Wednesday, 9 September 2026

 Anthony MARSH (Nepean) (10:39): We support stronger powers for IBAC, we support giving the commission genuine capacity to follow the money through contracting change and we support the broadening of the statutory framework that has far too often left serious misconduct beyond the reach of Victoria’s integrity system. This bill does move in the right direction, but the government has stopped short at precisely the point where scrutiny matters most: retrospectivity. Genuine retrospectivity is a non-negotiable aspect of any reform to IBAC legislation. This bill expands the concept of ‘corrupt conduct’, replacing the existing ‘relevant offence’ threshold with conduct that would constitute ‘an offence or a serious disciplinary matter’. It broadens the benefit captured by section 4 and makes it clear that conduct can be corrupt even when the intended benefit or outcome was never ultimately obtained.

It also introduces associated entity and third-party contractor provisions. That is an important element because public money obviously does not stop being public money when it passes from a department to a head contractor, from a head contractor to a subcontractor or through another layer of some commercial arrangement. Clause 6 in the bill correspondingly expands the definitions of ‘public body’ and ‘public officer’, extending the existing provision dealing with public funds to persons and bodies that use or expend those funds. These are worthwhile reforms. They are also reforms that the coalition have been demanding for months, reforms that we tried to make law, but Labor blocked us from doing so at every turn.

On 3 March the Shadow Attorney-General, the member for Brighton, moved to introduce the coalition’s Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission Amendment (Follow the Money) Bill 2026 in this house, but Labor used its numbers to block the introduction of that bill. That is nothing short of a disgrace. The same bill was introduced in the other place. It was debated, and on 18 March it was amended to give the follow-the-money reform retrospective operation. The bill then passed the Council. It then came back to this house, but Labor again used its numbers to kill it. Now, months later, the government asks us to support this principle, the one that it refused to even debate when the coalition put it forward. While we welcome the desperate backflip, the history should not be rewritten, and their abandonment of true retrospectivity cannot be ignored.

The coalition’s bill confronted the obvious question that Labor’s bill now trashes. Ours made follow-the-money reform truly retrospective, and there was a very good reason for doing so. Corruption does not become less corrupt or less serious because it occurred before the Parliament finally gave IBAC the right legislative tools. A contracting arrangement does not become clean because the law at the time was too narrow to follow the money through every entity involved. If public money was misused five years ago, the public interest in exposing that misuse does not extinguish or disappear. The government bill accepts the principle only in part, and in fact it falls well short. Proposed section 200 applies the expanded regime to some precommencement conduct. It captures pending matters and investigations that are incomplete, but it draws a line around matters that IBAC has already dismissed, referred to another body or completed. Proposed section 200(3) then expressly provides that those matters cannot be reopened. This may determine whether serious historical conduct can ever be examined under the so-called stronger jurisdiction this Parliament is now trying to create.

The clear concern is about historical conduct connected with Victoria’s Big Build. Victoria has spent extraordinary sums of public money on major construction projects involving long and complex contracting chains. Where allegations have already moved through the integrity system under the old, narrower statutory definitions and a matter has been dismissed, referred elsewhere or completed, the new regime simply does not allow IBAC to go back and apply a broader law. That is the gap that the coalition wants closed. The Labor government cannot credibly tell Victorians that IBAC must be able to follow the money while legislating so that some of the money most in need of following sits behind a statutory line. It defies all common sense. Proper retrospectivity is also a matter of principle. IBAC is not a criminal court, and an IBAC finding is not a criminal conviction. We are dealing with the jurisdiction of an integrity body to investigate conduct and expose corruption risks. The Parliament can ensure that the jurisdiction is capable of examining historical conduct where the public interest requires it.

Our integrity agenda has gone much further than this bill. Our March follow-the-money bill also introduced a restrictive exceptional circumstances test for public examinations. In June the Shadow Attorney-General again sought to introduce a private members bill to facilitate timely IBAC reporting. I voted for that bill to be introduced, and Labor again voted it down in this house. The proposal would have preserved procedural fairness while seeking to prevent delay from becoming a mechanism by which important IBAC reports are kept from Parliament and the public. There is a pattern. The coalition proposes integrity reform, Labor then blocks it, political pressure builds and Labor then returns months later with only part of the reform and asks everyone to forget what came before. It would be a joke if it was not so serious.

My constituents in Nepean care whether public money is protected, whether corruption is exposed and whether the watchdog has the powers that it needs. We support the broader corrupt conduct test. We support the associated entity and third-party contractor provisions. We support a stronger capacity for IBAC to trace the use and expenditure of public money. But we are moving amendments because stronger integrity laws should not be designed with an artificial blind spot for the past. It should not be designed to hide the conduct of Labor and their mates in the past. In its current form, that is the poison in this bill. Victorians are entitled to more than a promise that future corruption will be easier to investigate. They are entitled to confidence that serious historical allegations can be and will be examined under a framework that is fit for purpose. If the Labor government truly believes IBAC should be able to follow the money, then it should let IBAC follow it wherever the evidence leads – through contractors, through subcontractors, through associated entities and, where necessary, back in time. That is the test of whether this is a genuine integrity reform or merely a political response to an integrity crisis leading into an election. We will fight to make this bill stronger, more complete and worthy of the public confidence that Victoria’s integrity system must command. It is up to the Labor government to show Victorians whether integrity is really non-negotiable, but so far their actions suggest the opposite.

 Katie HALL (Footscray) (10:46): I am pleased today to contribute to the debate on the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission Amendment Bill 2026, because trust in our public institutions is crucial for a healthy democracy. We have seen globally in other jurisdictions what can happen when trust in institutions dissipates. You can see that misinformation and disinformation can feed more misinformation. One of the important elements of a robust democracy, which we are very fortunate to have here in Victoria, is faith in government institutions that every dollar is spent appropriately and that people are acting in the best interests of Victorians, with integrity and in an ethical way.

In July this year the Carroll Labor government announced various measures to provide a holistic and comprehensive response to allegations of misconduct on government-funded construction projects. This announcement utilised a multipronged approach, with this legislation being one of three new mechanisms announced to respond to allegations of misconduct. The other two components of the government’s plan to get to the bottom of any allegations was of course the calling of the Royal Commission into the Integrity of Major Public and Civil Infrastructure Construction Projects in Victoria and the establishment of an office of the special prosecutor to work in parallel with the royal commission. And of course as this chamber well knows, the Premier has announced, without foreshadowing the bill that is going to come to this place, that the South Australian Supreme Court Chief Justice Chris Kourakis AC will be leading that investigation as the royal commissioner. As Special Minister of State Minister Stitt reiterated in the other place yesterday, the royal commission into alleged misconduct on government-funded construction sites is the highest form of interrogation and investigation that this state – indeed this nation – has. It is my expectation that every member of this place will be unequivocally supportive of that process. I know I will be.

This bill seeks to empower IBAC to work alongside the royal commission and the special prosecutor to ensure that allegations of corruption on government-funded construction sites are investigated by the appropriate body. The bill has two main components, one creating the follow-the-money powers for IBAC and expanding the definition of ‘corrupt conduct’ to empower IBAC to make more concise and definitive findings. ‘Follow the money’ means that when there is a trail of alleged corruption that might go cold as it is alleged to occur outside of government responsibility, IBAC can continue its investigation.

The follow-the-money powers mean exactly that – that our Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission will be able to follow trails of alleged misconduct as they find them. The bill will clarify IBAC’s jurisdiction to investigate allegations of corrupt conduct linked to the use of public funds regardless of whether the funds are expended through public or private entities. The definitions of ‘public body’ and ‘public officer’ in the IBAC act will now include reference to associated entities. This will expand IBAC’s jurisdiction to allow the commission to investigate third-party and private contractors where there is a link between the alleged conduct and government funding. The bill also broadens the definition of ‘corrupt conduct’, which until now has been at a higher standard of required proof than the criminal standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt. The commission has told us that the definition of ‘corrupt conduct’ was impeding their ability to make findings and impacting their ability to investigate allegations. They told us that, the Carroll Labor government has listened, and today we are delivering on that.

With the introduction and debate of this bill we are futureproofing the integrity, accountability and stability of the Victorian government for people who might not even be born yet, for our future Victorians. As I mentioned from the outset, trust in our institutions is paramount for our democracy. The Carroll Labor government has made it clear that integrity is not optional, and this bill is at the centre of that. This bill makes important and immediate amendments to IBAC’s jurisdiction to respond to strong public interest about the expenditure of public money.

On this side of the chamber we are so determined to stamp out corruption in this state that there will be no delay in the commencement of these legislative changes. As soon as our Governor gives royal assent to this legislation, IBAC will be equipped with these expanded and enriched powers. We are not interested in getting in the way of the important work that Victorians deserve for the sake of politics and grandstanding. Successive Labor governments have demonstrated a deep respect for independent organisations and bodies in this state, respect which at times those opposite have not shared with us. The Leader of the Opposition has said that she does not support the broadening of the definition of ‘corrupt conduct’. Those in this chamber who have expressed that they would make changes to the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission have attempted to walk on both sides of the street. Going back to expanding the definition of ‘corrupt conduct’, when the Leader of the Opposition is on the record saying she does not support changes to the definition, I wonder what has caused such consternation on the other side.

This bill before us today implements changes that IBAC and the integrity oversight body in Victoria have asked for and recommended. On this side of the chamber we do not give directions to independent bodies; we respect their independence. We understand how delicate the fabric of democracy is and how crucial independent bodies are to maintaining our democracy. We will not tell independent bodies what to do; we will give them the tools they need to get on with the job. That is what we are doing here today. Labor is committed to working with Victoria’s integrity agencies to ensure that their legislation enables them to perform their important accountability and oversight functions.

I am proud to be part of a government that respects IBAC, and I am proud to be standing here today speaking in favour of this bill, in favour of strengthening IBAC’s powers and for integrity and accountability. I would encourage everyone in this place to be supportive of these reforms. I think that one of the most essential elements of our democracy is confidence and faith that every single taxpayer dollar is spent appropriately and not wasted. Throughout his time as Premier, Premier Carroll has made it clear that this is a priority, and that is why the speedy passage of this bill is so important. I commend the bill to the house.

 Tim McCURDY (Ovens Valley) (10:56): I am delighted to rise and speak on the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission Amendment Bill 2026 – a bill that on face value claims to strengthen integrity in Victoria but in practice falls well short of what Victorians deserve. This is nothing new from a government who over 12 years has been the most secretive, corrupt and dishonest in Victoria’s history. Coming off the Cain–Kirner years, that speaks volumes about the tenure of this Labor government. For years this government has hoodwinked Victorians that our integrity framework is robust, modern and fit for purpose, yet here we are again debating legislation that silently admits quite the opposite.

