Thursday, 10 September 2026

 Lauren KATHAGE (Yan Yean) (10:42): I am pleased to continue my contribution on the Inquiries Amendment (Special Prosecutor) Bill 2026. The Premier’s first act on taking office was to announce that he would call a royal commission into crime and misconduct in Victoria’s construction industry, and that royal commission was formally established on 20 August. As we have seen, the terms of reference are exhaustive and expansive. It has a sufficient budget and has been asked to report within 12 months, because we want to see outcomes from this as soon as possible. It will identify the nature and the extent of any corruption or criminal conduct, as well as serious misconduct, associated with major public and civil infrastructure projects in Victoria. We want to see how it occurred, but we also want to understand how we can prevent it from occurring again and rebuild that trust within the construction sector. That is really important, but there is more that is needed. It is not the end of the job.

What this bill is doing is making sure that there are additional resources and powers that can amplify the positive impact of the royal commission. There are two central parts: the first one is the establishment of the office of the special prosecutor to work alongside the royal commission; and the second one is around extending the powers of the royal commission to be able to compel people to provide information and written statements rather than being limited to having to call people in to give evidence for existing documents. On that first point about the office of the special prosecutor being established alongside the royal commission, royal commissions are very powerful bodies, but they are not prosecuting bodies. The royal commission can compel evidence, it can examine witnesses, it can make findings, but it cannot charge somebody or prosecute somebody or compile a brief of evidence for prosecution. If that evidence is emerging during the course of the royal commission, Victorians should not have to wait for the conclusion of the royal commission to see action on that evidence or for appropriate authorities to consider what action should follow. That is why this bill is creating the office of the special prosecutor, which will work alongside the commission in real time as evidence emerges. It will be able to provide relevant information to Victoria Police, IBAC, regulatory and licensing authorities and other appropriate state and Commonwealth bodies. It is pretty straightforward. As I said, they work hand in glove to make sure that there is a positive outcome from this.

There is a bit of useful history behind this model. It is not something that Victoria has invented from scratch. We saw it with the Fitzgerald inquiry; we have seen it with the Brereton inquiry. There is one difference, and that is that the special investigator, following the Victoria Police Royal Commission into the Management of Police Informants, came after the commission and examined if there was sufficient evidence to bring criminal charges or disciplinary charges. This special prosecutor is going to work alongside the construction royal commission while it is operating, and that is one of the most important features of this bill. With that office of the special prosecutor, we want to make sure that there is public confidence in its work, so being really clear about its independence is crucial to that. The special prosecutor will be appointed by the Governor in Council on the recommendation of the Premier and after consultation with the royal commissioner. They need to have been a lawyer for at least eight years. It could be a Crown prosecutor, but that is not a requirement. The special prosecutor is not subject to the direction or control of the Premier or any other minister in carrying out their duties, and that is really important. They are also not an officer of the royal commission, they are independent.

That office of the special prosecutor itself remains a public body for the purposes of the IBAC act, which means that it itself will be subject to IBAC oversight. There are safeguards around the independence of that office to ensure its credibility. There are also going to be strict controls around information. There are confidentiality obligations, restrictions and exemptions applying to royal commission officers. You cannot just pass the information around; it needs to be carefully considered. That regulated flow of information between the commission, the special prosecutor and the relevant enforcement and regulatory authorities is looked at in this bill. Bodies receiving information from the special prosecutor can also report back about the action that they intend to take, so that makes it more than just a referral source. It means that it is a dedicated point of connection between the royal commission and the agencies that are able to act upon evidence that is brought forward.

Some of the detailed consideration around how the special prosecutor has independent prosecutorial powers will be looked at in the second tranche of what will be brought forward in early 2027, and that might need to include some additional information-sharing and investigatory powers. It is good to have the input from the experts and the agencies involved in that to make sure that what is put forward is workable and effective. In the meantime that special prosecutor has a really substantial job to do: assessing information as it emerges and getting it to the appropriate agencies so that action can be taken during the inquiry itself. That is the main thrust of this amendment.

Another section is less headline grabbing, but it is actually really important for the effective running of the commission in terms of efficiency, and that is clause 4, which expands what a royal commission can compel someone to provide. At the moment a royal commission can compel the production of documents and can require a person to come and to give evidence, but there can be a gap between those two things. To progress its work, the royal commission might just need a sliver of information from somebody about a particular thing or perhaps things that are across multiple witnesses, and to have to bring them all in just to get to that sliver, added up together, is not very efficient. Under this bill, a royal commission will be able to issue a written notice requiring a person to provide particular information or a written statement by a particular time and on a particular matter. It means that people will be required to answer specific questions from their own knowledge before the commission needs to call them to a hearing. There is no defensiveness about this. What we are doing here is setting it up so that if wrongdoing has occurred, it needs to be exposed. If systems have failed, that needs to be identified, and if people have broken the law, then we need to make sure that authorities have the evidence that they need to be capable of pursuing them. We also want to make sure that government decisions are looked at and examined as well. This is about integrity for our state.

 Chris CREWTHER (Mornington) (10:51): I rise to speak on the Inquiries Amendment (Special Prosecutor) Bill 2026. The Liberals and Nationals will support this bill, but we will seek to improve it with the amendments circulated by the member for Brighton. Our position is clear: establish the special prosecutor, ensure evidence uncovered by the royal commission can lead to lawful action and close a clear loophole that should have been fixed years ago. The bill is needed because a royal commission is an inquiry, not a criminal court. It can compel evidence, test allegations and expose misconduct, but it cannot itself investigate criminal offences, prepare a prosecution brief or lay charges. If the Royal Commission into the Integrity of Major Public and Civil Infrastructure Construction Projects in Victoria uncovers evidence of corruption, criminal conduct or serious misconduct, there must be a clear and secure pathway from discovery to action.

