that lack of confidence that is leading to the rise of the orange peril, and I have already had plenty to say about that, Acting Speaker, as you know.

I want to talk about my principle concern with the bill, which is about the way historical matters are closed off. The bill expressly prevents IBAC from reopening a complaint that it has dismissed or referred or an investigation that it has completed. I think the government has to be a little bit careful. Quite necessarily you need to give certainty on these matters, and IBAC needs to be able to say they have closed the book on matters where in fact they have closed the book having investigated. But there may be circumstances where they closed the book because they did not have the powers of investigation – for example, they did not have follow-the-dollar powers – or where they did not have enough evidence at the time but they would happily look at it again. I appreciate that there is a mechanism in the bill, but I just query whether there is not a way of making it clearer or easier to get a matter reopened, if you like, where there is a genuine basis to do so. That could be on the basis of the powers changing and the ability of IBAC to investigate changes – that is a genuine basis upon which to reopen investigation, I would suggest – or of course new evidence.

I am very grateful for the briefings that we have had. The Premier’s office has advised that genuinely new evidence does give a basis for investigation. That is welcome, but I think there is an opportunity for the government to expand in this debate on exactly how that mechanism will operate – what constitutes new evidence, whether it may relate to conduct that has previously been examined and whether IBAC itself decides whether the threshold has been met. It is very important that a closed file does not become some kind of immunity certificate – that once IBAC has closed the book on something that that simply says we are just never going to crack it open again, even in circumstances where it might be warranted.

Perhaps with the benefit of hindsight the government may very well have brought a bill to the house that had the ability for IBAC to crack something open if there was a genuine or reasonable basis to do so rather than having this very narrowly drafted close-out provision, because that close-out provision might restrict IBAC from looking at matters that it perhaps ought to look at, particularly if they are matters that simply go to, for example, the follow-the-dollar powers. IBAC may very well say, ‘Well, we closed the book on level 1 of the allegation because we simply couldn’t look at levels 2, 3 and 4 as the money went down the line.’ You might say that IBAC, on that basis, would say, ‘Now that we’ve got the powers to do it, we should take a look at it.’ I do not say that they emphatically are, but they might well be restricted by that close-out provision. I would hope that the government looks positively at potential amendments in the other place or this place to ensure that this does not unnecessarily restrict IBAC’s activity going forward.

Once again, I find myself bereft of time with much more to say – probably true of my career as much as it is of this speech. However, my final point to make is that with expanded responsibilities comes the need for expanded resources, and I hope that the government takes the opportunity to signal publicly very quickly that the resources will follow to ensure that IBAC’s new powers and broader responsibilities can be met with the resources it needs to do the very important work it has to do to improve confidence in all of the government of Victoria.

 Iwan WALTERS (Greenvale) (17:11): It is a pleasure to rise to speak on the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission Amendment Bill 2026. I was going to commence by saying that it has been a slightly unedifying debate that I have been privy to, but the member for Ringwood and indeed the member for Monbulk’s contributions I thought lifted the tone and injected some substance back into the debate rather than relying upon volume and performative theatrics for TikTok clicks.

I want to return to some of the points the member for Ringwood made in his contribution, and to use his phrase, he successfully avoided concatenating the issue of the Royal Commission into the Integrity of Major Public and Civil Infrastructure Construction Projects in Victoria and the IBAC bill that is on the table. These are both very important issues, but they are distinct, although complementary, and in disaggregating those two issues I think the member for Ringwood did a service in his contribution to this debate.

The Premier, upon his election, made very clear that his first priority of government was to ensure a royal commission into the construction sector. That is underway with the appointments this week in fact of senior silks to the royal commission to assist the commissioner, a former Chief Justice of South Australia, to fully investigate the issues which have been prevalent in the construction sector. As others have said, that does not mean that every actor, every employee or every worker in that sector is somehow guilty of corrupt conduct. Nonetheless every single dollar that is expended upon public works in this state matters, the value of that money matters, and it is important that Victorians have confidence in the expenditure of that money. It is important that the royal commission is able to do its work without, I would contend, being jawboned by the Shadow Attorney-General, who I note has not been appointed to assist the royal commission and is not a senior silk. It is the work of the royal commission to investigate, it is the work of the royal commissioner to invite witnesses to appear, and I look forward to that body commencing its important work.