Premier Carroll said on day one that integrity would not be optional, and this bill demonstrates under Labor that integrity is always optional. This bill is an acknowledgement that IBAC’s jurisdiction has been too narrow, too constrained and too easily avoided. It is an admission that the government’s own contracting and government practices have outgrown the integrity system designed to oversee them. While the opposition welcomes any genuine attempt to strengthen IBAC, we will not pretend that this bill is sufficient – it simply is not. It is a half-measure, it is a political shield and it is deliberately drafted to avoid scrutiny of the very matters Victorians most want examined to get to the bottom of Labor’s corruption.

The bill expands the definition of ‘corrupt conduct’ by replacing the existing relevant offence threshold with an offence or a serious disciplinary matter. Granted, this is a step forward. It recognises that corruption is not always neatly packaged into criminal offences. It acknowledges that misconduct, poor administration and serious breaches of public trust can be just as destructive. But the government has stopped short of the reform that matters most: full retrospective application. Under the bill, IBAC will not be able to revisit matters already dismissed, referred elsewhere or completed under the old, narrower regime. I think it is outrageous that we are not able to go and revisit some of these matters. That means some of the most significant historical matters, including major Big Build investigations that were shunted off to Victoria Police or the Ombudsman, will remain permanently outside IBAC’s reach. This confirms that nothing has changed under the Carroll government – just more cover-ups.

Victorians deserve better than selective integrity. They deserve a system that can follow the money wherever it leads, not wherever the government is comfortable for it to go. That is why the opposition will move amendments to make this bill fully retrospective, consistent with our Council private members bill from earlier in the year. If the government is serious about integrity, it will support that amendment. If it refuses, Victorians will rightly ask, ‘What’s the government afraid of in what IBAC might find? What are they hiding?’

Can I say that associated entities and third-party contractors are long overdue. Clauses 4 and 6 introduce the concepts of ‘associated entity’ and ‘third-party contractor’, which extend the definitions of ‘public body’ and ‘public officer’ to those performing public functions through contracting arrangements. This is overdue. For years public money has flowed through increasingly complex contracting chains, layers of consultants, subcontractors, joint ventures and special purpose channels. Billions have been spent through entities that sit just outside the reach of traditional integrity bodies. This bill finally acknowledges that reality, but again, it does not go far enough.

The government wants to take credit for strengthening IBAC with follow-the-money powers, yet it refuses to allow these powers to look backwards to examine the very projects and contracts that prompted the need for reform in the first place. Victorians know why. We have all watched the cost blowouts and the procurement corruption under Labor’s watch. We have seen illegal contracting practices plague major projects for more than a decade; we have seen IBAC investigations delayed, constrained or quietly referred away; and we have seen ministers hide behind cabinet confidentiality to avoid scrutiny. This bill plays at the edges. Our amendments from the member for Brighton will fix the core problem.

I also want to touch on timely reporting – ending the Richmond-style delays. The opposition will also move to insert a timely reporting requirement for IBAC reports, consistent with our Assembly private members bill again from earlier this year. Victorians remember Operation Richmond, a report delayed for years, leaving the public in the dark and undermining confidence in the integrity system. Justice delayed is justice denied. Integrity delayed is integrity denied. If IBAC is to be effective, its reports must be delivered in a timely manner. This is not controversial, it is just basic accountability, and the government should support it. Somehow we all know Labor wants to hide it.

I also want to touch on public examinations – restoring transparency. The government’s bill retains the provisions that examinations are generally to be held in private. The opposition will move to repeal section 117(1)(a) as we proposed previously. Public examinations are a critical part of transparency. They shine a light on misconduct, they deter wrongdoing and they give Victorians confidence that integrity bodies are not operating behind closed doors. The government has consistently preferred secrecy over transparency. It has resisted public hearings, it has resisted public reporting and it has also resisted public accountability. Our amendment restores the presumption of openness. If or when the government opposes it, Victorians will draw their own conclusions.

I also want to mention public interest immunity – removing the cabinet shield. On this side of the house we will move to repeal the public interest immunity provisions that allow cabinet ministers to refuse the sharing of certain cabinet material with IBAC. This is one of the most significant weaknesses in Victoria’s integrity framework. It allows ministers to shield documents from scrutiny simply by asserting cabinet confidentiality. It is a loophole that undermines IBAC’s independence and effectiveness, and this should change. If the government truly believes in integrity, it will close that loophole. If it refuses, it will confirm what many of us already suspect: that cabinet confidentiality has become a political shield, not a public interest safeguard.

Victoria deserves a real integrity system. This bill is a step, but it is not the only step that Victoria needs. It broadens IBAC’s jurisdiction but not enough, it strengthens follow-the-money powers but not where it matters the most and it acknowledges past failures but refuses to allow those failures to be examined. The opposition will support genuine integrity reform, but we are determined to amend a bill that protects the government from scrutiny while pretending to strengthen accountability. Our amendments – which include full retrospectivity, timely reporting, public examinations and the removal of cabinet immunity – are essential. They are very reasonable, they are consistent with our longstanding policy and they are what Victorians deserve. If the government chooses to reject them, it will be clear this bill is not about integrity; it is about optics, it is about control and it is about avoiding accountability for the past decade of governance in this state. Victoria deserves better and the opposition will fight for that. The Carroll Labor government has an opportunity. Today they can take on board the amendments, genuine improvements, or prove to Victoria that nothing has changed under the Carroll Labor government.

 Matt FREGON (Ashwood) (11:05): I rise gladly to make my contribution on the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission Amendment Bill 2026. Words are hard, I guess. The facts get lost in the rhetoric in this place on a common basis. Look, we are all political animals in here, so it is not surprising. I will try and keep this in the commonsense area, and people can make comments about my rhetoric as well.

Obviously this bill has been long talked about. Many members have made comments on why we need this bill, and we all agree, I think. If I am correct, without trying to verbal the opposition, I believe we are all supporting the bill, so that is a thing all by itself. We are all supporting this bill as is. Members on the other side have issue with what the bill could be further, and that is why we are all here to debate. I take up some of the points that I have heard on the limitations of the retrospectivity of the bill. We have to be very careful in this place, with any law, when we apply retrospectivity. As a general principle that is something that we do not do lightly in this place, for very good reason. Now, in this case we have issues that we are trying to address not solely with this bill. I will not go into the bills that we are likely to do later on the government business program that also are part of the action against the alleged behaviour. I think we all accept, even though it is alleged, there are certain wrongs that appear to have been done that need to be addressed, and that is partly why we are here. Also, as has been said by others, we cannot operate in the vacuum of just this bill; we have got a royal commission that is also going to look at the specific construction-based allegations of bad behaviour that no Victorian wants to see continue.

Going back to retrospectivity, I am certainly no lawyer – and the legal profession is probably happy about that – but I am aware of the concept of double jeopardy in the law, where if somebody has been tried for an offence, the law in general says we should not retry that person for the same offence. The legal protection around this relevant to what we are talking about today is the concept of finality. An explanation of section 26 of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities says:

Right not to be tried or punished more than once

Section 26 of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities (the Charter) protects your right to not be tried or punished for the same crime more than once. The Charter applies to public authorities in Victoria, such as state and local government departments and agencies, and people delivering services on behalf of the government.

I accept in good faith that the opposition think that possibly in this case that should not apply. They are certainly words that I have heard from the other side, without trying to verbal the opposition. I think we have to be very careful of principles in the law, because at the end of the day it is our job to change the law, and the law tends to be a sledgehammer. I am comfortable with upholding those basic human rights in respect of what we are doing here today. But I would point out to members on the other side that in my mind this does not necessarily mean that something that was referred with regard to, say, alleged misbehaviour in the construction sector is now completely out of the bounds of IBAC.

I have heard that from others, who say, ‘Oh, well, now that this was referred a while ago, you can never do it again.’ I point out that if IBAC were to get a notification of new conduct, something they have not been told of before, related to a dismissed or referred complaint, they could look at that under the new power. Let us say there was an allegation about misconduct by an associated entity, labour hire, a union organiser, a corporate body, a construction company or whoever and that was referred to them two years ago or three years ago or four years ago – back to 2013, which is I think when the retrospectivity starts – they would have specifics. What was referred would have specifics in it that would say, ‘This is what we were referring to IBAC back then.’ So after this bill is passed – and I think we all want to see this bill pass – if someone was to then refer a similar matter, but not the same matter, that included new conduct that was not previously referred, without telling IBAC what to do because that is not our place, IBAC would be able to consider whether that was new conduct and whether they could consider that under the law as it stands today. I have not heard anyone on the other side in all of their naysaying consider that. Feel free to tell me I am wrong, but I do not think I am. Without getting into the weeds of the words that IBAC have been told, they have the ability to consider those facts under the law that we are debating today.

The other consideration with this is the fact that these new powers, with the retrospectivity as is put in this bill, essentially allow anyone – and I am not saying this is a wrong thing, but let us all be clear on what this means – to make a referral to IBAC about anything that would, in their opinion, constitute grey corruption, as I think the former commissioner liked to phrase it. Anyone can put that forward back to 2013. That is not a bad thing. I think we all agree that IBAC’s powers need to be strengthened; that is why we are here. But without going into details, every news story regarding allegations of political parties, governments, bodies or corporations – you know, some very, very big corporations have had a bit of trouble in the old area. All of that is potentially now open. I would not be surprised if there were a lot of corporate boardrooms – well, maybe not right now, because they are possibly not listening right now – having a look, once this has passed, at what their risk profile has just become.

There is one thing I have noticed in all of the allegations that we have read in the paper. I do not often say this, but I do commend the media on their work in highlighting some of some of the misdeeds that are alleged and, let us face it, probably most likely will turn out to be with merit. I commend the media on that work. But I notice that in that work, without excusing any other body or responsibility or accountability, time and time again we hear, ‘Labour hire, labour hire, labour hire, labour hire, labour hire, labour hire, labour hire,’ and I am sick of it. I will just finish with this. We have spent the last 40 ‍years outsourcing everything in our country. It is not just us; it is the whole Western world, if not the whole world. When you outsource and subcontract and outsource and subcontract and outsource and subcontract, you are diminishing not only your direct response but your responsibility.

