Wednesday, 9 September 2026

 James NEWBURY (Brighton) (14:49): I rise to speak on the Inquiries Amendment (Special Prosecutor) Bill 2026. What Victorians would expect when they hear that a bill is before the house to establish a special prosecutor is that the bill would enable the creation of both the role and the powers associated with it. That is what I think every Victorian would expect. What this bill does is create the special prosecutor as a position in Victoria, but it does not draft the powers that are attached to that special prosecutor, because, as the government have admitted, they will do that in tranche 2 of the legislation. As the government has said, this bill creates an office. It is much like everything this government does on integrity: hollow. It creates an office, a position that exists, but then we shall wait six months if the government is elected – and I do hope Victorians see otherwise – for a second bill that will create additional powers and functions for the special prosecutor and provide for information sharing, investigation and prosecutorial powers.

I put and submit to the chamber at the commencement of this contribution that we have a bill before us that creates a special prosecutor without prosecutorial powers. This bill does not provide a special prosecutor with prosecutorial powers. The only reason that this bill could have passed through the government process to be in the chamber before us today without someone along the road saying, ‘Maybe the special prosecutor needs prosecutorial powers,’ is because someone, when that question was asked along the way, answered the question with, ‘But we need to do something before the election.’

A member interjected.

James NEWBURY: Speaker, the minister at the table just swore across the table at me.

The SPEAKER: Member for Brighton, I did not hear.

Vicki Ward interjected.

James NEWBURY: You may deny it, but you just did it.

The SPEAKER: The member for Brighton to continue.

James NEWBURY: Speaker, I have just raised the issue with you.

The SPEAKER: I did not hear it, member for Brighton, so I cannot make a ruling.

James NEWBURY: Speaker, I am very, very disappointed.

The SPEAKER: Member for Brighton, you did not ask for a withdrawal.

James NEWBURY: I ask for a withdrawal.

Vicki Ward interjected.

The SPEAKER: The member for Brighton to continue.

James NEWBURY: The special prosecutorial bill that is before us is without prosecutorial powers. You do not have to take my word for it. You can look at the minister’s second-reading speech, which I have here, which says that it will not be until early 2027 before prosecutorial powers are enabled. How can it be that we have a bill before us that creates a special prosecutor without any powers for at least six months? I do hope, as I said, the good people of Victoria see otherwise and change the government in November. But how can it be that the minister in their speech to this chamber has said that they have rushed this bill – my words – so quickly that they have created a position, an office, which I presume is going to be paid, without any powers attached to it, so without prosecutorial powers? I think any Victorian would presume a special prosecutor can prosecute; it is in the name. No, they cannot. The minister has said so in their speech.

I would put, before we even begin debate on this bill, that like with everything that comes from this government on integrity, it is all hollow. It is all about being able to put out a media release, hold a press conference and say, ‘I have done something.’ Well, the minister in the speech on this bill admits that the underlying function, the power that enables a prosecutor to prosecute, is not enabled by this bill. I think every Victorian would expect a prosecutor to have prosecutorial powers. Otherwise, what are they? A special nothing. They are called a special prosecutor; you would expect them to have the power to prosecute. But no, we do not have that.

When it comes to funding, I would like to put something on the record and to the Premier’s office. In relation to this bill, we met with the government, including with the Premier’s office, and we enabled an immediate introduction on the bill. In good faith we did that. In the briefing on this bill one of the questions I asked was about the cost of the special prosecutor, which is not an unreasonable question. The Premier’s private office said to me that we would be provided with a funding envelope, a figure of the cost. I asked a follow-up question: ‘Do you give me a commitment that before this bill is debated you will provide the funding amount for the special prosecutor to me?’ I was given an ironclad commitment that I would be. I was then sent an email saying that the special prosecutor will be funded, which is a clear breach of the promise. I say to the Premier directly: the Premier’s office provided a guarantee to me in an opportunity where we considered this bill in good faith, and we would expect that that guarantee was lived up to, especially on a matter of integrity. The Premier’s personal office, at one of the highest levels, broke that promise. I would say to the Premier: when you give a commitment and you do so on integrity, you should live up to it, and that has not occurred in this case. We do not know how much the special prosecutor will cost. We do not know the funding envelope. What we do know, because of the speech in relation to this bill, is that the prosecutor will not have prosecutorial powers. That is something we do know because the minister outlined that in the speech. But the commitment of how much the cost of operating the office will be, despite a commitment given, was not provided.

I do want to note that the opposition will not be opposing the bill. As I said earlier, we assisted in facilitating both this and the IBAC reform that came to the chamber yesterday and was debated further today in fact. I put to the government that we would be supportive of those bills passing through the house sooner. The government said that they did not want to pass those bills through the house sooner. We put the position that these are very serious reforms, and we felt they should be in the Council at the latest by Thursday. The government has taken a different view and has seen the view to be that these bills do not need to be rushed and can take extra time to be debated, so there is no rush in the government’s mind. Perhaps it is because, in relation to the special prosecutor bill, all this bill does is creates a special prosecutor without prosecutorial powers. Perhaps there is no need when all we are doing is creating an office which is going to cost an amount of money, which the government will not provide publicly, without prosecutorial powers. Again I say we would have been more than happy to facilitate speedy passage through the house and movement into the Council.