The IBAC bill on the table also goes to one of the Premier’s significant priorities that he articulated upon his election. I also note, just in passing, that one of the other first steps that the Premier took when he was elected was to introduce workplace protection orders, which have now been legislated by this place and the Council and will keep retail workers safe. But the Premier also, as I say, committed to strengthening the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission, IBAC. I do note that the Leader of the Opposition and those opposite have previously sought to limit that broad-based capacity of IBAC, so ‘INAC’ perhaps would be a better term for their conception of an anti-corruption body.

These anti-corruption bodies have a long history in this state. 1973 saw the establishment of the Victorian Ombudsman, which was the first major independent mechanism for investigating both maladministration and complaints about government in this state. It has performed a really important role in the over half-century since, demonstrating the need for independent oversight of ministers and departments. There are bodies within this place which do also do that – the Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations Committee, the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee and other bodies – but I think having that external mechanism is important for maintaining the kind of confidence that the member for Monbulk talked about in her contribution – that it is important to sustain public confidence in institutions. At a time when that confidence is fraying on a global level, having strong, robust, independent institutions to hold ministers, hold departments and hold the expenditure of public money to account is important for the fabric of democracy.

We have seen what can happen when those independent bodies are marginalised. The Kennett government of 1992 to 1999 in this state involved fairly substantial reforms to the public sector and centralised political control. In 1997 the Auditor-General Ches Baragwanath raised concerns about corruption and accountability, particularly in the ambulance services, partly as a consequence of some of that centralisation. And the government’s subsequent attempts to alter the Auditor-General’s powers created some very significant challenges, I think, for that government, as exemplified by the 1999 election result, but also for public administration in this state. In 2004 the Bracks government established the Office of Police Integrity to investigate police corruption and serious misconduct. This initially focused on, as I say, police corruption and Victoria Police rather than corruption across the whole of the public realm. But in the run-up to the 2010 election the Brumby Labor government committed to establishing an anti-corruption commission, which was then legislated by the Baillieu government in 2011. But I note that there were challenges through that government in terms of its engagement with IBAC and the OPI, with an adviser in the then police minister’s office being dismissed for seeking to bring down the police commissioner at the time and a former member for Kew resigning their commission for leaking Privileges Committee deliberations.

But I return to the bill that we have before us on the table, which reflects the Premier’s very strong commitment that public funds must be subject to strong independent scrutiny. This bill helps to do that, because it strengthens IBAC’s ability to investigate exactly how government money is used, including where it passes through the hands of private contractors. These are obviously integral for any substantial construction project or any significant body of public works. So these follow-the-money powers are important, and this bill reflects that the current law is too narrow. IBAC currently needs to meet a relatively restrictive criminal threshold before it can investigate, which can, as a consequence, leave some challenging and potentially serious misconduct outside of IBAC’s reach. As a consequence, poor governance and indeed systemic failures may go unexamined if they do not amount to a specified offence. So this bill’s expansion of the threshold to include any criminal offence, rather than only specified offences, I think will help to strengthen Victorians’ confidence in the kinds of independent and robust entities like the Ombudsman and indeed like IBAC, which have been set up exactly for that purpose.

Follow-the-money provisions are important because in the nature of modern government not every element of public money is expended by departments and contractors are involved in a very significant amount of the delivery of public services. I think it is important that all of those are encompassed by the powers of IBAC to ensure that there is probity, to ensure that there is the kind of integrity that the Premier has repeatedly stated is entirely non-negotiable in Victoria. Public money should not become harder to scrutinise just because it is channelled through a private entity. It remains public money. It remains fundamentally subject to the oversight of this place because it is there in the budget papers, it is allocated in the budget, it is subject to democratic oversight and it is there to improve the public realm and to improve public services. Therefore it is important that public bodies or bodies within the public realm which are charged with oversighting government and government expenditure, like IBAC, have the capacity to thoroughly investigate the expenditure, the acquittal of that money, even if it passes through private organisations.

This is part of a larger reform program. As I said at the outset and as the member for Ringwood has said, there is a royal commission underway, for which letters patent have been issued and for which a commissioner has been appointed – a former Chief Justice of South Australia – who has now appointed very senior silks to assist him. That work is important, that work needs to happen and that work will happen. I think it is important that the IBAC bill, which has much broader prospective implications and operational considerations, is allowed to be debated in this place without it curtailing the work of the royal commission or the royal commissioner.

The bottom line is that government contracts should not create accountability loopholes. This bill helps to close that type of loophole, and serious misconduct should not escape investigation because of an outdated legal definition. Every single dollar that is spent on behalf of the people of Victoria by this place matters. Ensuring that people retain confidence in that expenditure and in their public institutions matters. It will be on the ballot paper at this November election. I hope that democracy has a rich future in Victoria. I commend the bill to the house.