 Martin CAMERON (Morwell) (11:15): I rise today to talk on the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission Amendment Bill 2026 in the chamber before us at the moment, and I would like to just say that we are not opposing the bill coming in. I think that any bill that we can tighten and actually expand the capacity of IBAC to look into wrongdoings or allegations across the journey of Parliament here is a good thing, and I think every person in this chamber would agree with that. I do note, though, that the member for Brighton has put forward some amendments to expand the bill we are discussing now, and I would like to think that the government would have a look at those, because there should not be any place for people to hide, especially in this place. We should be transparent, and we need to remember the one true point on this bill – that we are talking about the misappropriation of money that is not our money but is the people of Victoria’s money. It is money that they have worked hard for and paid in taxes. We can be flippant and try and brush it off, but we are talking about allegations made against the Big Build, probably more to the point, and money that has not been spent in the right way. We do need to have a look at that, and we do need to have some clear guidelines when we do go looking for what actually went on.

We are here, and we have spoken obviously in the chamber before about money being misappropriated on the spending on plants and artwork. These are probably standards that we have all sort of walked past, especially on the government side of things, bits and pieces that have been allowed to happen. But they build up, and we lose the trust of the people of Victoria. It is on the lips of every Victorian. It does not matter where you go, they want to know where the money has gone. It is our duty to make sure that we bring in through this Parliament bills that can enable IBAC to follow the money and actually see where their money has gone and hold to account the people of the Big Build who have done the wrong thing, whether it be putting in invoices for works that were not carried out or if they have played the game a little bit and have received money that they actually have not done works for.

So we need an arm separate to us here in the chamber that can go investigate and ask the hard questions. No matter what you do, if you have been a business owner, at the end of the day the buck stops with you, and you need to be able to stand up and answer the hard questions that do come your way, because you are the person that is in charge. We have spoken about former Premier Daniel Andrews and we have spoken about the member for Bendigo East and former Premier Allan in this place and their involvement. Then we have had the current Premier come out and –

The ACTING SPEAKER (Daniela De Martino): Use titles, please.

Martin CAMERON: Titles? Who did I miss out on – Bendigo East? I thought I said the member for Bendigo East, the former Premier. And there is also the current Premier in this place, who has come out and stood on the mantra of wanting to make sure that every dollar that comes through this place is scrutinised and is going and being spent wisely. That is a noble gesture, to be able to put that out, but then you have to follow that up. If you are going to stand there and say, ‘This is what we want to do as a government and this is what I want to do as Premier,’ you cannot then wind it back. We need to make sure that we are giving all opportunity for the people of Victoria to know what actually did go on in the Big Build.

Before I came into this place I talked to workers in the Latrobe Valley that were travelling down to work on the Big Build. I will be honest and say they never spoke about corruption back then, but they did talk about the amount of money being spent on the Big Build which was – I will be careful in the words that I choose – being wasted. They did speak about ghost shifts that were happening where they were required to be at work but did not have to be on the job, so to speak. This is going back six or seven years when I was still a mere plumber down in the Latrobe Valley, but we had these conversations and we used to, in all honesty, have a bit of a joke about it and say, ‘Oh, well, it’s the government spending money.’ The people of Victoria now have had enough of that. They want a government that is held to account and MPs that are held to account. When people talk about corruption on a government scale, they are talking about me, because I am now an MP in this place and it falls on me. I think everybody would have had discussions in their communities and people throwing out that line, ‘Oh, you’re all corrupt in that place and you’re all misusing our money.’ It does fall back on us. When we are giving IBAC the powers to actually investigate what has gone on, why are we baulking at the chance of giving them the powers to actually investigate from day one what went on and to follow the money to find out what actually happened? We should do it once and we should do it right. There are a lot of times in this place where we pass bills and then we come back in six or eight months and have to amend them because we have not got it right the first time. This is clear cut. It is one of the most important things on people’s minds at the moment. If we cannot get this investigation right, how are they going to believe us in the future?

People talk about the $15 billion that has gone missing. Where is it? Who got it? The media chase it. The day-to-day punter on the street wants to know because it is their money. It is not my money. I have probably paid taxes that have gone towards the supposed misappropriation of funds. We just want to know where it has gone. As we stand here, why don’t we just give IBAC the complete powers so there is no grey area? They should be able to talk to former premiers. They should be able to talk to ministerial staff and ministers themselves. They have their opportunity to say, ‘No, this did not happen.’ That is the best part about an IBAC investigation – you can be asked the questions and you can actually have the chance to answer honestly. As I stand here today I do not think this goes far enough without the amendments that we will move on our side. Yes, we have made a point that IBAC is going to have some more powers – the government has moved that, and we welcome it – but we do need to go further. So I would hope that in the scheme of things, when the government reads the amendments and takes a while to digest them, they will think, ‘Well, you know what, let’s once and for all give IBAC the powers that they do need so we can follow the money, so we can follow the corruption and we can stamp that out,’ because the people of Victoria want to know. We are going to find out on 28 November if they are believing of us that we are doing the right thing and stamping out corruption on the Big Build or whether they think that once again people are hiding in the shadows and are not game enough to stand up and actually say what went on.

 Meng Heang TAK (Clarinda) (11:25): It is always interesting to speak after a contribution by the member for Morwell given his experience in the industry. I rise today to make a contribution in support of the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission Amendment Bill 2026. This is another important bill, one that will give effect to the government’s commitment to amend the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission Act 2011, the IBAC act, to empower IBAC to follow the money, broaden the definition of ‘corrupt conduct’ and make other consequential and technical amendments to give effect to the reform.

These are important changes. As we can see, the Premier has come out really strongly on this and made it clear that integrity is not optional for this government. We can see that with legislation before us this week as well as the special prosecutor amendment. This legislation goes to the heart of the integrity of the state, and I am really glad to see it here before us this week. This is something that is raised with me often in my community. Many of my constituents have a strong sentiment that Victorians deserve the truth. They deserve to know how organised crime found its way onto our building sites, who allowed it to happen and how we can make sure that it never happens again. The royal commission has been a welcome announcement – a royal commission with full coercive power and public hearings, with terms of reference that are broad and expansive and with nothing off limits. This has been a really welcome announcement, and this bill before us is another welcome development, with follow-the-money powers, a broadened definition of ‘corrupt conduct’ and other consequential and technical amendments to give effect to the reforms.

The first of the amendments here are changes to the definitions of ‘public officer’ and ‘public body’ and new definitions for ‘associated entity’ and ‘third party contractor’ to expand IBAC’s jurisdiction to enable it to investigate suspected corrupt conduct by third-party and private subcontractors where there is a connection between the alleged corrupt conduct and the performance of a public function funded by government. These are really important changes. Follow-the-money powers will provide IBAC with power comparable to that of 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 the 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 entity’, drawing on the definitions in the Audit Act 1994. This is in line with the Integrity and Oversight Committee 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, public officer or body with a nexus or connection between the suspected corrupt conduct and the expenditures or use of those public funds or the publicly funded project, functions or undertaking. Again, these are really important changes that go to the effectiveness of IBAC’s jurisdiction, changes that I am really glad to see here today.

Further, we have really important changes alongside these, as we have heard from the IBAC Commissioner that any proposed follow-the-money reforms should be accompanied by other legislative reforms, including changes to the definition of ‘corrupt conduct’, which are here today. That is what we are bringing here today, removing the relevant offence requirement and setting a new threshold to enable IBAC to investigate conduct that would constitute either an offence – a change from ‘relevant offence’ – or a serious disciplinary matter. Within that, ‘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 …

This is really expansive and is what has been called for in terms of a broader definition of ‘corrupt conduct’ in Victoria, replacing the requirement that conduct constitute a ‘relevant offence’ with the requirement that the conduct constitute any offences that add to the lower threshold of conduct constituting a serious disciplinary matter to allow IBAC to investigate a broader range of integrity-compromising behaviours. We have transitional provisions to apply the reform to certain conduct that occurred prior to the bill commencing, subject to appropriate limitations, as well as other necessary consequential and technical amendments.

Finally, we have consequential amendments to the Public Interest Disclosure Act 2012 to provide that amendments to include an ‘associated entity’ in the definitions of ‘public officer’ or ‘public body’ in the IBAC act do not apply to the Public Interest Disclosure Act to avoid unintended flow-on impacts to that scheme resulting from changes to the definitions of the public officers and public bodies in the IBAC act.

These are strong and comprehensive changes to address allegations of misconduct and corruption occurring on government infrastructure and construction projects, especially in relation to the projects forming part of the Big Build construction program funded by the government, as called for by IBAC, by my community and by the broader community. I am really glad to see them here today, because it is very important to have measures that provide a holistic and comprehensive response to these allegations, which also include calling the Royal Commission into the Integrity of Major Public and Civil Infrastructure Construction Projects in Victoria and establishing an office of the special prosecutor to work in parallel with the royal commission. These are changes that bring forward amendments to the IBAC act to empower IBAC to follow the money and broaden the definition of ‘corrupt conduct’ for passage this term. All of this is to ensure that any allegations of misconduct and any allegations of misappropriation of funds from those matters will never happen again.

I commend the Premier for bringing these changes forward and for the strong stance taken on integrity in Victoria. It is what many in my community have called for, and we have listened, the Premier has listened, and that is what my community deserves and what Victoria deserves. I commend the bill to the house.

 Annabelle CLEELAND (Euroa) (11:33): I also rise to speak on the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission Amendment Bill 2026, and I note how many members have said on the government side of the house that their community have called for this for a long time, so I am just following those comments. It is true, and it is something that our side of the house has been calling for for over a year. So I do want to indicate from the outset that the Nationals support this bill, and we support, importantly, the amendments to be moved in this place by the member for Brighton, our Shadow Attorney-General. You have heard throughout today that there are some very strong elements in this bill and important things that are coming, finally, to be debated in this place. That includes broadening the definition of ‘corrupt conduct’ and replacing the old ‘relevant offence’ threshold with a broader set that captures serious disciplinary matters as well as criminal offences and provides that conduct can be corrupt even where the intended benefit is never actually obtained.

Critically, it extends the definitions of ‘public body’ and ‘public officer’ to associated entities and third-party contractors. This gives IBAC, for the first time, the ability to follow public money through the layers of contracting and subcontracting that have protected Labor when it comes to scrutiny of taxpayer funding and money. These are sensible reforms and things that we have been calling for for a very long time. We have absolutely been gaslit by the Labor side of the house when it came to acting on these reforms that Labor has resisted for so many years, and only now, facing an election in November, has decided to embrace. Let us be honest with Victorians about why we are here today: this is not Labor suddenly discovering integrity; it is Labor spending a year in this place refusing to call a royal commission into corruption on Big Build sites and then finding one the very day of a leadership spill. Last March the opposition asked the Premier at the time directly why she would not call a royal commission, and she told the house:

… my focus is on taking the action now that needs to be taken to stamp out the rotten culture …

It is almost an oxymoron, denying a royal commission at the same time as saying you are stamping out the rotten culture without the tools to do so. This was Labor’s position, and everyone that has spoken on behalf of the government today had also spoken on rejecting a royal commission. However, the polling has brought them to the table.