We do have a concern, and the concern aligns with one of the concerns we had with the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission Amendment Bill 2026, which is why under standing orders I wish to advise the house of amendments to this bill and request that they be circulated. What we are seeking to amend, which is aligned with the IBAC amendment of yesterday, is the removal of the public interest immunity. In relation to the IBAC legislation, that executive privilege, as many would understand it to be, or Crown privilege, as people who have been here longer would understand it, allows a minister, a former minister, a Premier or a former Premier to claim privilege on information or documents they may hold. In relation to the IBAC legislation we moved an amendment yesterday which would seek to remove that privilege. I suspect over the coming couple of weeks before these bills are considered in the Council there will be some public debate over this issue as to whether or not a minister, a former minister, a Premier or a former Premier should have the right to simply say, ‘No, I don’t want to cooperate with IBAC. No, I don’t want to cooperate with a royal commission.’

The difference between the amendment that was circulated just now and the amendment that was circulated yesterday is yesterday’s removed that immunity as it related to an IBAC investigation, and what this amendment does is remove that immunity as it relates to the royal commission, because we are dealing with the Inquiries Act 2014. Our amendment today aligns with yesterday’s amendment, and we would be seeking to remove that executive immunity in relation to a royal commission. I do not think any Victorian would believe that it is reasonable for a minister, former minister, Premier or former Premier to deny the right of access to certain information or documents. I do not think many Victorians would know that immunity exists whereby, for example, former Premier Daniel Andrews could simply say to a royal commissioner who asked for a document or information, ‘I won’t give you that document because I don’t have to,’ and there is no process by which they have to provide an explanation for that declining of information. They simply can say no. The act as it currently stands says they can do that.

For the house’s background, because this will be where the debate gets interesting on this amendment, Labor agrees with me. I can see the Labor members wondering, ‘Really? How could that possibly be? I don’t agree with the member for Brighton ever.’ But the Labor government agrees publicly with the removal of executive immunity. In fact after the Royal Commission into the Management of Police Informants, this Labor government committed to removing the immunity by May 2022. When was that? That was four years ago. Four years ago the government committed – having already by that time committed – to removing the immunity in response to a previous royal commission. So over five years ago, 5½ years ago, this government committed to accepting a finding of that royal commission. If you look on the Victorian government website right now, you will see in the government’s response that commitment being agreed to being delivered by May 2022. It is on the government’s current website, to help everybody who is watching. You can google it, and you can find that the government committed to doing that by May 2022. By May 2022 the government committed to removing that executive privilege. You would ask yourself, ‘Well, who was the Premier at that time?’ Former Premier Daniel Andrews. I do not want to be unkind, but I can certainly understand, perhaps, why that commitment to a royal commission has not yet been lived up to, considering who was Premier.

I hear members asking, ‘But no-one in recent times could have possibly used the public interest immunity, because no-one in executive government would decline the executive immunity, would they?’ Well, can I say to you, the last person to use public interest immunity was former Premier Daniel Andrews. After his commitment to remove that immunity in 2023, former Premier Daniel Andrews used his executive privilege when it came to – I am sure the house will not be surprised to hear – the Commonwealth Games. When it came to the Commonwealth Games, he used his executive privilege, and he used his privilege not on a particular request that was put to him. He used it before any request was put to him. He claimed executive privilege on the issue, full stop. He did not wait to hear what he was going to be asked, he did not wait to hear what document he may be asked to provide. He simply claimed entire executive privilege when it came to the Commonwealth Games, which frankly I do not think would surprise any Victorian.

But this debate matters, because the amendment we have circulated today is in line with a commitment given by this Labor government five years ago, that they promised to have implemented four years ago. This amendment is in line with a commitment they have not only previously made publicly but that is currently on the Victorian government website as to be delivered by May 2022. The government is either going to vote for the amendment in line with their commitment which is public and which is in response to a royal commission or they are not. Every Victorian can assume that if the government votes against this amendment, what they are saying is that when it comes to the royal commission that has been created, they want ministers and former ministers, premiers and former premiers, to have the right to say no to the royal commission when it comes knocking. That is the only possible reason you could want the executive privilege, the public interest immunity, to exist in the Inquiries Act. We as a coalition have a strong view that when it comes to our chief anti-corruption agency, IBAC, and when it comes to the royal commission, if they come and ask for a document and a former minister or a former premier has that document, we would expect that it be provided.

This is not a frivolous request. I understand public interest immunity may need to exist in many other circumstances, but when it comes to the chief integrity agency and a royal commission, I do not think any Victorian would think it is reasonable for a minister, former minister, premier or former premier to say no when those bodies come knocking at the door. This is why we not only proposed it in relation to IBAC but we are proposing it in relation to this bill, because we believe that in those two circumstances specifically it is only reasonable that that power not exist for a former member of this place, a member of the executive, to hide what they know from an anti-corruption body. The privilege, though it should exist in some circumstances, is effectively, when it comes to an integrity agency’s request, hiding information from that integrity agency. That is the only possible way you could see it. I presume that is why the Labor government committed to removing it, and I agree with them. I agree with their public commitment that that they will remove it, which is on their website, because it should not exist.