 David SOUTHWICK (Caulfield) (17:21): A leopard does not change its spots, and we see a new Premier that is really part of the same old regime. This new Premier claims to be all about integrity, but unfortunately what we have seen already is the Premier being very selective when it comes to integrity. We have seen the issue already about a number of secret hidden taxes that have just been discovered. For those that have been using their Myki, an additional 1 per cent that was hidden has been discovered, and of course everyone is paying for the Suburban Rail Loop. The Suburban Rail Loop is part of the Big Build that the government claimed to be the big hero opportunity. How many times did we see former premiers stand with a hard hat cutting a ribbon and saying ‘How good is this?’ in terms of jobs and in terms of the economy? It was the big-ticket item – it certainly was in terms of money – that had former premiers standing alongside saying, ‘We’re getting Victoria moving.’ Well, what a con job that has been, $15 billion of corruption that we know of in terms of what has been already alleged – some say more – and a government that has been talking this up like it has been fantastic.

We know that the current Premier did not think we needed a royal commission. The current Premier, when he was the Deputy Premier, did not think we needed strengthened IBAC powers. In fact the opposition time and time again called out the stuff that was being discovered on the Big Build sites – the big, dirty, rotten Big Build sites. Nick McKenzie, the investigative reporter, held the government to account for the corruption and the horrific scenarios where women were exploited on Big Build sites and for Women in Construction, who were awarded contracts that were going to people that were involved in bikie gangs and strip clubs and all kinds of things. These were the kinds of contracts that were being awarded. This is what has been discovered. All along, when we kept asking the government of the day, the then Premier, the member for Bendigo East, and the Deputy Premier, the current Premier, claimed we did not need strengthened IBAC powers, we did not need a royal commission, police were doing their job and IBAC had enough powers. All of a sudden we get a new Premier and the new Premier says, ‘I have now found my integrity that I did not have for years, and we’re going to have a royal commission.’ In fact the Premier stood up and said, ‘We’re going to have a royal commission.’ It was the first thing that was announced. It took weeks for us to see anything or hear anything. It was kicked down the road longer and longer until finally we have got the bill before the house now. You would think with the time the Premier had that they would actually get going if this was the most significant thing that the Premier was going to do to clean up the corruption that had been made by the very government and people that this now Premier was involved with and responsible for. It is not like the current Premier did not have a seat at the table. The current Premier was the Deputy Premier. The current Premier had every opportunity to do this for years, but the current Premier all of a sudden has found his voice now that he is the Premier. In the meantime, Victorians have been ripped off.

Where is the $15 billion? Are we going to get our $15 billion back? We have finally got a bill before this house that we will support because we need IBAC to have strengthened powers, and we will do whatever we can to ensure IBAC has the strengthened powers to investigate, to clean up the corruption and to get taxpayers $15 billion back. But it still does not go far enough. The member for Brighton, the Shadow Attorney-General, has put forward a number of proposed changes to not have more delays and to ensure those that have been involved in the corruption can be held to account. Former Premier Allan, the member for Bendigo East, was referred previously to IBAC. Does that mean the member for Bendigo East does not get the opportunity to front IBAC under strengthened powers or to front the royal commission? They are the kinds of things that we are proposing to be changed – those that have fronted where IBAC have said, ‘Nothing to be seen here.’ When the changes have been made, we do not want those former ministers and former premiers to get a get-out-of-jail-free card because the government have wiggled their way and managed to set things up to ensure they run a protection racket. We do not want to see a protection racket by the Carroll Labor government. We do not want to see that happen, because we have had a protection racket for 12 years in Victoria. This is the most corrupt government that Victoria has seen. Victorians are sick and tired of the corruption from now three premiers in this state. Three premiers in 12 years have presided over the worst corruption that Victoria has seen.

Finally, a couple of months before the election, we have a Premier turn around and say, ‘I’ve found my integrity. I’ve found it. I’m going to have an IBAC,’ although it is substandard. To give follow-the-money powers that are needed and to ensure that those that have been referred to IBAC before do not have a protection racket so they cannot be referred again and to ensure that there is a speedy process in all of this is what we are suggesting with these amendments. If this government is serious about really cleaning up the corruption in this state, this government should support the Shadow Attorney-General’s amendments. This will be another test for the government. Do they really have integrity? Does the Premier really believe that he has integrity, or is it just another talking point? Is it just another lot of spin? I think Victorians have woken up. No-one believes a thing this government says anymore. We see that. You only have to doorknock the seats of many of those opposite to get an understanding of what people actually think about the worst, most corrupt government that they have ever seen. Could you trust the people who created the corruption to fix the corruption? You are asking this government to mark its own homework. Of course they are going to give themselves an A-plus.