A member interjected.

Annabelle CLEELAND: Not the people. But Victorians are tuned out from Labor now because they have been gaslit and lied to and they have lost trust in the government. When Labor members spend an entire debate in the matter of public importance – I was going through some of the comments, and the gaslighting is astronomical. They marched out the lines of the day and they have done an entire backflip. I listened to the member before me saying his community asked for this, but they asked for it over a year ago when the revelations first started coming out in the Age, when we were first calling for it. Now it is contentious whether he will have a place here next Parliament because his community were asking for this long before it came here –

Members interjecting.

Annabelle CLEELAND: October 2024 in fact. I hear quite a few interjections about listening to your community. This is over a year – October 2024; I thank the member for Mildura. That is a long time. That is nearly two years of gaslighting Victorians, saying that there is no problem in Victoria, and then reading the polling. I note the members that have stood up and done an absolute backflip trying to support their different leaders one day and then changing their position the next. Within hours the new Premier, after spending a year denying that there was need for a royal commission, said, ‘I am not the old Premier with the old values,’ despite sitting around the very table that endorsed not holding a royal commission. It is no wonder people have lost faith in the Labor government. Even now, introducing this very bill this week, the Premier has said a fresh IBAC referral into the Big Build is not necessary, because the royal commission’s scope already covers it. It does not explain 12 months of refusal beforehand, and it certainly does not explain the gaps and why there are still significant shortfalls in this bill that are not addressed.

It is not just the Big Build allegations either. IBAC’s own Operation Richmond found corrupt conduct in the negotiation of enterprise bargaining agreements for the CFA and the MFB in the very establishment of FRV – corrupt conduct found by the state’s own anti-corruption commission in the way Labor dealt with our firefighters. The same CFA volunteers across my region, those volunteers who protected our community in January, deserve a government that protects the integrity of their service too. Instead they got the short straw and they got the Labor government. Let it be clear that on the corruption from within they never said anything until they were forced to, until the polling said they absolutely had to come to the table.

We support broadening IBAC’s powers, and we support the amendments by the member for Brighton that will be moved today. This bill, as drafted by Labor, does not go far enough, as you have heard. The member for Brighton’s amendments insert a clear statement that Parliament intends that applications to IBAC be determined with proper speed rather than languishing indefinitely. If Labor were genuinely serious about integrity, it would have written these protections into its bill, but it did not. Again the opposition has forced it to.

‘Corruption’, as this bill defines it, is one form of failure, but there is another form of failure Labor excels at, and I want to use the time I have left to talk about that because it affects every single Victorian whether they can see it or not and because I do not believe it is entirely separate from the culture which this bill is trying to fix in Victoria. Eight months ago, on 7, 8 and 9 January, the Longwood fire burnt more than 130,000 hectares of the Strathbogie shire. Homes, farms and livelihoods were gone in hours and in some cases minutes. Eight months on, Labor has delivered precisely one modular home and three caravans to bushfire-affected families across the entire Strathbogie region – one modular home and three caravans in a region that was absolutely destroyed and devastated. I revealed in March that Emergency Recovery Victoria’s now deputy commissioner for recovery, responsible for housing these families, had been quietly selling off modular homes that had sat in storage since Black Summer – homes that could have gone to the very families now facing a housing crisis of Labor’s own making ‍– six years after those homes were built and paid for for Victorians that need them.

The independent inquiry into Labor’s handling of the January fires report in July found systemic shortcomings and recommended that temporary modular housing be provided and maintained until people’s homes were rebuilt. The report has not been responded to by the government, and the fire season is just weeks away. Last Friday night Channel 10’s Jessica Maggio put these failures to Victoria’s emergency management commissioner Tim Wiebusch on camera, and he denied flatly that there was any problem and suggested people were choosing homelessness rather than accepting government help. This is not what is happening. What is happening is that of around 600 registrations for the bushfire clean-up program –

Juliana Addison: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, I am listening very carefully but I am unsure how this is relevant.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Daniela De Martino): Member for Euroa, keep it relevant to the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission Amendment Bill 2026.

Annabelle CLEELAND: We are talking about corruption, so I will get to the point. Of the 600 ‍registrations for the bushfire clean-up program, only 240 were deemed eligible, and after nearly five months only 30 of those properties had been cleaned up. Compare that to Black Summer: 736 ‍registrations, 736 deemed eligible, every single one of them cleaned up within eight months. This is not a difficult comparison to make. It is the difference between a functioning recovery agency and a failing one.

Juliana Addison: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, I have continued to listen very carefully, and I would like some relevance, please.

Jade Benham: On the point of order, Acting Speaker, the member is making reference to Operation Richmond and the timeliness and effectiveness of government departments and investigations.

Annabelle CLEELAND: I am absolutely appalled that Labor members have used my time to deny our community – (Time expired)

The ACTING SPEAKER (Daniela De Martino): Order! Member for Euroa, take your chair. I am on my feet. Members will take a point of order when they are called upon to take a point of order or they will take a point of order on a point of order when they are called to and will not speak until they have been called to in this chamber.

 Steve McGHIE (Melton) (11:44): I just want to pick up on the previous speaker’s implication regarding the emergency management commissioner Tim Wiebusch. To suggest that he is corrupt is ridiculous, and I think it was totally inappropriate. I have known Tim Wiebusch for many, many years and had a lot to do with him when I was cabinet secretary, and I would think that –

Annabelle Cleeland: On a point of order, Acting Speaker: relevance to the bill. You never let me finish.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Daniela De Martino): That is not the way to take a point of order. On the first part, relevance, I believe the member for Melton was responding to the previous bill contribution made by you, member for Euroa, and will continue.

Steve McGHIE: The point that I was trying to make is I do not think Tim Wiebusch is corrupt.

Annabelle Cleeland interjected.

Steve McGHIE: You implied that he was in an interview on TV last week. But, anyway, I will contribute on this bill. I rise to speak in support of the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission Amendment Bill 2026. I have had a longstanding interest in Victoria’s integrity system, having had the privilege of serving as the inaugural chair of the Integrity and Oversight Committee in the 59th Parliament. That was a great experience, and I want to acknowledge the IOC –

A member interjected.

Steve McGHIE: That is right; the Liberal government did introduce the legislation in 2011, and I notice they did not have follow-the-money powers in their legislation. Funny about that, isn’t it? In more recent times all of a sudden the Liberals have found follow-the-money powers. Ted Baillieu did not think about it, did he? That is why he did not last. Ted Baillieu did not think about follow-the-money powers.

I want to acknowledge the IOC secretariat, in particular Sean Coley, who was the executive officer, for their support and the great work that they do in supporting the committees. I know they are still doing that. I know Sean is doing a great job, and I thank them for all the work that they did when I was the chair of the IOC some years ago. That experience taught me a hell of a lot about integrity legislation, and it says that integrity legislation just does not stand still. Of course the way government operates changes over time. The way we procure services changes, the way we deliver infrastructure changes and the relationships between government, contractors and subcontractors become more complex. Unfortunately the ways in which people can seek to exploit those arrangements change too. People are always looking at ways to exploit things. There are people in our community that do that on a daily basis, unfortunately, in many, many different ways. So the laws that protect public money and public institutions have to keep pace with these things that are changing all the time. That is exactly what this bill is about. The principle at its heart is straightforward: where public money goes, public accountability must be capable of following it. If taxpayers are funding a public function, the fact that those funds move from government to a contractor, then to a subcontractor and perhaps through an associated entity, should not create a point at which our integrity system suddenly loses sight of them. Public money does not stop being public money simply because it has passed through another set of hands. Government today does not deliver every public function directly.

There is one point I will make about the construction industry, and it appears when people publicly talk about the alleged corruption. We have major construction companies that negotiate enterprise agreements with the building unions, not the government. We do not negotiate enterprise agreements with building unions, those companies do. The arrangements between those companies and the unions are negotiated and put before the Fair Work Commission and approved. I noticed the member for Morwell was talking about some ghost shifts and things like that. He knew some workers down that way in the Latrobe Valley that allegedly claimed that there were ghost shifts. I notice they did not come forward. I notice they took the money. He did not say that they did not take the money for the ghost shifts, if there were ghost shifts. They did not refer it to IBAC, did not refer it to the police, did not refer it to any authority, but apparently there were ghost shifts and these particular construction workers played the game.

A member interjected.

Steve McGHIE: We do not know what he did about it. He did not say what he did about it. But anyway, major infrastructure projects can involve enormous and complicated supply chains involving principal contractors, subcontractors, labour hire companies and associated entities. There are perfectly legitimate reasons for those arrangements, but complexity must not become a shield against scrutiny. Again, that is what this bill is all about. The bill therefore extends IBAC’s reach when suspected corrupt conduct involving an associated entity or third-party contractor is connected to a publicly funded function, project or undertaking. There must be that connection. This is not about giving IBAC unlimited jurisdiction over private businesses, although the member for Ashwood said earlier that there might be some boardrooms where people will be shaking in their boots the moment this bill is passed. This is not just about trade unions; this could be also about corporations and people in big boardrooms.

It is also about recognising that when private entities are performing public functions with public money there is a legitimate public interest in ensuring corruption connected with that expenditure can be investigated. There is already a useful precedent for that concept in the powers available to the Victorian Auditor-General. If our Auditor-General can follow public money through complex delivery arrangements to scrutinise its use, it is entirely reasonable that our anti-corruption commission should have an appropriate capacity to do the same where corrupt conduct is suspected. A subcontract cannot be allowed to become an integrity loophole.

The second important reform concerns the definition of ‘corrupt conduct’ itself. Under the existing legislation it is not enough that particular conduct adversely affects the honest performance of a public function or involves another form of integrity failure. Before IBAC can investigate it as corrupt conduct it must also meet the statutory definition of ‘relevant offence’. That definition is quite narrow. The effect is that potentially serious integrity-compromising behaviour can fall outside of IBAC’s investigative jurisdiction because it does not fit neatly within the existing criminal threshold. This bill changes that. Conduct capable of constituting any offence can be captured as an outcome of this bill.

The bill also introduces the concept of a serious disciplinary matter, and that could include serious misconduct or behaviour capable of justifying termination or significant employment or contractual penalty or serious breaches of codes governing parliamentarians, councillors, ministers and parliamentary secretaries. I think this is an important distinction. Not every grave abuse of public responsibility begins within an indictable offence. There can be behaviour that fundamentally compromises the integrity of a public function even before a criminal threshold is established, so anti-corruption commissions need to be capable of investigating that behaviour. I note that IBAC itself has argued that follow-the-money powers and reform of the definition of ‘corrupt conduct’ need to be considered together, and that seems to make good sense.