We are here with this bill because we have seen, and every Victorian has seen, the most outrageous corruption occur in Victoria, perhaps the worst corruption scandal we have seen in Australia’s history, a minimum $15 billion corruption. This bill and the IBAC legislation yesterday are acts from a dying government, from an end-of-days government, because they know they have been caught. It has been a long, long process to get here, and in both the legislation yesterday and the legislation today it is disappointing to see that though there is action, it is partly hollow action.

Although we will not oppose it – as I said earlier, we will support both yesterday’s and today’s legislation – it is worth noting that this bill has been so rushed. The minister themself in the second-reading speech admitted that the special prosecutor bill will not have prosecutorial powers for an estimated six months, I would suspect. I mean, can you believe that the special prosecutor is being created without prosecutorial powers? What is it? What is it going to do? I will admit the bill enables information sharing. It enables the creation of the office, and it does allow information sharing – for example, with the royal commission. But as the Premier himself said, this special prosecutor is being created to enable prosecutorial action to occur, and for the bill to not enable that I think says everything about the hollowness of action when it comes to the corruption on the Big Build. And on the corruption on the Big Build, there are a number of points I want to make.

We know from public reports and the good work of many in the media, but specifically Nick McKenzie, that this government had known for a long time about the corruption that was occurring on government worksites. We know of warnings in early 2022, four years ago, and that the former Premier, who was at the time infrastructure minister with responsibility for these projects, was warned about labour hire firm Marda Dandhi, and those issues have been raised in this chamber and publicly, and those allegations were put to her. We also know of allegations that were put to the now Attorney-General in a meeting on the Big Build site. So there were very senior ministers in this government – and this is all on the public record – who had very specific corruption allegations put to them, very serious allegations in terms of both union behaviour but also behaviour in relation to crime. You would think that especially as a senior minister, but any minister – and you would hope even a member of the backbench – if any instance is put to you, if someone pulls you aside and says that crimes A, B, C, D and E are occurring when you are on that site, you would do something about that.

We saw famously when it came to the Attorney that when asked in relation to crimes and matters that were put to her on the government worksite, she initially publicly suggested that those allegations were put to police and then was forced to make a clarifying statement admitting that was not true. Those allegations were not put by the Attorney to police. They were passed on internally. They were not put to police. We know that, because that was a breach of then Premier Jacinta Allan’s edict that she had an expectation that where an allegation of criminal behaviour was put that would be referred to police. So for the Attorney to be forced to admit that that had not happened spoke volumes. But we also know when allegations were put to former Premier Jacinta Allan when she was the minister responsible, she wrote sometime later to IBAC in relation to those allegations. Although she wrote to IBAC in July 2024, almost two years after allegations were first raised with her, very swiftly I might say, in October of that same year – three months later – IBAC wrote back and said, ‘We don’t have the powers to investigate what you’re referring to,’ and those matters were referred to police.

You would think, at the time a senior minister or Premier with that information would have done something about that. We did not find out, as Victorians, about that response until this year. We found out this year that the former Premier was covering up the fact that she received a response saying IBAC could not do anything about it. The reason that referral matters is because, as the Premier has said, the special prosecutor, the royal commission and the IBAC legislation are all matters that are intertwined. Then Premier Allan’s referral to IBAC cannot be investigated by IBAC despite the legislation introduced in this place yesterday because its retrospectivity blocks that sort of investigation other than when it is new. You would expect that if the current Premier wrote to an agency and said, ‘Here is a former referral; I would seek your support on that referral,’ IBAC would have the power to do so. They do not, despite it being a Premier’s referral.

I do hope that this Parliament, across the chambers, takes the IBAC bill – and I suspect it will – and significantly enhances it, because we have an opportunity with the IBAC bill to enhance it, just as we have with this special prosecutor bill. Given the time perhaps we could have substantially enhanced it to give the special prosecutor prosecutorial powers, which would have been a novel idea, but given the time that would have been rather difficult to draft. However, one thing we can do as a Parliament is pick up the amendment that stops a member of the executive from claiming privilege and not passing on information they may have to the royal commission. That is what this amendment that I have put to the chamber will do: it will enable the royal commission to ask for information from ministers, former ministers, premiers and former premiers and they will be required to provide it, which every Victorian would expect. That position, I say again, is in line with the commitment given by this Labor government that was due to be completed in May 2022 – over four years ago. It will be an interesting debate on the amendment as to whether their public commitment to a royal commission finding is one that they live up to or whether they support the amendment outright, which is what I put to them.

I will finish on the point that I began with and say when it comes to integrity the government is always hollow, and this bill is proof of that. The minister, in his own speech, said that this bill does not enable the basic functionality of the special prosecutor other than the creation of the office because the prosecutorial powers will not be enabled for at least six months. We do not oppose the bill; we will support that creation, but we do note that, like everything else, with integrity this government is hollow.

 Nina TAYLOR (Albert Park) (15:19): This bill is part of the Carroll government’s commitment to integrity and to acting on allegations of crime, corruption and misconduct on government-funded major construction projects in Victoria. The Premier’s first act on assuming office was to call a royal commission into crime and misconduct in Victoria’s construction industry. Victorians 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. The royal commission, which was established on 20 August 2026, will give Victorians those answers.