We need to clean up corruption in this state. It is like a business that has been run by a group of dodgy directors. You would never invest in that business. People are not investing in Victoria, because there is no confidence in Victoria. There is no confidence in Victoria, because we have the most corrupt government that this state has ever seen, and we have to clean up the mess. We need a royal commission. We need IBAC. We need to ensure that those that have created the corruption, that have been involved in this, are held fully to account and face the full force of the law. If brown paper bags have been traded between those that had power, then those people need to be held responsible. We do not need protection rackets. We do not need con jobs by the current government to say, ‘We’re doing all of these wonderful things, but we’ll protect those people that are former ministers and former premiers from going before IBAC or going before the royal commission.’ That is not integrity. If this Premier was worth anything, we would actually see that happen. Unfortunately, what we have is a selective Premier that only uses integrity when it suits but when it counts is a mile away from it. We have seen it already. This Premier sat around the cabinet table when there was the secret tax to fund the Suburban Rail Loop. The Premier was the former transport minister and now claims he knew nothing about it. You cannot have selective memory and then also claim that you have integrity. We saw that happen under the hotel quarantine inquiry, where former Premier Andrews could not recall. We are seeing it play out again under current Premier Carroll, who also said he was not at the table.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Paul Mercurio): Please use correct titles for sitting members.

David SOUTHWICK: We have got a current Premier. We have got a former Premier. We have got former premiers. The three of them are all as bad as one another. This is not a new dawn, this is not a new regime; this is just a Sergeant Schultz that says, ‘I know nothing. I had nothing to do with it. I wasn’t there.’ That is a whole lot of rubbish of course. A Deputy Premier claiming that he was not responsible for all of the bad decisions by the previous premiers is just an absolute untruth. It is a lie. This Premier needs to actually fess up and own up to the mess. He cannot blame others for his own mess. He cannot turn around and say, ‘I’m a new regime. I wasn’t at the table.’ We are not bringing in a Premier that was out of this place. This Premier sat around the table, was the Deputy Premier, was a minister, and this Premier should go and should actually start doing something.

 Anthony CIANFLONE (Pascoe Vale) (17:31): There we have it, the lecture from Mr Integrity himself, the guy that calls himself the adjunct professor, going around and waving a fake CV, coming in here and lecturing us about integrity – the guy that tape-records his own colleagues in secret partyroom meetings, which we know has been exposed and come out for all to see, wearing a wire in partyroom meetings.

Brad Rowswell: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, the assertions that the member for Pascoe Vale is making must only be made via a substantive motion in accordance with the standing orders.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Paul Mercurio): I do not uphold the point of order.

David Southwick: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, I took offence from the member for Pascoe Vale and ask him to withdraw and apologise.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Paul Mercurio): I ask the member for Pascoe Vale to withdraw.

Anthony CIANFLONE: I withdraw. The truth hurts, because a fact is a fact. The Liberal Party and Liberal members opposite have absolutely no credibility when it comes to talking about integrity. They need to look in the mirror, look at their own actions and look at the comprehensive reporting across the Herald Sun and 3AW – their favourite media news outlets – in terms of their own conduct and the fact that they have been suing each other as a party. They have been suing each other and taking each other to court. Six leaders in seven –

David Southwick interjected.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Paul Mercurio): Before I hear the point of order, member for Caulfield, were you talking at the member for Pascoe Vale? Your back was to me. I thought I could hear you. I find that somewhat disrespectful.

Brad Rowswell: On a point of order, Acting Speaker: relevance.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Paul Mercurio): I do not uphold the point of order.

Anthony CIANFLONE: As I say, this is a bill about integrity. It is all about integrity. Those opposite want to throw punches, but they cannot take anything back.

In saying all that, I turn, obviously, to the substance of the bill, which is the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission Amendment Bill 2026. It is a bill that is fundamental to our democracy because it is all about trust – trust that public money is spent for the public good; trust that people exercising public power do so honestly; trust that government contractors, unions and businesses and anybody else entrusted with taxpayers money are subject to proper scrutiny; and trust that when wrongdoing is alleged, our institutions have the powers to follow the evidence, follow the conduct and, critically, follow the money. No government, no political party and no institution should ever regard integrity reform as a destination at which we just simply arrive and remain. Integrity must continually be strengthened as governments change, technology changes, contracting models change and the methods used by those who seek to exploit public systems also change. When shortcomings are identified, governments and we all have a responsibility to act.