There are questions in regard to some experiences from when I chaired the Integrity and Oversight Committee, where I gained a very strong appreciation of both sides of this question. We need powerful independent integrity agencies, but those powers must exist within a carefully constructed legislative framework. Again, that is what this bill is going to do. IBAC exercises some extraordinary powers for very important reasons. Corruption can be difficult to uncover and evidence can be concealed. We know that, and that is what they will investigate, and they will have the powers to do so. People involved may have considerable resources and considerable incentive to prevent wrongdoing from being exposed. This is an extremely important bill that is before the house. I am pleased that the opposition are not opposing it. I do not accept their amendments, but it is an important bill, and I commend the bill to the house.

 Tim BULL (Gippsland East) (11:54): I rise to make a contribution on the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission Amendment Bill 2026. When we are debating this bill we need to revisit some timelines that have led us to where we are today. I want to go over a few of them, because the government knew that there was a gap in IBAC’s powers going back to 2024. It is wrong that it has taken over two years to get here and now address the gaps that were identified such a long time ago.

We know this is fact: that in July 2024, following the allegations of the corruption on Big Build sites, the Premier of the day wrote to IBAC asking it to investigate. The Premier has conceded that herself. Here is the clincher: in October 2024, almost two years ago, IBAC wrote back to the Premier and said that the investigation that she had asked for was outside their jurisdiction. Almost two years ago they wrote back and said it was outside their jurisdiction. For the next 16 months we heard nothing – nothing done, no legislation brought in to fix those gaps. Then in February this year, when it all became public that IBAC had actually written back to the Premier and said, ‘We don’t have the powers to investigate,’ we then headed down the path of getting legislation in. Now, in September, just a short time before the election, we are debating this bill in Parliament. As I think the member for Mildura pointed out in her contribution, this is not just about the Big Build corruption; this is about red shirts, Operation Watts and Operation Daintree, and there are key elements that need to be investigated.

I have been in this chamber a number of times when the new Premier has stood up and said that integrity is important to him and it is not optional. If you are going to talk the talk, you must then walk the walk. Let us recap what we are doing here. Let us just have a look at what is being done here. The Premier of the day asked for IBAC to investigate the Big Build over two years ago. IBAC wrote back and said they could not investigate. We then, two years later, have legislation here giving them the power to investigate what we had all hoped they would have been able to investigate over two years ago. But in this legislation we are denying them investigating that very issue that brought this on. It is just madness. This legislation is here largely because – and I do not think any member in this chamber would disagree – IBAC said they did not have the powers to investigate the Big Build sites. We have got this here now to correct that, but we are telling them, ‘Here are your new powers, but you can’t investigate the issue that brought this on.’ It just makes no sense whatsoever.

When we are talking about integrity and honesty and transparency, here was a chance to actually show it. Here was a chance not to just talk the talk, here was a chance for the new Premier to walk the walk, and it has not been done. This bill represents an admission that the investigative powers and the laws have been too narrow; therefore, we are not opposing. We support the objective, but we also support the amendments to strengthen this legislation, because Victorians expect one standard for all, whether they be members of Parliament, whether they be ministers or whether they be departments, agencies, contractors and subcontractors taking what is inevitably taxpayers money here at the end of that chain ‍– union officials, corporate executives, everybody is involved. If a person fits into the wheel of spending taxpayers money, then they need to have this level of oversight, and we need to have these follow-the-money powers to investigate them. But I come back to the point that the very issue that brought this on has been excluded from investigation. It just makes no sense at all.

An integrity commission must be able to follow the conduct, follow the evidence and follow the money. Its work must be independent, its processes must be fair and the reports must be brought on and not uncovered with endless delay. I support the bill, but I also support the member for Brighton’s amendments to strengthen it even further. What has happened here is this legislation basically is the government giving IBAC a new microscope to have a look at things more closely and more intently but saying, ‘You can’t use that new microscope we’ve given you to investigate the very issue that brought this legislation on.’ It is absolutely indefensible.

Parliament should not predetermine which matters IBAC can revisit or visit, and it certainly should not construct a legislative safe harbour around wrongdoings of the past. The member for Brighton’s amendments remove those restrictions. The member for Brighton’s amendments do not declare anyone guilty. The member for Melton, who spoke before me, and the member for Morwell, who spoke before him, raised the issue of ghost shifts. Whether they went on or not, that is what we are trying to find out. That is one of many, many, many issues we need to have thoroughly investigated, but we cannot have legislation come in that does not allow that to happen with some level of retrospectivity. I repeat: the Parliament should not predetermine which old matters IBAC revisits, whether they relate to people on either side of the chamber. If IBAC see fit to investigate those matters because they think where there is smoke there is fire, they certainly should have the power to do that.

I will finish off by saying we support the bill. We support the amendments proposed to the bill, and we think they will provide a far, far, far better outcome. I would just say to the Premier of the day, and I am sure we will hear it again in question time: integrity is non-negotiable, transparency is non-negotiable. Here is a chance for the Premier to walk the walk, not just talk the talk. He cannot say that and then introduce legislation that does not allow the matter that has triggered all this to be investigated. It will be a real test to see if these amendments, if not supported in this chamber, are supported in the other place to give IBAC the power to have complete free rein, which is what an integrity agency overseeing taxpayer funds should have. I conclude my comments with those remarks.

 Gary MAAS (Narre Warren South) (12:02): I too rise to make a contribution and indeed to support the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission Amendment Bill 2026. The bill implements this government’s commitment to giving IBAC the power to follow the money and changes the definition of ‘corruption’ in Victoria to give our integrity agencies more power to ensure corrupt conduct does not go unchecked.

The bill amends the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission Act 2011 to implement recommendations of the Integrity and Oversight Committee’s good work and subsequent report into the legislative framework for IBAC. The bill complements the Inquiries Amendment (Special Prosecutor) Bill 2026. I am not pre-empting anything; we know that bill has been introduced to this place for debate and that it will be before the house this sitting week. It will establish the office of the special prosecutor to respond to and investigate misconduct on government-funded construction projects in conjunction with the royal commission. This government has made it really clear that integrity is not optional, and this bill makes important and immediate amendments to IBAC’s jurisdiction to respond to strong public interest in ensuring public money is spent appropriately.

The threshold of conduct that IBAC can investigate will be lowered in this new legislation. The new laws outlined in this bill will capture a broader range of conduct, including that which does not currently meet the threshold of a criminal offence. The definition will be extended to serious disciplinary matters, including serious misconduct and conduct worthy of termination. The new definition includes a specific provision for elected officials, meaning that they can be investigated for serious breaches of their respective codes of conduct.

Speaking of empowering IBAC to follow the money, under the current laws IBAC can only investigate conduct that includes a relevant offence with direct links to public offices or public bodies. This in itself limits its ability to uncover unlawful and integrity-compromising behaviour. Once this bill is passed, IBAC will have the follow-the-money investigative powers it needs to trace public funds. This means that they can investigate the conduct of private and third-party subcontractors on government projects. These tougher laws will clamp down on corruption and target serious allegations of misconduct.

The Integrity and Oversight Committee report into the adequacy of the legislative framework for IBAC raised important issues, but they are also complex, and our government response, which has been tabled in Parliament, also reflects that. The committee made 31 recommendations with respect to IBAC’s legislative framework and broader integrity structures that IBAC operates within, 29 of which were directed to government. Of these, the government response supported 21 of the recommendations in principle and placed eight under some further review. The two remaining recommendations, recommendations 19 and 31, were directed to IBAC, and so it is only appropriate that IBAC responds to those as it sees fit. It really was a terrific report from the IOC, and I concur with the comments made by the member for Melton, as previous chair of the Integrity and Oversight Committee. It is a committee where one gets a much deeper view into all of our integrity agencies, their operations and what they need to do. The secretariat behind that committee really does a power of work, and I commend them for that work.

Any legislative reforms to IBAC’s scope need to consider the broader landscape and functions of our integrity agencies. Central to the government’s response is the creation of a time-limited expert reference group, which will be chaired by the Secretary of the Department of Justice and Community Safety. Members of the group will include those from IBAC, the Victorian Ombudsman, Integrity Oversight Victoria and Victoria Police, as well as other members who may or may not be added to the group as is required. The purpose of the group is to consider the legal and operational implications of the recommendations that government has supported in principle, provide advice to the Special Minister of State on their proposed implementation and assess the feasibility of those recommendations that are currently under review. This recognises that Victoria’s integrity framework is a really complex one, made up of a number of agencies who each have defined remits within the legislation that they operate under. It really is a very complex framework. This is about ensuring that there are no unintended consequences of implementing the committee’s recommendations.

I have often spoken in this place about democracy and the Westminster system and the supremacy of what goes with our doctrine of separation of powers and the role that it plays within the rule of law. We have this complex framework of rules to oversee our integrity agencies, and we know that it too plays a role in underpinning our democracy. But we also know – and we have seen this in other democracies – just how fragile it can be when the principles that underpin democracy are slowly eroded away. IBAC really should be independent, the royal commission into corruption in the state that will be running should also be independent, and political parties should really be very, very careful, for instance, when they are doing things like making proposed witness lists and that sort of thing to purportedly influence these independent agencies or independent commissions. As politically tempting as it may be, it is certainly not a wise thing to do in terms of the human rights and the freedoms that are certainly protected by the supremacy of this place and by the laws that are created in this place. On this side of the chamber as a government we are pulling all levers that we can to investigate and strengthen regulatory bodies so that they have the powers that they need to hold those involved to account.

Victorians value the services our government provides, and they want confidence that public funds are going to the services that we all rely upon – to good schools, to great public transport, to quality hospitals. Our major construction works have been incredible landmarks for this government, and we have made inroads to the growth and connectivity across the state. From roads and houses to our public transport network, the work has transformed Victoria over the last 12 years, but dodgy behaviour, whether that be on building sites or in the construction industry, must be stamped out. That is why we are going hard on this and giving regulators not only the resources but the time and the powers that they need. Once these laws have passed, they will come into effect immediately.

Cleaning up our worksites can only benefit workers and can only improve their daily conditions, while restoring integrity and pride in the industry is a good thing for every single Victorian in the state. Our government is really proud of these reforms. The operation of IBAC will be strengthened, as will the integrity and accountability of organisations, institutions and public state money. On that basis I commend this bill to the house.