This bill is a very important part of this integrity process. The bill will provide important new resources and powers to the royal commission. It will create the office of the special prosecutor to work alongside the commission to refer individuals to authorities for prosecution or regulatory action. It will also provide the commission with new powers to compel the production of information and witness statements – not just documents – and attendance to give evidence at hearings.

I am disappointed in some of the points put forward by the member for Brighton seeking to trivialise the significance of the reforms that we are bringing before the Parliament today. He might think, ‘Oh, free kick here, we can give a kick to the government and further undermine Victorians’ opinions of parliamentary processes or integrity processes’ – that quick win. But in the long run what it does do is denigrate the opinion, if you like, or the perception of all integrity processes when you seek to get that quick win and brush over in such a disrespectful manner the critical elements that are being established as part of these reforms. Sometimes you need to think a couple of steps ahead rather than of the quick win or quick grab on your social media to undermine integrity agencies more broadly and the critical work that is being undertaken and the reforms that are being brought about today. For instance, the special prosecutor will have the authority to refer individuals to law enforcement agencies in real time. You would not know that if you had just listened to what the member for Brighton put before the chamber. He drove a tractor over the nuanced elements of this legislation. That is actually disrespecting not only those who have drafted the legislation but the intention that underpins its seriousness in terms of our commitment to delivering on these integrity elements that are very important to all members of the government and, more broadly, to Victorians across the state.

The further limb to that and a fundamental omission on the part of the member for Brighton was to reflect in an appropriate way on why there are two tranches to these reforms. I am going to speak to that, because I think Victorians deserve to know. They deserve to know the truth. This is phase 1 of the establishment of the special prosecutor. A re-elected Carroll government will introduce legislation to specify further powers and functions of the special prosecutor. Why are there two tranches? It is not a hollow element; there is actually a very solid rationale as to why these reforms are being delivered in two tranches, and I will explain it right here.

It is essential that any additional powers and functions are developed carefully and in consultation with the commission, with Victoria Police, with IBAC, with the Office of Public Prosecutions and with others to ensure they do not prejudice or unduly interfere with their existing powers and functions. If the member for Brighton actually gives credence to these processes – to the work of Victoria Police, to the work of IBAC, to the OPP – then surely he would have given consideration to these important elements that are underpinning the process in terms of having two tranches to these reforms. It is extremely disappointing that he did not bother to do that or, rather, he deliberately omitted these important elements in the reforms. But I am pleased to say I am happy to speak to these, because Victorians deserve to know. They deserve to know the truth. The intervening period will enable the appropriate model of interaction between the different entities to be designed based on the commission’s specific operating model. Ergo we want the royal commission to achieve the outcomes that I think all Victorians deserve in the long run. I am trying to simplify this because we know that we are dealing with extremely complex matters. That is why I was so disappointed with the member for Brighton, because it is much easier to slash and burn and to undermine and to trivialise rather than to actually speak to the truth of the reforms that are being brought about.

In the meantime the special prosecutor will have a significant role in assisting the work of the commission as an expert, dedicated and embedded resource. So instead of just dismissing it as, ‘Oh, it’s just a little appointment that doesn’t really do anything,’ which was the inference of the member for Brighton, I think it is really important that we be factual and actually represent this position and the authority which the special prosecutor will have, and moreover, the purpose behind the two tranches to the reforms, also not dismissing the importance of the functions et cetera and the consultation that is required to ensure that the royal commission can achieve the outcomes that we want it to achieve.

I know that I am perhaps labouring this point to some extent, but I think it would be very sad for Victorians to think that this bill and the reforms being brought about were merely ceremonial. Because that was the impression I had, that it was merely a ceremonial piece, when in fact it is a very important part of the work that will help support the best possible outcomes in terms of both the inquisitorial element, which will be the royal commission, and the prosecutorial element, which will be that of the special prosecutor, noting the two tranches and noting that even within the first tranche there are important elements in terms of the authority that the special prosecutor will have and their ability to be able to fulfil the functions of that role.

Another important element that I alluded to at the outset is the power to compel production of information. Clause 4 of the bill gives Victorian royal commissions new powers to compel the production of information and witness statements. This will broaden the existing powers under the Inquiries Act 2014. Currently Victorian royal commissions can compel the production of documents and the attendance of an individual to give evidence at a hearing, but this does not enable them to compel the production of information that does not exist in documentary form or is not readily identifiable across a multitude of documents in advance of calling an individual to give evidence at a formal hearing. The new power will enable the construction royal commission and future royal commissions to compel a person via written notice to give information or a statement in writing before a specified time and in a specified manner. This is intended to include information created from a person’s knowledge, in addition to information held in documents. These new powers will assist the royal commission to target its efforts and avoid unnecessary cost and delay, if I round out that proposition, by obtaining specific information without needing to call for or trawl through vast document searches, obtaining relevant information from an individual in circumstances where no relevant documents exist and identifying who has what information relevant to the commission’s inquiry before convening formal hearings by requiring a witness statement.