The word ‘integrity’ comes from the Latin word ‘integritas’, meaning ‘wholeness, soundness, something intact and uncorrupted’, and that is what an integrity system must do to protect the wholeness of our democracy and the trust that all Victorians place in it. In saying that, though, I do want to acknowledge that, by and large, the benefits of a lot of our major infrastructure Big Build projects have been overwhelmingly and remain overwhelmingly positive. The economic, the employment, the socio-economic and the skills outcomes and the long-term benefits for our whole state, city and communities will stand the test of time. And the workers delivering each and every one of those projects by and large are good people – construction workers, architects, planners, engineers; everyone involved in a lot of these big projects – and are good-intentioned people who have been doing the right thing. So I just want to make it clear on the record that many of those workers, a lot of whom live in my community, have done a magnificent job.

But this bill of course does not emerge from a vacuum, because we have confronted, as a state, serious allegations over recent years about the conduct within those government-funded construction projects. I have doorknocked and spoken to many residents as well who have raised this with me and their concerns. And most recently, the wideranging allegations that have been made concerning organised crime figures, outlaw motorcycle gangs, underworld figures allegedly infiltrating parts of the construction industry, alleged misuse or wastage of public money, intimidation, violence and manipulation of contracting, subcontracting, labour hire and industrial arrangements are unacceptable. These allegations are unacceptable, and we should not stand for them. They must be properly investigated, and they should not be predetermined by politicians in this chamber. That is precisely why the government has established, the Premier has established, the Royal Commission into the Integrity of Major Public and Civil Infrastructure Construction Projects in Victoria, with the Honourable Christopher Kourakis AC as commissioner. Its terms of reference are broad and provide the commission with all the powers and resources that it will need to speak to and investigate however and whoever it needs to. Along with the royal commission we are also establishing Victoria’s first office of the special prosecutor, because the royal commission of course can uncover wrongdoing but does need to prosecute people in real time, which the special prosecutor will help support. And if we are serious about following the evidence, IBAC must also be allowed to follow the money.

This bill, again, has not evolved from a vacuum. It is off the back of also the 2023 Parliamentary Integrity and Oversight Committee inquiry into the adequacy of the legislative framework for IBAC. The committee report was a very comprehensive piece of work that made 31 recommendations, 29 ‍directed to government and two to IBAC. The government has supported 21 of the 29 ‍recommendations directed to government in principle, with a further eight that are under review. And we have also established an expert reference group involving IBAC, the Victorian Ombudsman, Integrity Oversight Victoria and Victoria Police to work through the legal and operational consequences of the broader package. This is not avoiding reform; this is ensuring that we have reform of a complex integrity system involving multiple independent agencies, coercive powers, criminal investigations, procedural fairness and people’s legal rights and that we make sure we get it right.

There are reforms that can and should happen right now, and that is exactly what this bill does. The first major reform is straightforward in principle but enormously significant in practice: IBAC will be empowered to follow the money. Modern governments do not operate solely through traditional departments staffed exclusively by public servants. Billions of dollars of public work undertaken through corporations, consortia, head contractors, subcontractors and complex supply chains occurs very regularly, yet the integrity framework has not always kept pace with that reality. Under this bill the definition of ‘public body’ and ‘public officer’ will be expanded to capture relevant associated entities, drawing upon concepts already used under Victoria’s Audit Act 1994. This will enable IBAC to investigate suspected corrupt conduct by third parties and private subcontractors where there is a connection between the conduct and the performance of a publicly funded public function. In simple terms, public money should carry public accountability with it. A taxpayer dollar should not lose the protection of Victoria’s integrity system simply because it has travelled from a department to a contractor, from a contractor to a subcontractor or further down the increasingly complex supply chain. And where public money goes, appropriate integrity oversight must be capable of following.

The second major reform is equally as important. At present, before conduct can constitute corrupt conduct for the purposes of an IBAC investigation it must satisfy particular statutory requirements and also constitute what the legislation calls a relevant offence. That is a narrow category – principally indictable offences and specified common-law offences. But the problem is obvious: there can be conduct that seriously compromises integrity and warrants investigation without neatly satisfying that existing threshold. The bill before us removes that narrow ‘relevant offence’ requirement. Instead the definition will capture conduct that would constitute any offence or any serious disciplinary matter. A serious disciplinary matter can include serious misconduct capable of justifying termination or significant employment or contractual penalty and serious contraventions of applicable codes of conduct governing MPs, ministers, parliamentary secretaries and councillors. It means IBAC can look beyond the narrow question of whether conduct fits within the limiting category of criminal offences and examine a broader range of serious integrity-compromising behaviour. That is a substantial expansion of IBAC’s jurisdiction.