 Peter WALSH (Murray Plains) (12:12): I rise to make a contribution on this bill. One of the reasons we are doing this bill now is a previous Labor government actually watered down the IBAC legislation that was originally introduced by the Baillieu government, which I was part of. We are only going back to try and put some rules back in place that the Labor Party actually took out of this legislation. The previous speaker talked about having to be careful of unintended consequences when it comes to legislation like this, and I agree with that. It is very hard to put my mind in the space of a Labor Party minister, but this bill is making sure there are no unintended consequences where Labor ministers or premiers can actually be held to account for what has happened over the last 12 years.

This bill effectively strengthens IBAC. It does a lot of good things, but it actually gives the Labor government of the last 12 years a get-out-of-jail-free card. Effectively, anything that was done over the last 12 years that has been reported – has been sent to someone to be investigated – cannot be touched. This is a get-out-of-jail-free card for the Victorian Labor Party, their ministers and their premiers over the last 12 years. That is where it is wrong, and that is why the Shadow Attorney-General has a number of amendments to this legislation to make sure it is actually real and can do something. The current Premier made statements when he was first elected as Premier that integrity is not optional. I think Victorians actually appreciated hearing that. The issue is, since that day the Premier has not walked the talk. Things have been walked back and walked back. Yes, they are introducing this bill and giving IBAC more powers, but they are powers prospectively, not retrospectively at all for all the things that have been done wrong.

Thank goodness for the Queensland inquiry where Geoffrey Watson actually got to air his report – a report that he was stopped from airing here in Victoria – which lifted the lid on corruption in the Big Build projects. If it had not been for that Queensland inquiry where Geoffrey Watson got to give evidence where he could actually table his report that estimates that there has been something like $15 billion worth of corruption on the Big Build projects, that most likely would not have seen the light of day. Again, this legislation does not let us shine the torch back into history to actually look at the things that were done over that particular time. If I go through the amendments that the Shadow Attorney-General will move to make the bill fully retrospective, if integrity is not optional in this state, the Labor Party should have made this bill retrospectively go back and look at the things that could not be done under the existing rules of IBAC. That would have allowed IBAC, with the new rules, to shine a light on those particular issues. It is imperative that we get to the bottom of what has gone on in Victoria, particularly what has gone on in the Big Build projects.

If you think about COVID and the issues around COVID here in Victoria, we had the Coate inquiry to deal with COVID. I sat and watched that inquiry in my office. I am not a lawyer, but I have watched a few inquiries. Every time counsel assisting Coate got to the point where I thought, ‘The next question is going to be this,’ they stopped asking questions. It was a sham. The Coate inquiry was a sham, a cover-up of everything that was done wrong under COVID. Not having this legislation function retrospectively means that everything that has happened in the last 12 years will be covered up as well.

The other amendment that the Shadow Attorney-General moved is about timely reporting. Those of us who were around for the 2016 CFA issues with Peter Marshall and then Premier Andrews wanted the Richmond report out as soon as possible to make sure it shone a light on the issues of that particular inquiry. Through the creative use of the courts to try and block the release of that report, it was seven years from that inquiry starting to when it was finally tabled in this place. Hundreds of thousands of dollars of United Firefighters Union members’ funds were used to run the court cases to keep that report from being tabled. As I said in a radio interview at the time, the way that report was written was that they used polite language, but if you read what was in there, it was absolutely damning of what went on through that period of time. The ones that suffered the most, from a country point of view, were the CFA and the CFA volunteers. Unfortunately the CFA is a shadow of its former self because of what was done by Peter Marshall, the UFU and then Premier Andrews.

As has been said quite often in this place, absolute credit to Jane Garrett as the minister for standing up and blowing the whistle on that. For anyone that has done the company directors course, they always say that if you raise concerns in a board you are on, or in this case in a cabinet you are in, and no-one listens to you and no-one takes any notice of the concerns you are raising, if you feel strongly about it, you need to step out of it. To the minister’s credit, she believed it was wrong, she could not get any action on getting that fixed and she stepped aside. I think that was to the absolute credit of her and the integrity of her as a minister and a person, compared to those that were going against her.

Speaking of integrity, one of the other things you learn if you do the company directors course – I assume those rules apply to cabinet ministers here in Victoria as well – is that if there is something on the table before you, if there is a conflict of interest, you should recuse yourself from that particular meeting. Given that this legislation protects action of the past because it cannot be investigated, I ask the rhetorical question: how many ministers around the cabinet table when this legislation went through cabinet recused themselves from the meeting and went outside? They have a vested interest, a pecuniary interest, because this legislation means they cannot be investigated in the future. Why would they be in the room making a decision that protects their actions in perpetuity? As I said when I started, this legislation is a get-out-of-jail-free card for all the ministers and the premiers of Victoria over the last 12 years who have done things wrong here in Victoria. They should not have been sitting at the cabinet table when this legislation was signed off to come to this Parliament, because they had a pecuniary interest in the legislation. You are looking at me puzzled, member for Point Cook. It is etiquette of a board, of any decision-making body, that if you have a pecuniary interest in something that is on the table then you leave the meeting and do not talk about it. It would have probably been an interesting thing if people actually did that. Maybe cabinet would not have had a quorum because there would have been so many ministers involved. That would be just so interesting.

The other thing that the Shadow Attorney-General has also proposed is this issue of the defence of public interest immunity. Again, if you think about that, the Labor Party has not walked the talk on that particular issue. Premier Andrews actually gave directives to his Department of Premier and Cabinet secretary to release cabinet papers from our time in government, to release cabinet papers about the east–west link. Again, that was a total break of protocol, but a protocol they now hide behind that they cannot release papers. He had the secretary release all the papers around the east–west link. He also had 80,000 pages of cabinet papers released around other issues from our time in government, again, and they now want to have protection for never having papers released and not having to be released if IBAC comes knocking on the door.

In government they have double standards. They were very happy to tip those papers out the door against our government, but they do not want their government held to account. So, yes, IBAC does need more powers and the Liberals and Nationals support them having more powers, but we most definitely want those powers to be retrospective so there can be a light shone on the last 12 years of the Labor government here in Victoria, because if that light was shone on them they would be appalled. It would make Fitzgerald in Queensland a number of decades ago look like a kindergarten picnic compared to what the Labor Party has done to Victoria here. There is the corruption, the nepotism and the public funds that have been wasted. I think the $15 billion that Geoffrey Watson identified would be the tip of the iceberg if a real torch were shone on the management of this state by the Labor Party.

 Mathew HILAKARI (Point Cook) (12:22): I am always encouraged when following the member for Murray Plains, and I appreciate his contribution. There is a distinct advantage, in fact, should those opposite form government that we will not be short on understanding the decisions of their cabinet and decisions of their subcommittee of cabinet, because of course every meeting will be recorded by the member for Caulfield. There is a distinct advantage for IBAC and anybody looking into these matters, because we will have pretty much a live commentary available, and I thank the member for Caulfield for his service to integrity in this state. I am sure some of those decisions recently taken by the shadow cabinet around putting guns into emergency departments, which I understand had an extensive set of consultation – I think they called one person – will certainly be recorded and available to the public at a certain point in time. I appreciate the openness and the ability to have these decisions and decision-making processes in the public domain very quickly. It is appreciated that that will be happening in the cabinet room should those opposite be so honoured to form government.

The member for Murray Plains also raised issues related to Peter Marshall and the United Firefighters Union. Look, I do not think he presented the invite to Peter Marshall to be in the gallery of this chamber some time ago, but certainly the coalition parties were very encouraging of seeing Peter Marshall in the gallery and available. I think there was a little bit of hugging going on afterwards. I understand that that is the response that the member for Murray Plains expected when he had challenges around decisions of IBAC and reporting and that the hugging approach is the Liberal approach to those concerns raised around corruption or otherwise – that is to invite, to hug, to congratulate, to high-five on the way through. But that is not the approach I think this government is taking. This government is taking a very different approach.

I know the member for Murray Plains is a longstanding member of this house and really does understand these bills, so I do not think he is going to be deliberately misleading the house in his commentary on them. But it is important to put onto the record the transitional provisions that are related to this bill, which are that if IBAC receive a complaint or new evidence regarding conduct that has occurred, they can consider historic conduct from finalised, referred or dismissed matters as part of a new investigation using their new powers.

The concern they have raised about IBAC not being able to access and not being able to investigate, I will allay that for the member for Murray Plains. The member for Murray Plains will also be aware, having considered some of the legislation that has been through this house, that the royal commission can refer new evidence to IBAC. If it does refer to IBAC new evidence, IBAC can use it to begin a new investigation and consider conduct that it may have already looked at as part of any investigation. I know the member for Murray Plains knows that. I am not informing him of anything new.

Something that was new was raised in this house a little bit earlier by the member for Morwell. He raised issues and knowledge of ghost shifts. He put this in probably a little bit of a jocular way – that is my take on it, because it is a very serious allegation that he put forward that he was aware of this before his time as a member of Parliament and around people that he knew. What he did not step through then, which I would have thought was an important thing to do considering he is a member of Parliament and a public official, and what he did not talk to us about was what he did to refer those allegations. He heard them before becoming an MP, but even before becoming an MP I am sure he was deeply involved in public life, and he should have referred those matters immediately on to IBAC, immediately on to appropriate authorities.

But that was a missing piece. He did go on for some time afterwards. He had a lot of time to add to that contribution, but he did not decide to disclose what he did with those allegations. He does have the opportunity to come before this house again in this sitting week or in the remaining sitting week that we have after this one to let the community know that he has met his obligations in referring to the appropriate authorities these so-called ghost shifts that he is aware of, which he has put on the record in this chamber, but he has so far failed to disclose what he has done about them. I hope that he has gone and taken these to the appropriate authorities. I know that members on this side of the chamber would do so. I hope he can clarify the exact point in time that he did disclose these matters to the appropriate authorities and raise this very concern of the use of public money.

The royal commission has announced that we are bringing in a special prosecutor, but I know those matters are before the Parliament, so I will not cross too far into that. But it is a bit of a confused approach from the opposition – knowing of issues, knowing of serious concerns about people that they then congratulate in this chamber and then just being still so supportive of them. It is confusing and it really leads me to the conclusion that this is all about politics; it is not about the policy, it is all about the politics. You know, embrace Peter Marshall one day, say that they have got deep concerns about him the next; oppose or sort of shadow oppose this bill, wanting to have some changes to it and being caught off-guard that there has been a royal commission called and just very upset that they did not get the chance to call the royal commission. As the Premier said, integrity is not optional. We are just getting straight on with it. That is why we have got another set of legislation that some of us might be talking about later in the day around a special prosecutor.