This is another very important element to the reforms and will help with the royal commission in terms of ensuring that it will have the ability to obtain thorough and fulsome evidence in a targeted and efficient manner. It is also a pity that the member for Brighton neglected to speak to that element of the reforms as well, but I am happy to, because I believe Victorians deserve to know the truth and they deserve to know why we are putting forward these important reforms before the chamber today.

 Tim McCURDY (Ovens Valley) (15:29): Acting Speaker O’Keeffe, it is a delight to see you in the chair, and what a great representative you have been for your community. I rise today to speak on the Inquiries Amendment (Special Prosecutor) Bill 2026, a bill that finally acknowledges what Victorians have known for years: that our integrity system has been too weak, too constrained and too easily avoided. This bill is a direct response to the failures that have plagued major construction projects in this state – failures of governance, failures of transparency and failures of accountability. While the opposition support the bill, we do so with a clear understanding of its limitations and with a firm commitment to strengthening it through the member for Brighton’s amendments. Integrity is not a slogan. It is not a press release. It is not a political shield. Integrity is a system, and that system must be strong enough to withstand pressure and politics, and Labor has failed that test time and time again. The new Premier Carroll stood up on day one and said, ‘Integrity will not be optional.’ Well, this tells me two things: (1) integrity was clearly optional under his two predecessors and (2) he is desperate to distance himself from the past two Labor premiers. If Premier Carroll wants to prove to Victorians that he is the new broom –

Danny Pearson: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, I am sorry but the member has been here long enough to know that appropriate titles should be used.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Kim O’Keeffe): Correct titles, please.

Tim McCURDY: Premier Carroll?

Danny Pearson: No.

Tim McCURDY: Somebody else, obviously.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Kim O’Keeffe): Would you let us know what you are referring to?

Danny Pearson: He is the Premier. You refer to him as Premier.

Tim McCURDY: So he is not Premier Carroll, he is the Premier. What happened to Premier Allan and Premier Andrews?

Danny Pearson: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, just so we are clear, for the member’s benefit ‍– I know he has been here since 2010 – correct titles are to be used. So the former Premier is the member for Bendigo East. She remains the member for Bendigo East. She should be referred to as the member for Bendigo East. The Premier is the Premier – full stop. He should know this now after 16 years.

Tim McCURDY: Thank you for raising that. Where is the member for Bendigo East? I have not seen her for a few weeks. She has got a job to do, and we are paying for it. Where is she? They are very quick to say when someone from our side is not here. The same thing goes on your side; we have just got to have the same standards. The current Premier stood up on day one and said, ‘Integrity isn’t optional’, and as I said before, clearly it was optional under his two predecessors, the two former premiers.

Emma Kealy interjected.

Tim McCURDY: Labor premiers. As I say, he is desperate to distance himself from those past Labor premiers. If the new Premier wants to prove to Victorians that he is the new broom to sweep Victoria clean, he could start by accepting our amendment today that has been put forward by the member for Brighton. We know that the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission Amendment Bill 2026 earlier this week has demonstrated that by not allowing IBAC to look back on recent premiers’ decisions it reeks of yet another Labor cover-up. Victorians are tired of the waste and the corruption, and it was this Premier’s opportunity to show he is different and he does want the change that Victorians yearn for. But sadly, after 12 years of waste, corruption and secrecy, nothing is changing.

Victorians know that strengthening the royal commission powers is way overdue and necessary. Clause 4 of the bill amends section 17 of the Inquiries Act 2014 to allow a royal commission to compel written information or written statements. This is sensible and overdue reform. For too long, royal commissions have been forced to rely on oral evidence or document production alone. In complex matters, especially those involving layered contracting, obscure governance structures and sophisticated legal arrangements, written statements are essential. They allow investigators to test evidence, identify inconsistencies and build a consistent factual record. This reform strengthens the Royal Commission into the Integrity of Major Public and Civil Infrastructure Construction Projects in Victoria’s ability to uncover the truth, and the opposition supports it. We also recognise that this is a new power and it will be meaningless if witnesses can simply refuse to comply by invoking the public interest immunity. That is why the opposition will move the amendment circulated by the member for Brighton to repeal section 18(2)(c), removing public interest immunity as a reasonable excuse for failing to comply with a royal commission requirement. This is not radical and it is not controversial; it is just the direct implementation of recommendation 91 of the Royal Commission into the Management of Police Informants. It is what integrity experts have been calling for, and it is what Victorians expect. If the government is serious about strengthening royal commissions, it will support our amendment; if not, Victorians can draw their own conclusions, which I think they already have.

We know that when establishing a special prosecutor independence matters. We look for clarity and accountability. The bill also establishes detailed arrangements for the disclosure, transfer and provision of information between the royal commission, the special prosecutor and other appropriate bodies. This is essential. Integrity systems fail when information is siloed. They fail when agencies do not communicate between one another. They fail when evidence is lost, delayed or trapped behind legal barriers. Victoria cannot afford another four years of the same disgraceful behaviour that has plagued the current government. These provisions ensure that evidence can move efficiently and lawfully between the bodies, they ensure that action is taken where required and they ensure that documents are returned and accounted for. The opposition supports these provisions because they are practical, they are necessary and they will strengthen the functioning of the construction royal commission.

