Wednesday, 9 September 2026

 Anthony CARBINES (Ivanhoe – Leader of the House, Minister for Artificial Intelligence and the Digital Economy, Minister for Major Events, Minister for Medical Research, Minister for Racing, Minister for Economic Development) (14:38): I am pleased to make a contribution on the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission Amendment Bill 2026. I think I might just go, in the first instance, to the second-reading speech. There are a couple of elements there that I want to place on the record again. The bill – just taking from that second-reading speech from the Premier, who introduced the bill yesterday – brings forward the implementation of the Integrity and Oversight Committee’s recommendation to lower the threshold of behaviour that meets the definition of ‘corrupt conduct’ under the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission Act 2011, to address the broader limitations with IBAC’s jurisdiction identified by IBAC and the IOC and to ensure the bill gives full effect to the government’s commitment to empower IBAC to consider the unlawful and unethical use of public funds on major infrastructure projects.

Currently, under the IBAC act, conduct must constitute a relevant offence before IBAC can commence an investigation. ‘Relevant offence’ is currently defined in the IBAC act as an indictable offence against an act 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. The key element that needs to be addressed there is that both IBAC and the IOC highlighted that this definition limits IBAC in investigating other integrity-compromising behaviours that do not involve a relevant offence. For example, IBAC cannot investigate serious misconduct in isolation, nor can it examine broader governance or systemic failures, unless the conduct meets the threshold for a relevant offence.

Finally, the element I want to just conclude with on that is that to address this issue, the bill makes amendments to lower the threshold of behaviour that can be considered corrupt conduct to capture a broader range of criminal conduct and other integrity-compromising behaviour. This goes into some more detail of the Integrity and Oversight Committee’s report into the adequacy of the legislative framework for IBAC, where the committee made 31 recommendations with respect to IBAC’s legislative framework and the broader integrity structures that IBAC operates within, 29 of which were directed to the government. Of these, the government response supports 21 of the recommendations in principle and places eight under review. The two remaining recommendations, 19 and 31, were directed to IBAC, so it is appropriate that IBAC responds to those as it sees fit.

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 on that group will include the Victorian Ombudsman, IBAC, Integrity Oversight Victoria, Victoria Police and other members that may be added to the group. The purpose of that group is to consider the legal and operational implications of the recommendations the government has supported in principle, provide advice to the Special Minister of State on their proposed implementation and assess the feasibility of those recommendations currently under review. This recognises that our integrity framework is complex and involves a number of agencies – it is quite the ecosystem – and has a defined remit under legislation. It is about ensuring that there are no unintended consequences of implementing the committee’s recommendations. I want to acknowledge a member for Western Metropolitan in the other place, the Special Minister of State, for her work in relation to bringing a range of this work to the Parliament and the work that she has done in oversighting this bill.

I want to go to a couple of elements that have been raised by those opposite and place on the record some responses to those matters, particularly around the transitional provisions on which the opposition has either been deliberately misleading or simply does not understand. I would say it is a little bit of column A and a little bit of column B. If IBAC receives a new 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. It is quite simple: if the royal commission refers them new evidence, they can use it to begin a new investigation and consider conduct they may have already looked at in that investigation. Further, if IBAC receive a new complaint or notification, they can investigate that. 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, they can investigate that. If IBAC are currently investigating something, the new powers apply. It is quite a significant remit in regard to these matters.

I hope that provides some clarity for those opposite. I might add that in my time in this place I recall when they had a minister responsible for IBAC and they had a minister responsible for the establishment of an anti-corruption commission, and said person had to resign their commission. I find I am not likely to take much advice from those opposite when it comes to these matters given their past history in relation to these policy areas.

In relation to the Royal Commission into the Integrity of Major Public and Civil Infrastructure Construction Projects in Victoria, I think there are some other alignments here that are important. That is a complex reform, and we have worked closely in consultation with IBAC in the short timeframe that we have had to deliver a bill that can effectively operationalise these major changes to IBAC’s jurisdiction. If there is more work that we can do, we will do it. But let us not forget we have instituted a royal commission into the exact matters that those opposite are describing. A royal commission is the highest and most serious accountability forum that we can have, and the royal commission will investigate allegations of crime, of corruption and of serious misconduct on government-funded construction sites, particularly, I am sure, white-collar crime that may have occurred, which will be interesting to those opposite. They will also be able to make referrals to IBAC and to Victoria Police as appropriate. I quote from a statement made by the Premier at the time in July:

Whether in business, politics or the union movement, there will be zero tolerance for those who misuse their positions.

It is why his first act as Premier was to call a royal commission into the construction sector and to strengthen IBAC by giving them follow-the-money powers this term, not in 2027. The Premier has my full support in relation to those matters and making sure that they were absolute, non-negotiable priorities for the new government. There was a further statement from the Premier in relation to the royal commission into Victoria’s construction industry on 20 August, where he made the point 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 make sure it never happens again. Nothing less than a Royal Commission, with full coercive powers and public hearings, will get us there.

They are the statements that the new Premier made. He has my absolute support and the support of this side of the house in relation to those matters. They are fundamental to integrity. I can say very clearly in the Ivanhoe electorate there is nothing less than the expectation from my constituents that those matters are addressed in full, and they have welcomed, when I have been out in my community, the government’s actions on these matters. There is no obfuscation, there is no delay. These matters have also been welcomed by many stakeholders in the community who have backed in the royal commission, the terms of reference of the royal commission and the appointment of the royal commissioner.

Further, with regard to the terms of reference, the Premier said they are matters of course:

… for the Commissioner to decide whose actions and whose knowledge are relevant to the matters under investigation.

Not the government –

and not the Premier –

… The Commissioner. If he wants to hear from Ministers, former Ministers, senior officials, union leaders or company executives, he has the power to call them.

The commission will also be funded at the starting point of a budget of up to some $50 million, and the Premier has asked that there be a report within 12 months. We should not have to wait years for answers so that action can be taken quickly, swiftly and immediately and those who need to be held accountable are held to account. Not only that, but of course some additional powers for IBAC that were touched on at the time the Premier made those announcements were the changes to expand IBAC’s jurisdiction. That legislation, which was a commitment to draft back in August, last month, has seen us come to this position today, where that legislation is before the Parliament. The Premier made some further comments in regard to those matters when he said on 8 September that:

Victorians rightly expect public money to be spent properly and for their state to be led with transparency.

We cannot allow corruption to slip through the cracks.

We also need to make sure that the overwhelming thousands of Victorian workers who commit themselves every day to build the infrastructure that supports our communities are also protected and supported in their daily working lives. This royal commission will also make sure that occurs, and these additional powers for IBAC are supported by the government.

 Vicki WARD (Eltham – Minister for Public Transport, Minister for Creative Industries) (14:48): I ‍move:

That the debate be now adjourned.

Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.

Ordered that debate be adjourned until later this day.