I just thought I would give some further context around the IBAC concerns that have been raised by those opposite, and that is if IBAC receives a new complaint or notification, they can investigate it. That is very clear. If IBAC are yet to assess a complaint or notification they already have, they can investigate that. If IBAC get notification of new conduct related to a dismissed or referred complaint, including through the royal commission, they can investigate that. If IBAC are currently investigating something, then the new powers will apply. That should satisfy those opposite that those powers are in place and that any new referrals can be considered.

Regarding the member for Euroa – and the member for Melton certainly called this out when he got up on his feet – there is an appropriate use of parliamentary processes and our voice in Parliament, our opportunity to say things under parliamentary privilege. It was disappointing to hear the implications that she put forward around a complaint of some sort of poor behaviour by an important person within our community and within our politics and our public service. This public servant should not have had their name impugned in the way that she did it, without referring the matter to the appropriate authorities. It was a completely unfair use of the Parliament’s processes – the implication of that, without a substantive accusation that she has delivered to integrity agencies. It is disappointing to see these public processes, these parliamentary processes, used in such a way. They should not be. I would hope that she has the opportunity over the next week and a half of parliamentary sittings – this weekend in two weeks time – to make that right. She should make that right. People should not take public servants into this political space and damage their reputations unfairly and without any warrant to do so. I thank the member for Melton in particular for raising that immediately after the fact, as he should have.

I might move to the bill’s main role now in the limited time that I have left, which is that it enables IBAC to follow the money. This was announced some time ago, and this delivers on bringing that to this Parliament. This is to investigate suspected corrupt conduct by a third party. It includes private subcontractors and includes where there is an allegation of connection to corrupt conduct in the performance of a public function funded by government. I think one of the most important elements to me when I first heard about these concerns was that there is always someone paying a bribe when someone receives a bribe, and that is an important element of this. Too often it has been workers being harangued and harassed in the discussion of the opposition but not very often those people who are paying the bribes. I would like to hear them talk more about that – the businesses, the subcontractors; that is a space that they should enter as well.

 Kim O’KEEFFE (Shepparton) (12:32): I rise to speak on the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission Amendment Bill 2026. This is an incredibly important bill and something that Victorians have been calling for and we have been calling for. There are some really important amendments that will be proposed for this bill from our side of the house, because we know that this bill does not go far enough.

It does not matter where I go or who I talk to, people are angry. They are upset, and they are distressed about the level of corruption that this state has had to endure. The $15 billion that we have seen go up in smoke – $15 billion that could have gone into our communities – I find incredibly distressful. For an organisation – I will call us that here in this place – to have allowed that to happen I think is extraordinary. I think we have a lot to blame here, a lot of shame and a lot that needs to be exposed during the next process, because it is wrong and it should not have happened. It should not have happened to the people of Victoria. As a person that owned a business, I look back on that and think, wow, what if I had done some of these things or done that to my community or organisations that I connected with over the years? I had about 17 companies that I was financially responsible for and worked with; I used their money and put it in the right places. I just find it astounding that this has been gotten away with to this level.

From the outset, the Nationals and Liberals do not oppose this bill. We do support it. We do want to see the change that needs to happen, but I will note that the member for Brighton has moved some really important amendments to the bill and that I support those amendments strongly. The bill broadens IBAC’s corrupt conduct and follow-the-money jurisdiction, including by extending the concepts of ‘public body’ and ‘public officer’ to associated entities and third-party contracting arrangements, and replaces the existing relevant offence threshold with ‘an offence or a serious disciplinary matter’. After its more than a decade in office, Victorians are sick of the corruption that continues to be exposed about this government. Day after day, week after week, Victorians are finding out more about the level of corruption and mismanagement of funds in this state. For far too long Labor has continued to drag its feet on this issue and failed to act to address this shocking corruption. The Premier on his first day fronted the cameras and gave the commitment that integrity under his premiership would not be optional, but what we have here today is a bill that proves that integrity is entirely optional, not only under his watch but also under this government.

I support strengthening IBAC, I support giving IBAC the powers it needs to investigate corruption, I support giving IBAC the ability to follow the money and I support broadening IBAC’s jurisdiction so that serious misconduct and corrupt conduct cannot simply fall through the cracks of our integrity system. But supporting the principle of stronger IBAC powers does not mean we should support a bill that does not go far enough, because when it comes to corruption, half-measures are simply not good enough. Victorians rightly deserve an integrity system that is genuinely independent, one that is powerful and capable of following the evidence wherever it leads. This also includes following the evidence in the past. The Nationals and Liberals for some time have been calling for IBAC to be given the new powers that they need. IBAC themselves have also been calling for those powers. Integrity experts have been calling for increased powers, and as I said, the people of Victoria have been calling. Most importantly of all, Victorians are calling to see corruption in this state cleaned up. Though we have been calling for IBAC to be given new powers, IBAC has been calling for powers, integrity experts have been calling and all Victorians have been calling, what we need to make sure is that when we go through this process that $15 billion can be explained to the people of Victoria. That is what they want to hear. They want to hear where that money went, whose hands it went into and why.

What this IBAC bill does is enable what are called follow-the-money powers so that IBAC has the capacity to go to third parties, which have been a significant issue for IBAC in terms of operating investigations into matters, particularly in relation to the Big Build, where third-party contractors were at fault and alleged to have committed many of the corrupt acts. The bill also changes the relevant offence threshold within the current act to extend the capacity for investigation beyond simply an offence to also cover a serious disciplinary matter. Some of the measures proposed in this bill by those opposite are welcome, but the government has chosen to put limitations on the retrospective operation of those powers. If we are serious about corruption, why should the date on which something happened determine whether IBAC can properly investigate it? Corruption does not suddenly begin when a law commences or receives royal assent, public money does not become public money only from the date a bill passes this Parliament and misconduct does not become less serious simply because it occurred before the government decided to come to the table and strengthen IBAC, something which we on this side of the house have been calling for and something the Victorian people have also been calling for. If we are giving IBAC new powers, those powers should be fully retrospective. We as an opposition introduced a private members bill back in March this year that sought to give IBAC the ability to investigate public expenditure beyond the contractual shield that can currently prevent proper scrutiny of where taxpayers money ultimately goes.

Over the past 12 years this government has spent an enormous amount of public money on major infrastructure projects. We have seen serious allegations concerning the construction industry, contractors, subcontractors, unions and the use of public funds. Our amendments will make sure that IBAC finally have the powers that they need, the powers they deserve and the powers our integrity experts, agencies and Victorians have been calling for. Instead we have a bill which reverts entirely to Labor type, which is to cover up a $15 billion bill of corruption. It is hard to comprehend how this has been gotten away with for so long and the billions in money lost to corruption.

Victorians are angry. They want answers. They want to know what has happened to their $15 billion ‍– money that should have gone into our hospitals, roads and infrastructure and into our communities. The GV Health redevelopment is only half completed and funded. We need an integrated cancer centre. It is wrong that whilst billions have gone up in smoke, people in my electorate have to travel to Melbourne to have treatment, putting stress and pressures on their families, who want to be with them. It makes me so angry when we have people homeless, who cannot get a roof over their heads. Our public housing waiting list is over two years. Whilst this government wastes billions of dollars, our people are homeless. We have a run-down 1972 sports stadium. It is a disgrace that investment has not gone into this facility for our community whilst money has gone up in smoke – billions of dollars that could have gone into that type of infrastructure. The roads – as we speak, someone is hitting a pothole and damaging their car and then having to pay for costly repairs due to no fault of their own. Whilst our roads have been falling apart and neglected, this government has blown billions in corruption. It is just astounding and wrong at every level, the investment that has not been made over many years, because of money that has gone up in corruption.

After months of outcry and disgust and Victorians calling for answers, the government now has finally decided to establish a royal commission, one that will examine corruption, criminal conduct and serious misconduct connected with major construction projects. But as I said, it does not go far enough. It cuts short an opportunity to ensure that no stone is unturned. That is why we have proposed the amendments that this government should accept. Why wouldn’t they want to do this fully, to have an opportunity to fully expose the depth of corruption in this state?

If the government is serious enough in establishing a royal commission, the government should also be serious enough to give IBAC the powers to investigate properly and fully. Our amendments that the member Brighton has circulated in his name on behalf of the Nationals and Liberals seek to make the bill fully retrospective, as I said, and Victorians deserve to know the full truth of such allegations that have occurred, not only now but in the past. If IBAC has new powers, it should also have the ability to exercise those powers where appropriate in relation to historical conduct, because Victorians deserve answers about their money, regardless of where that money has been spent or misused.

Another concern we have is around timely reporting. This is something that should not be controversial. When IBAC completes an investigation, Victorians should not be left waiting indefinitely for that investigation to be made public. As we have seen with the consequences of delay through Operation Richmond, that investigation itself exposed serious misconduct risks arising from dealings between the former Andrews government and the United Firefighters Union. Even though IBAC did not make a finding of corruption, that distinction is important and that exposure is important, but the public still deserves timely access to the findings of any integrity investigation. IBAC must be independent, and that is critically important, but independence should not mean that reports can sit indefinitely before the Parliament or even the public. Timely reporting means accountability while it still matters, and it means that the community can have the confidence that integrity investigations are not disappearing when they have concluded.

As I said when I started, this is an incredibly important bill. It is an incredibly important time for the people of Victoria – for what they have been calling for and what we have been calling for – and we must make sure that this is done fully, not just in parts that suit the other side of the house. We have to make sure that everything is transparent and that we have the opportunity to address this $15 billion in corruption.

 Kathleen MATTHEWS-WARD (Broadmeadows) (12:42): I rise in support of the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission Amendment Bill 2026. This is an important piece of legislation that strengthens Victoria’s integrity framework and reinforces the principle that should unite every member of this house: that public power must be exercised honestly, transparently and in the public interest. Victorians rightly expect that public money is used for its intended purpose. They expect strong safeguards against misconduct and corruption. They expect accountability from those entrusted with public resources. Most importantly, they expect confidence that our institutions have the powers necessary to identify wrongdoing, investigate it thoroughly and hold people to account when standards are not met, and that is exactly what this bill seeks to achieve.

The bill delivers on the government’s commitment to strengthening IBAC’s powers in two significant ways. First, it allows IBAC to better follow the money by extending its ability to investigate suspected corrupt conduct involving third parties and private subcontractors where there is a connection to publicly funded functions and activities. I think that is a really important thing to have, the follow-the-money powers. I am so proud that we are introducing them.

Secondly, it broadens the definition of ‘corrupt conduct’ so that serious integrity-compromising behaviour can be investigated even when it does not fit within the narrow confines of the current legislative framework. These reforms recognise an important reality about modern government. Across Victoria, public services and major projects are often delivered through partnerships involving contractors, consultants, labour hire providers, subcontractors and other entities. Public funds can flow through a range of different organisations in the delivery of government-funded work, yet the public expectation remains the same regardless of who is undertaking that work: if taxpayers money is being spent, there must be transparency; if public functions are being delivered, there must be accountability; and if serious misconduct is suspected, our integrity agencies must be able to investigate efficiently and effectively. This bill helps ensure that they can.