Labor has a long record in this space that we should not ignore but that we should be proud of. Gough Whitlam went to the 1972 election promising an ombudsman and freedom-of-information legislation, arguing against excessive secrecy in government. The Hawke government established the National Crime Authority in 1984, giving Australia a standing national body with special powers to confront sophisticated organised crime. A lot of that came off the back of the old ‘bottom of the harbour’ scandal. Here in Victoria the Cain Labor government’s Freedom of Information Act 1982 was one of the defining transparency reforms of its era, leading the way. The Albanese federal Labor government has introduced national anti-corruption legislation. Here in Victoria we have reformed donation laws and today through this bill and with the previous reforms we have made through the labour hire reform we continue to make strides in better integrity, better transparency and better governance for people.

 Jade BENHAM (Mildura) (17:41): I am pleased – I will use that adjective – to rise to speak on the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission Amendment Bill 2026. It has been a long time coming. As the member for Warrandyte and I think most members on this side of the house have stated, we support the intent of this bill but we do not support what looks to be the secrecy or the sneakiness of the retrospective elements of this bill, which is why the member for Brighton has circulated amendments that will make the bill fully retrospective and remove the limitations in the bill as it is now. They will also insert timely reporting requirements for reports to stop the Operation Richmond–style delays that we saw.

The issues surrounding IBAC are something that I am intimately familiar with, having been a member of Parliament’s Integrity and Oversight Committee for the past four years. I heard the extensive evidence that was given about the limits of IBAC’s framework when we had the inquiry into the adequacy of the legislative framework for the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission. It was stated in that inquiry that IBAC did not have follow-the-money powers and that the threshold for corrupt conduct was far too high. That has been addressed. We have also presented various private members bills to correct this, which of course Labor voted down, during the course of the last four years. There were 31 recommendations made in that report, some of which IBAC were to address themselves and some of which were for the government. Like I said, I heard extensive evidence about the limits of IBAC’s framework, but the message was clear that corruption in government contracting has evolved, the law has not kept up and IBAC have been forced to watch on and watch conduct that fails every community test imaginable as far as integrity goes fall outside of their reach because it does not amount to that serious criminal offence.

Public integrity is not merely the absence of a conviction; it is a faithful exercise of public power for public purpose. This bill finally responds to that reality. It removes that narrow concept of a relevant offence and expands corrupt conduct to include conduct that would constitute any offence or a serious disciplinary matter. That does include serious misconduct, conduct capable of justifying termination or a significant sanction and serious breaches of the codes applying to members of Parliament, ministers, parliamentary secretaries and councillors. These changes, like I said, have been a long time coming, but we are here now. But let us not sanitise the history that forced the Labor government to bring them here. They have been forced. They have been dragged here kicking and screaming to address this issue.

I have watched this debate this afternoon in this place, and when we start talking about the investigations and what has been uncovered by Nick McKenzie and his colleagues at the Age, the Sydney Morning Herald, the Financial Review and 60 Minutes in the Big Build investigation – and then there is Geoffrey Watson – there are countless interjections and points of order because those on the other side clearly do not like to hear about that. They do not like us talking about that in this place. Some of those points of order were about us being factual. Well, let us be factual: the timeline that has dragged the Labor government here, kicking and screaming, is devastating. Geoffrey Watson SC’s report says that the Victorian CFMEU’s decline accelerated when Labor’s Big Build ramped up in 2015 – 11 years ago. His conclusion was that the enormous pool of public money – ‘Where is the $15 billion?’ is what people are saying, and every day I hear that – created the opportunity and the temptation. That was the beginning of a decade in which billions flowed into major projects and into the pockets of bikies and organised crime, while those charged with protecting taxpayers failed to ensure that integrity kept pace with that expenditure in being able to follow the money, although they were asked about it multiple times, both by those on this side of the house and by IBAC itself in inquiries and such.

By June 2023, according to documents that were later exposed by investigative reporting, as I mentioned, senior public servants had briefed the then transport infrastructure minister, the current member for Bendigo East, the former Premier, about alleged criminal and bikie infiltration of the Big Build. The warning was reportedly travelling right through the heart of the government. Then in July 2024 Nick McKenzie and his colleagues at the Age, as I mentioned before, and 60 Minutes, published the ‘Building bad’ investigation, and that investigation has continued. To be fair, investigative journalism is not something we see as often as we used to. Coming from a media background, investigative journalism used to be something that journos loved to get their teeth into, but in the digital age it seems to be a fight for the first tweet, to break the news first. Investigative long-form journalism has subsided, I suppose, but this continues to be investigated. They reported on allegations of underworld figures, including outlaw motorcycle gang members, being installed in lucrative union and site roles, intimidation of contractors and union pressure concerning which subcontractors and labour hire firms could work on taxpayer-funded projects.