I want to touch on the fact that the bill provides for a two-year appointment for the special prosecutor, extendable in 12-month increments. It also repeals the special prosecutor’s provision six months after the royal commission’s final report is tabled. These are sensible safeguards. They ensure the office exists long enough to complete its work but not so long that it becomes a permanent bureaucracy. The extension of Freedom of Information Act 1982 exemptions to special prosecutor documents is also appropriate, and we know that sensitive prosecution material must be protected while investigations are ongoing, and the opposition supports those provisions.

However, we also know that this legislation lacks important measures, and that is why we will move that amendment. A targeted, principled, integrity-focused amendment, as I say, was tabled by the member for Brighton earlier today. We will amend the Inquiries Act 2014 to remove public interest immunity as a reasonable excuse for failing to comply with the royal commission requirement. This includes repealing section 18(2)(c) and making consequential amendments. We know this reform is essential. In fact the Carroll government knows it is essential, but we will find out this week if anything has changed and whether they support our amendment. There is all the bluff and bluster about how this new government is not like the old, tired, corrupt administrations, but it appears to be the same horse with a different jockey. I think the outcome will be the same.

Public interest immunity has been used and misused to shield cabinet documents, contracting material and sensitive information from scrutiny. It has also been used to frustrate investigations. It has been used to delay accountability. We all know about Operation Richmond and various other things like that. It has been used to prevent royal commissions from accessing the very documents they need to uncover the truth. As I said earlier, recommendation 91 of the police informants royal commission made this clear. The government accepted that recommendation on principle; now it must accept it in practice. We will see what the reality of that turns out to be. Our amendment ensures that the new written information power cannot be resisted on the basis of public interest immunity and ensures that the special prosecutor can access the material that they need.

If we want Victoria to be transparent again and get out of this secrecy that we have had for the last 12 ‍years, we need to do better and we need to look further. That is why I implore the government to look seriously at this amendment and seriously consider that this will help with transparency and will actually help the prosecutor to do their job better to make sure that the royal commission gets the results that we need, not just hiding people from what they do not want to see but actually getting to the bottom of everything so we can see what actually went wrong so we can ensure that it never happens again.

 Bronwyn HALFPENNY (Thomastown) (15:39): I also rise to speak on this legislation, the Inquiries Amendment (Special Prosecutor) Bill 2026. Of course this is, as previous speakers have said, legislation that is complementary to the royal commission that has been established to investigate allegations of criminal and corrupt behaviour on government building projects. As we know, a royal commission conducts an inquiry. They investigate matters and then, following those investigations, they come up with recommendations and findings, but they do not actually then take the next step, which is acting on those findings and recommendations, particularly if they are of a law enforcement nature. So as contained in this bill, the office of the special prosecutor will be set up. They will be, if you like, the arm that connects the police and other law enforcement agencies with the commission. The expectation is that this would fast-track or act on findings in a real-time situation rather than just waiting for the royal commission to issue its final report.

Victorians have been shocked about the allegations of organised crime, extortion and corruption that have been made against various organisations and individuals that have been working on building sites on government projects. Of course none of us condone that sort of behaviour, and we all want to make sure that we get to the bottom of it. Victorians need answers, and that is why the Premier, as soon as he became Premier, announced that there would be a royal commission into the Big Build projects.

I just have a little bit more about the actual office of the special prosecutor, and then I will go into a few other matters around the Big Build projects and also address some of the issues around the opposition’s very cynical and sort of disingenuous political stunt in terms of the amendment that they are looking to make. But first, in terms of the legislation that we are debating today, as I said earlier, this would set up the office of the special prosecutor, who would then be working alongside the royal commission. In order to do this there had to be legislation, one, to actually set up this office, because it is a new thing; but also to outline some of the powers, the allocation of some resources to this office in order for it to become established and some of the parameters around which it must operate – for example, the ability for special prosecutor office and the royal commission to share information but also ensure that the sharing of that information means that the special prosecutor’s office also has the same obligations when it comes to confidentiality and any other purposes or uses of that information.

Before I address the amendment that the opposition is talking about, I also just want to acknowledge the many very committed and highly skilled workers who have worked on our nation-building projects in Victoria, workers that really should be proud of and are proud of the work that they have done, the contributions they have made and the skills that they have put into these amazing projects, and you can look at the Metro Tunnel or the West Gate Tunnel and even the Thomastown area, where we have got the Keon Park level crossing removal. There were some incredibly difficult challenges there because of the substation that was nearby and all the overhead wires. They had to navigate all the utilities in order to come up with the design and build that level crossing and the new station. It really was incredibly skilled work, and it showed the commitment and the dedication of lots and lots of different people. To name a few, there were members of the ETU, members of the AMWU, members of the plumbers union and the AWU and also of course all the engineers, administrative staff and so on who go into making these great projects become a reality.

While we are talking about royal commissions and investigating wrongdoing, it is also really important to acknowledge the incredible work that has been done by workers on those jobs who have had nothing to do with the allegations that have been made and who also can feel proud that they have contributed so much to the state. These projects are not just about building things, they are also about making it easier for Victorians – easier to get around, which is the purpose of level crossing removals, and also allowing more trains and services so people can get around, whether by public transport or on the road.