I would also like to note the many good people across the construction sector who have worked on government projects – those workers who have contributed to building significant infrastructure for the public – and many of them live in my electorate. We have got a lot of tradies, as you do too, Acting Speaker Walters, in our electorates, and across my seat of Broadmeadows we have had a number of government projects investing in community infrastructure. There are so many of them. I am going to go to a list of not even all of them here, but we have got the $60 million Health and Community Centre of Excellence at Kangan Institute. I know you are also very proud of that building, Acting Speaker. It is a magnificent jewel in the crown of Broadmeadows and gives so many people the opportunity to do our free TAFE programs there. Just next door we have got the new tech school, which you loved opening alongside me. You know how much difference that will make to our kids in the north. It will have a focus on building skills in growth industries – renewable energy, advanced manufacturing, logistics, robotics and IT – to give students the skills they need for the jobs they want and the jobs we need into the future.

Next door again we have 120 new homes being constructed – so ready to open – which will give people the dignity and the safety of a roof over their heads. We know how important housing is, and in the last budget we committed to 7000 new homes in addition to the 16,000 we have been delivering while in government. Down the road a little bit further we have got the $20 million that we have invested in the Broadmeadows Special Developmental School, doubling its size and giving it a whole new indoor gymnasium, new art and food tech rooms, a performing arts centre and high-quality staff amenities.

I am really proud of what we are doing in disability and across special schools, and I know you are too, Acting Speaker. We have upgraded every special school across the state, and I know that is something our former Deputy Premier was very proud to deliver. It makes a huge difference. I have got six special schools in my area, and I am so proud of the improvements that have been delivered to them. Also, nearly every kinder in the area has been expanded and improved to deliver on our free kinder program, which gives every child the chance to thrive.

Across the road from the Broadmeadows Special Developmental School we have the Gowrie early learning centre. I was there with Minister Erdogan last week. They are such a high-quality service, doing such important work in my community, and with that expansion they will now be able to provide even more kids with opportunities to learn there and to thrive and to grow into incredible little human beings, as they already are. On Dimboola Road, on the other side, is the new court building, and I am visiting there with the Attorney-General, Minister Kilkenny, very shortly to see what those expansions will deliver for our community. And that is just Broadmeadows.

We have got the full rebuild of Glenroy West Primary. John Fawkner has $14.5 million of improvements. A new arts and technology centre, science, food tech and new classrooms are making a massive difference to the kids there. We have had an $8 million investment in Fawkner Primary. Moomba Park has got its new toilets now, and the art and music room is coming soon. We have got the 130-place, affordable, government owned and run Wimbi children’s centre. There is now a waiting list to get in there. It is making a massive difference to parents and children in Fawkner in particular, but also it is co-located with the school, and we know how important that is.

We have got the $7 million SES building. I was with the SES last week to launch their book. Apparently the library said there were not enough books on trucks, so they have now written a book about their SES truck. They do a magnificent job there, and I am looking forward to seeing them on the weekend at the Fawkner festival. We have had massive investment in our hospitals, including the Northern Hospital, and we have got a full rebuild of the ambulance depot in Oak Park, as well as sports improvements, parks improvements – all of the things we have delivered in my seat but across the north and across Victoria. I would like to thank all of the good people who have built or are building these important projects. This public infrastructure is key for our community’s future.

One of the most significant reforms contained within the legislation is the broadening of the definition of ‘corrupt conduct’. Under the current framework IBAC’s ability to investigate corruption is restricted by the requirement that the conduct in question must constitute a defined ‘relevant offence’. As the house would be aware, that definition is relatively narrow and focuses largely on indictable offences and a small number of specific common-law offences. The consequence is that behaviour can seriously undermine confidence in public administration and fall well below the standards that Victorians expect while still remaining beyond IBAC’s investigative jurisdiction.

That is not a gap we should be comfortable with, and it is certainly not a gap any of us are comfortable with. Integrity in public life is about more than criminal convictions; it is also about maintaining ethical standards, protecting public confidence and ensuring that those entrusted with responsibility act appropriately. The bill addresses this issue by removing the relevant offence requirement and replacing it with a broader and more practical threshold. Under the proposed reforms ‘corrupt conduct’ will include conduct that would constitute any offence or a serious disciplinary matter. The inclusion of serious disciplinary matters is particularly important. The legislation recognises that serious misconduct can take a variety of forms. It may involve conduct that warrants dismissal or termination. It may involve significant breaches of professional obligations. It may involve serious contraventions of codes of conduct that apply to members of Parliament, councillors, ministers and parliamentary secretaries. These are matters that clearly go to the integrity of public administration. They affect public confidence and they deserve appropriate scrutiny.

Importantly, these reforms respond to concerns that have been raised by the integrity agencies themselves. The IBAC Commissioner has publicly argued that any meaningful expansion of follow-the-money powers should be accompanied by reforms to the definition of ‘corrupt conduct’, and this bill does precisely that. The key second reform is the extension of IBAC’s ability to investigate misconduct involving entities that are performing publicly funded functions, and that is really critical too. Corruption does not always occur neatly within the walls of a government department. Modern-day project delivery arrangements can be complex. Public money can flow through multiple organisations and contractual relationships before reaching the point where services are delivered or projects are completed. That complexity cannot become a shield against accountability, and this bill expands the relevant definitions within the IBAC act. I commend the bill to the house.

 Belinda WILSON (Narre Warren North) (12:52): It is my pleasure to speak on the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission Amendment Bill 2026. What a great speech that was from my friend the member for Broadmeadows. I am sorry I missed the first half. I am unsure how we weaved our way through to books and the SES, but I will listen to that later on and see that path, my friend – fabulous.

I have had the absolute pleasure of being on the Integrity and Oversight Committee for the last four years, and I want to take this opportunity to thank the incredible people that I have had the opportunity to work with. First of all, our chair. Some people would be confused as to why I am saying it is a pleasure working with people from the Greens, but Tim has been a great chair. We do know that he is unwell at the moment, and I send him our regards from here. But he has been a great chair of our committee, and I thank him for all the work that he has done. And then Kim Wells, the grandfather of the Parliament, I thank for the incredible work that he has done on integrity and oversight. He has been on that committee for a very long time.

Brad Battin interjected.

Belinda WILSON: No, I am not talking about you, member for Berwick. I do thank him for the incredible work that he has done on our committee as the deputy chair, and the swiftness with which he handled the meetings that we have had. We have had the quickest meetings in the world sometimes when they have needed to be quick over the last four years, so thank you to Kim. To Sean, who is our incredible secretariat, and his team, I did not realise until I became a member of Parliament the work that happens behind the scenes on these committees. We have an incredible team behind us on that committee, way too many people to name here, mainly because I do not have a list of all their names, but thank you for all the work you do, all the research that you do and all the answering of emails. They receive a lot of correspondence, and they do a lot of work, which is really, really appreciated. Other committee members include my friend sitting to the right of me here, the member for Hastings. Thank you to Eden Foster, the member for Mulgrave, to Mr Ryan Batchelor in the other place, an upper house member for Southern Metro who is also on the committee, and to my colleagues on the other side of the chamber. I have already mentioned Kim Wells, but there is the member for Mildura and also Rachel, who is a member for South-Eastern Metro in the upper house.

It has been really interesting hearing all the speeches in the Parliament today. I thought that the member for Preston was going to interject then, and I was not sure if that actually happens, if someone from the government could actually interject. I want to say it has been really interesting hearing the speeches from everyone today and interesting to hear the challenges that people have made. I think that integrity is extremely important. There is nothing more challenging or upsetting than when someone tells you that you have no integrity. I think it is one of the things that costs nothing and is very, very important to each individual. We take these matters very, very seriously. That is why we have decided to introduce this royal commission. It is very, very important. There have also been a number of people on the other side who have mentioned that they are aware of things that have been happening out in the building industry particularly. I say to them – and I know that a couple of people have also said this in the past – that they need to go to Victoria Police with those matters. It is very, very important. This is something we want to stamp out. Unless we speak up about these things that are happening in the building industry, then they do not come forward. This will take a deep dive into what is happening in this industry, but we need to, as civilians, speak up about what we have been told and what we know about. It is really, really important.

This bill implements the government’s commitment to enable IBAC to follow the money. With my role on the Integrity and Oversight Committee I have had a lot to do with not only IBAC but all the integrity agencies, and they do incredible work. They work so hard. All of them do incredible work for our state and for our government. IBAC also do incredible work, but they can only work with the powers that they have. This is going to broaden those powers and broaden the definition of ‘corrupt conduct’, and along with the work of the royal commission and also a special prosecutor, this will provide a holistic and comprehensive response to allegations of misconduct on government-funded construction projects, which I think all of us in this place agree is extremely important. I know in my community when people have spoken to me about this, they expect us to investigate this. They expect that of their government, and that is exactly what our Premier is doing. He is having a royal commission, he is going to have follow-the-money powers and he is going to dig deep into this, because this is what Victorians expect and this is what Victorians want for their state.

Under the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission Act 2011, conduct must meet certain requirements to constitute corrupt conduct, such as conduct that adversely affects the honest performance of a public officer or public body in their functions. This is misuse of information or material acquired in the course of their performance or conduct that involves recklessness or breaching public trust. I think we have spoken at length about public trust. People expect that their taxpayer dollar is being used properly, is being used correctly and is not wasted. We all expect that. I know I expect that. I am a taxpayer too, and I expect that from all money that is spent across all governments, whether it be state or federal. We want to make sure that it is not wasted and that it is spent properly and for the right reasons.

Currently conduct must also constitute a relevant offence before IBAC can commence an investigation. ‘Relevant offence’ is defined narrowly in the IBAC act as indictable offences or any of the common-law offences of attempting to pervert the course of justice, bribery of a public official, perverting the course of justice or misconduct in public office. These are all really important issues that we need to make sure are stamped out and do not continue on our building sites or in any public office. It is not just our building sites; it is in any form of government office. The current definition of ‘corrupt conduct’ limits IBAC from investigating these integrity-compromising behaviours that may not meet the threshold of a criminal offence. It gives them that opportunity to do so. To address these issues and give full effect to the government’s commitment –

The ACTING SPEAKER (Iwan Walters): Order! The time has come for me to suspend debate.

Sitting suspended 1:00 pm until 2:02 pm.

Business interrupted under standing orders.