John Setka resigned immediately before the investigation was published, within days of the Victorian branch moving towards administration. The former Premier wrote to IBAC in July 2024, but the very laws that Labor had refused to strengthen meant that IBAC could not follow the public money through the unions, the contractors and the subcontractors. By October 2024 the Premier’s office knew the referral had been rejected for want of jurisdiction. IBAC informed the Premier and the government then that it was out of their jurisdiction, so they had to watch on. There was no urgent bill. There was no royal commission. In fact we asked time and time again to introduce a private members bill and if the Premier was going to establish a royal commission. Repeatedly the answer was no, and there were no immediate follow-the-money powers either. That was October two years ago, and the government kept pointing to referrals while knowing the principal integrity agency could not act – but they had referred it, knowing full well that they could not do anything about it. It had been referred.

That does not pass the pub test at all, and the public know this. This bill not being retrospective and all of the limitations contained within it again illustrate how much this Labor government – whether it is Andrews, whether it is the Allan Labor government, whether it is the Carroll Labor government ‍– take Victorians for fools, thinking that this was not going to be pointed out and thinking that this is okay. It simply is not. Everyone is asking, ‘Where’s the $15 billion?’ They just want answers. They want transparency.

Taxpayers want accountability for those dollars that have been funnelled into the pockets of bikies and organised crime on Big Build sites, but it is not just Big Build. I know there has been a lot of concentration around the alleged corruption on Big Build sites, but if we have a look at it – and I made some notes earlier about the different operations that have taken place over the last few years – Operation Daintree is another one that comes to mind, and Operation Watts, and Operation Richmond of course, which took years and years. This bill as it stands at the moment does not address the timeliness and the importance of timeliness with regard to IBAC investigations. The amendments that the member for Brighton has provided do, as they should, because that is what the Victorian taxpayer deserves. They deserve nothing less than transparency and integrity in government and accountability as to where their hard-earned tax dollars are being spent. The member for Monbulk pointed out that the lack of confidence is due to the algorithms. No, it is not. It is due to a corrupt government not being transparent, not having any integrity and not being accountable to anyone.

 Kat THEOPHANOUS (Northcote) (17:51): I rise to speak in support of the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission Amendment Bill 2026, a bill about something fundamental to our democracy: trust – trust that government is acting in the interests of the people it represents, trust that public institutions are working as they should, trust that the taxes Victorians work hard to pay for are being used responsibly and for the purposes they were intended and trust that when something goes wrong there are strong and independent institutions capable of uncovering it and holding people to account. We should never take that trust for granted, because across the world we are seeing what happens when trust in governments and in public institutions begins to break down. People become cynical about whether government can make their lives better. They disengage from our democratic institutions and from each other. People who already feel left behind can become even more disconnected, and mistrust creates fertile ground for misinformation, conspiracy theories and those who seek to exploit division rather than solve problems.

That should concern every one of us in this place, every one of us who has been tasked with upholding our democracy and our institutions of government, because a strong state is not simply one that can build things or pass laws. A strong state is one where people have confidence in their institutions, where they believe government listens to them and that decisions are made fairly, where there are rules and standards that apply to everyone and where they can see that their hard-earned tax dollars are being used on the things that matter, like delivering the services and opportunities people need to thrive. That trust has to be earned, and when the community tell us that they expect more from their government, we have to listen.

Our new Premier has listened. He has been clear that Victorians want change, and he has been equally clear that integrity is an essential part of that change. On his first day as Premier he said that under our government integrity would not be optional, and he backed those words with action. His first action was to call a royal commission into Victoria’s construction industry. The government is establishing an office of the special prosecutor to work alongside it, and the Premier committed to strengthening IBAC with the power to follow the money, not at some distant point in the future but in this term. This bill delivers on that commitment.