Then we look at the building of the Northern Health mental health hospital, the huge expansion at the Northern Hospital and the soon-to-be-coming construction of the bigger and better emergency department. We have had the Epping Road duplication. All of these things not only make it quicker for people to get around and easier but they increase productivity because people are not on the road for so long getting from home to work. Also, it is better for trucks, which are getting places quicker and that is a huge increase in efficiency for them. There is nothing more important and vital for the whole of Australia and the world at this point than to have increases in productivity to ensure that we can have good, strong economic growth and ensure that people are in jobs.

These projects were not just about building nation-building infrastructure, they also provided training for many, many apprentices in the various trades. They have also given back to the community. I know many of the tennis clubs and the schools around these projects also benefited from them, whether it was some resources provided to them to do a garden or to have some concreting done for a driveway that was near the road. All of these things were benefits on top of the actual project that we all see.

The metal industry is quite strong still in the northern suburbs, and all the steel and metal manufacturing and structural steel that was being used had to be Australian or Victorian-made to go on these projects, keeping all of these small businesses in work. I will give a shout-out to Hi-Lux Technical Services, which is a fantastic business. He gets offended if I say ‘small’ because it is not small – dozens of people work there, lots of apprentices. He does a lot of the traffic signalling and the flashing electronic signs that we see on our roads telling us what speed we have to go and providing warnings. I hope they continue to do work for the Department of Transport and Planning.

But just quickly – I got too carried away with all the fantastic building projects in the electorate of Thomastown – in terms of the amendment that the opposition want to make, it really is just smoke and mirrors because when we are talking about public interest immunity, this is pretty standard. The provision in this legislation is pretty stock standard. It all comes down to public interest, whether it is in the public interest to provide documents or not provide documents. That is a very standard part of legislation. And to say that that ought to be changed just to make a political statement or to try and somehow make out that the government is trying to do something wrong or underhanded is just a complete falsehood.

We should ignore this sort of trivialisation of legislation like this, which is so important to get to the bottom of wrongdoing and illegal activity. We cannot really be sidetracked or going down rabbit holes that the opposition is trying to put up when in fact what this legislation covers is all about the public interest. These are very standard benchmarks and requirements and the legislation really needs to be passed as soon as we can so that we can get on with business and really find out what has been going on. I have to just say, in terms of the projects in Thomastown, they have always been on budget and they have also been delivered on time.

 Anthony MARSH (Nepean) (15:48): The establishment of a special prosecutor to assist the Royal Commission into the Integrity of Major Public and Civil Infrastructure Construction Projects in Victoria is important because people involved in corrupting $15 billion of taxpayer money should go to jail. There should be an office that can work independently with the commission, receive material from it and ensure relevant information can be provided to Victoria Police, IBAC, regulators and other bodies capable of taking further action. This bill provides that the special prosecutor is not subject to any direction of Premier Carroll or any other ministers in the performance of their functions. It establishes information-sharing arrangements, confidentiality obligations and an offence for unauthorised disclosure.

But the title the government has chosen disguises an extraordinary limitation of Labor’s bill. It establishes an office called the special prosecutor, but the bill confers no prosecutorial powers on that office. It does not confer any power to commence or conduct criminal prosecution. Instead, proposed section 52K(2) gives the special prosecutor the function of working with the commission to provide relevant information to Victoria Police, IBAC, regulators and other bodies so that entities can consider whether to take action. Labor is asking this Parliament to create a special prosecutor without giving the special prosecutor the power to prosecute. Even the government’s own announcement concedes that the office will only be equipped with additional powers next year. The government is legislating the title now but promising action later. Victorians were promised an office that would ensure wrongdoing uncovered by the royal commission is acted on, but what this bill actually creates today is an administrative information-sharing mechanism and an office carrying a prosecutorial title.

But perhaps the most important issue in this debate is what the bill leaves untouched. Clause 4 creates new powers for a royal commission to compel a person by written notice to provide written information or a written statement. The government says in the very purpose of the bill that this is strengthening a royal commission’s power to require information. However, section 18 of the Inquiries Act 2014 still provides that public interest immunity can be a reasonable excuse for refusing to comply with a royal commission notice. Public interest according to whom? The same politicians subject to a potential investigation?

The government is creating a new information-gathering power that cannot prosecute while leaving in place a statutory barrier that a Victorian royal commission told it to remove almost six years ago, one that Labor has promised to remove but never has. The issue was examined exhaustively by the Royal Commission into the Management of Police Informants. Its final report records that Victoria Police and other law enforcement agencies made thousands of public interest immunity claims. The commission concluded that the operation of the PII under the Inquiries Act seriously hindered its work and had a detrimental impact on its ability to inquire into matters that were relevant to its terms of reference. The commission therefore made recommendation 91, and I suggest that members opposite reread it. It recommended that the Victorian government amend the Inquiries Act within 18 months to remove the ability to refuse to provide information to a royal commission on the basis of public interest immunity. That time expired on 31 May 2022. The Labor government knew exactly what was required. It said it was on track to introduce amendments into the Parliament by that time, being 31 ‍May 2022, but unsurprisingly it missed its own deadline. By the end of 2022 the government was still saying it would continue to pursue amendments to the Inquiries Act. Those amendments, again, did not come. Rather than implement recommendation 91 through the legislation the commission expressly called for, the government moved towards whole-of-government administrative guidance on public interest immunity claims.