We believe leadership is about listening to what people expect of us, recognising when change is needed and then being prepared to act. Victorians expect integrity from their government, they expect accountability and they expect us to take seriously any allegation that their money has been misused. This government does. The allegations of misconduct and corruption on government-funded construction projects are serious. They deserve proper investigation. Victorians deserve the truth about what happened, and where wrongdoing has occurred they rightly expect consequences. That scrutiny cannot be selective. No individual organisation or institution should be beyond it. That is the approach this Premier has taken. The royal commission’s terms of reference extend not only to unions, construction companies, labour hire firms, consortia and criminal actors but to the role of government itself, including departments and delivery agencies. It is independent. It can go where the evidence leads, and alongside it the office of the special prosecutor is being established because uncovering wrongdoing is only part of the job. Where wrongdoing is established, people should face consequences, and through the legislation before us today we are also strengthening the independent integrity body that will remain long after the royal commission has completed its work.

The central reform in this bill is straightforward: IBAC needs to be able to follow public money where it goes. The way government delivers major projects and services today can involve complicated relationships between government agencies, construction companies, consortia, contractors, subcontractors, labour hire firms and suppliers. Public accountability should not disappear simply because public money moves from government into the hands of a private entity. The existing IBAC act already allows IBAC to investigate certain contractors performing public functions, but IBAC has identified uncertainty about how far that jurisdiction extends. The bill addresses that gap. It expands IBAC’s jurisdiction to associated entities, allowing it to investigate suspected corrupt conduct by third parties and private contractors where the conduct is connected to government funding and the performance of a public function. Put simply, where the money goes accountability should follow. I think that principle will make sense to every Victorian, because we should never lose sight of what public money actually represents. In my community I advocate every day for investment in the things that make people’s lives better: better schools and opportunities for our kids; hospitals and health services that people can access when they need them; better women’s health services so women and girls are listened to and can get the care they deserve; mental health and wellbeing to support our communities; and the infrastructure and services that allow people to live good, secure lives. These are not abstract numbers on a balance sheet. They are nurses and doctors caring for people and teachers giving our kids the best start in life. That is what public investment is for. It is about giving people the services and opportunities they need to live well.

Labor believes government has a responsibility to invest in people. We do not take the view, as those opposite do, that come what may you are largely on your own and that public investment is a problem. I speak to many people in my community who do not think that way and who think that things like free kinder and dental care are part of the fabric of a healthy society. Precisely because we believe in public investment we have an absolute responsibility to protect it. Every dollar misused is a dollar that cannot be put towards a school, a hospital or a train service – all the things that our communities depend on. Integrity and service delivery are not separate conversations, they go hand in hand. People should be able to trust that their money is being protected and they should be able to trust that their government is using it to deliver for them.

Importantly, this bill is designed to make those new powers practical. It does not simply say that an organisation becomes subject to IBAC because it has received some form of public funding. There must be a connection between the alleged corrupt conduct and the expenditure or use of public money, a publicly funded project or a function or undertaking, and that matters. It gives IBAC the reach it needs while maintaining a clear connection to the public functions and public funds that justify that scrutiny. Importantly, IBAC will continue to be required to prioritise serious or systemic corrupt conduct. This is not about sending every workplace matter to our anti-corruption commission, it is about removing barriers that can prevent IBAC from properly examining serious wrongdoing. The definition of ‘corrupt conduct’ will therefore be expanded to enable IBAC to investigate conduct that would constitute either an offence or a serious disciplinary matter, such as conduct that would warrant the termination of employment.

IBAC strongly supports the key reforms and has been closely involved in their development. Integrity Oversight Victoria also supports the reforms, and feedback from those bodies has shaped important elements of the bill. Importantly, this bill is not the final word on reform. The Integrity and Oversight Committee made 31 recommendations through its inquiry, 29 of them directed to government, and government has supported, in principle, 21 of those. Some can and should be acted on now. Others raise broader questions about investigative powers, transparency, evidence, public interest disclosures, information sharing and the way our integrity agencies interact with each other. Those questions deserve proper consideration. That is why the government has established an expert reference group involving our integrity and law enforcement agencies, with advice due next year and a second tranche of reforms to follow.

I think there is also an important principle to point out here: these are very significant expanded powers we are bestowing on IBAC. Just as we expect fairness and integrity in government, we also expect IBAC to carry out its functions with care and procedural fairness, especially given the far-reaching consequences for individuals where allegations are made but subsequently not substantiated. We are acting now to give IBAC the power to follow public money. We are strengthening its capacity to investigate serious wrongdoing. We are making those powers meaningful.

The SPEAKER: The time has come for me to interrupt business in accordance with the resolution of the house today for the members for Croydon and Rowville to make their valedictory statements. I will relax the prohibition against applause in the chamber following each valedictory statement, but I remind members to refrain from hugs or handshakes within the chamber, and no photography.