Bureaucratic guidance cannot repeal a section of the legislation, it cannot remove a statutory reasonable excuse and it cannot deliver the legislative reform that the royal commission recommended and the Labor government itself said it was on track to introduce. That failure matters more than ever because Victoria has another royal commission, and this bill’s stated purpose includes strengthening information-gathering powers. It is not enough to create an independent special prosecutor which, again, cannot prosecute if the commission can still be denied material by reliance on a statutory public interest immunity excuse. Independence after evidence is obtained is valuable, but the question today is whether that evidence can be obtained at all. That is why the coalition is moving its amendment. Where clause 4 expands the royal commission’s powers to compel information, we seek to remove public interest immunity as an excuse for refusing or failing to comply with a royal commission requirement, including by repealing section 18(2)(c) and making the necessary consequential changes.

A royal commission cannot investigate what it cannot see. It cannot uncover what is being wilfully hidden behind Crown privilege. Nobody is suggesting that sensitive information should be simply thrown into the public domain. That is not what recommendation 91 required, and it is not what our amendment seeks to do. The recommendation and our amendment are directed at removing public interest immunity as a basis for refusing to give information, answer a question or produce a document to a royal commission. Crown privilege should not be allowed to become a brick wall between a royal commission and the evidence it has been established to examine. That is particularly important in the context of the construction royal commission, where the conduct and decisions of this Labor government itself will be under scrutiny. If the inquiry reaches briefings, communications or decisions that are politically damaging, the Labor government should not be able to seek refuge behind a statutory public interest immunity claim to keep relevant material from the commission. The whole purpose of the royal commission is to follow the evidence wherever it may lead, including to ministers, departments, agencies and cabinet itself. By leaving section 18(2)(c) untouched, the Labor government is preserving a mechanism that could be used to frustrate any scrutiny of it.

After failing for years to implement recommendation 91, it is entirely reasonable to ask why it still wants that protection available now. I think everyone in this house and in the community knows why: the government cannot credibly establish a royal commission at the eleventh hour, bring forward legislation to strengthen its coercive powers, create a special prosecutor who cannot prosecute, act on the information it uncovers and at the same time preserve a mechanism capable of preventing the commission from obtaining the required evidence in the first place.

The amendment is years overdue. Recommendation 91 was made in 2020; the Premier was at the cabinet table. Perhaps he does not recall, and given the public interest immunity provisions that they are fighting for we may never know. Recommendation 91’s implementation deadline expired in 2022. The Labor government publicly said it was on track to legislate but then missed its own deadline. Now, in 2026, it brings a bill expressly designed to strengthen the royal commission’s information-gathering powers but leaves section 18(2)(c) untouched. The coalition supports a special prosecutor that is genuinely capable of assisting the construction royal commission. We support the flow of relevant information from the commission to enforcement and integrity agencies. We support proper confidentiality protections and genuine operational independence, but those mechanisms only have value if they can get to the evidence in the first place.

Labor have had nearly six years to implement recommendation 91, and it has been more than four years since the deadline set by the commission and that they agreed to themselves. It should not take an opposition amendment six years later to finish the work that this Labor government told Victorians it would do and was on track to do in 2022. If the Labor government is serious about a royal commission with real powers, it should support our amendment, remove the statutory public interest immunity barrier, give the commission access to the materials it needs and allow the inquiry to follow the evidence without fear or favour. That is the reform the royal commission recommended but is a reform Labor has failed to deliver. It is a mechanism that they now want to preserve so this corrupt Labor government can use its powers to cover up its own conduct. This Parliament should now finish the job, abolish the public interest immunity excuse and allow the commission to do the work the Victorian community expects us to do. To do otherwise would be an utter disgrace, but we all know integrity remains optional under this Premier and this Labor government.

 Gary MAAS (Narre Warren South) (15:57): I rise today, with the couple of minutes that I think I have before the dazzling matter of public importance from the member for Gippsland South, to support the Inquiries Amendment (Special Prosecutor) Bill 2026 that is before the house. The bill is a part of the Carroll government’s commitment to integrity and commitment to act on allegations of crime, corruption and misconduct on government-funded major construction projects in Victoria as part of the Big Build. We are acting to clean up our major construction sector and make it very clear that integrity is non-negotiable. Calling a royal commission was the Premier’s first act when he came into office, and Victorians deserve to know the answers to how organised crime has made its way onto building sites and the guarantee that it will not happen again. Calling for that royal commission will do that. Through its broad and expansive terms of reference, the commission will go deep to identify the nature and extent of corruption and criminal conduct, preventing future serious misconduct in the major construction sector.

This bill introduces amendments to the Inquiries Act 2014 to establish the office of the special prosecutor to work in conjunction with the construction royal commission. The bill itself will provide important new resources and powers to the royal commission and will create that office of the special prosecutor to work alongside the commission and refer individuals to authorities for prosecution or for regulatory action. It will also provide the commission with new powers to compel the production of information as well as witness statements – including documents but not just documents – and attendance to give evidence at hearings. I think, on that, I may leave it there and come back a bit later.

Business interrupted under sessional orders.