This bill creates a statutory office of the special prosecutor to work alongside the royal commission. It allows information to flow to Victoria Police, IBAC, regulatory and licensing authorities and other appropriate bodies so that they can consider action within their powers. It also gives royal commissions generally the power to require written information or a written statement that does not already exist. We support those objectives. We also support the requirement that the special prosecutor be an experienced Australian lawyer, act fairly and independently, remain beyond ministerial direction and be subject to IBAC oversight. Evidence must move securely without compromising investigations, reputations or future proceedings.

But the house should be candid about what this first tranche does. Despite the title, the special prosecutor’s principal role at this stage is to receive, assess and refer information – it is a special prosecutor who cannot prosecute. The government says that a second tranche in early 2027 may provide further investigative and prosecutorial powers and deal with the admissibility of evidence. We will scrutinise it carefully if it does come to that. The office must be given the independence, resources and legal tools required to do the job. The royal commission is examining grave allegations surrounding publicly funded construction, including alleged criminal infiltration, intimidation, manipulation of contracting and the misuse or waste of public money. These are allegations to be tested, not findings to be assumed, but Victorians are entitled to a fearless inquiry and real consequences whenever wrongdoing is established, especially with $15 billion of taxpayer funds – if not more – being wasted through corruption and misconduct.

The political history also matters. In July 2024 the Liberal and National opposition called for a full royal commission into alleged misconduct involving the CFMEU and Victoria’s construction industry. In February of this year we committed to establishing one if elected. This Labor government repeatedly refused. The former Premier was still resisting a royal commission as recently as July. Only after a change of Premier did the government reverse course and establish this inquiry on 20 August. We welcome that reversal because a late decision is better than continued denial, but Labor cannot airbrush the delay. Victorians deserve to know what happened on government-funded projects, how long it went on, whether warnings were ignored, who benefited and at what cost, and indeed what it did cost. Integrity cannot operate according to Labor’s political timetable. We need a stronger royal commission, not a cover-up commission, which is why the opposition have committed to strengthening it if elected into government.

For people in the Mornington electorate the cranes and tunnels of the Big Build can sometimes seem a long way from home; the consequences, though, are not. Every major project is funded by taxpayers from Mornington, Mount Martha, Mount Eliza, Moorooduc, Tuerong and the wider peninsula. Every dollar lost through corruption, inflated contracting or deliberate waste is a dollar that cannot be used to make a dangerous road safer, like we see everywhere right now with so many potholes from Mount Martha through to Mount Eliza. It might be used as well to support a local school, like our two local public secondary schools in both Mount Eliza and Mornington in need of upgraded facilities or indeed the Dromana college in the member for Nepean’s electorate, which we share a zone for. It could also be used to improve our health services, such as the much-needed Rosebud Hospital, or to put more police into our community.

The point is especially real this week. I tabled a petition launched by local resident Paddy and signed by 716 people calling for urgent safety action at the intersection of Mornington-Tyabb Road and Racecourse Road. They are not asking for an extravagance, they are simply asking the government to perform a basic duty and make a dangerous intersection safer. When local people are told to wait for essential works, they have every right to demand that billions spent elsewhere are managed honestly and competently.

This issue also affects tradies, subcontractors and small family businesses in our electorate. They work hard, employ apprentices and pay their bills. They deserve to compete on merit, not connections. Workers deserve safe sites and proper representation without intimidation. Lawful trade union activity and workplace safety must be protected, but no official, company, union or government is above the law. This is indeed a Liberal principle: one law for all. We believe government should be limited in its reach but strong in performing its essential duties. We believe independent institutions should follow the evidence without fear or favour. We believe taxes belong to the people who earn the money, so every public dollar must be accounted for, and we believe free enterprise works only when honest businesses can compete on a fair playing field.

This Labor government’s record is the contrast of this, increasingly so over their last 12 years in government. It resisted an inquiry while allegations mounted, and it is now asking Parliament to accept a bill that leaves an identified obstacle in the inquiry’s act untouched. Supporting the bill does not require us to overlook that omission, it requires us to fix it. Section 18(2)(c) of the Inquiries Act 2014 currently permits public interest immunity to be relied upon as a reasonable excuse for failing to comply with a royal commission requirement. During the Royal Commission into the Management of Police Informants, Victoria Police relied on public interest immunity in refusing access to 11 human source files. The commission did not challenge that refusal in the Supreme Court because of the time and cost involved, and it was left unable to satisfy itself about important matters within its inquiry.

That royal commission delivered recommendation 91 in November 2020. It called for the Inquiries Act to be amended within 18 months so that public interest immunity could not be used as a reason to refuse information, answers, documents or other things required by a royal commission. Nearly six years later section 18(2)(c) remains in force, and the government has not dealt with it in this bill. The government tells us that this legislation is about giving a royal commission stronger powers to find the truth, yet it has walked straight past section 18(2)(c), which expressly allows public interest immunity to be relied on as a reasonable excuse for refusing to give information to a royal commission.

What is the point of giving a royal commission stronger powers to ask the question if the legislation still expressly provides a pathway to refuse to give the answer? This, therefore, needs to be dealt with, so this coalition amendment that we are putting forward inserts a new clause 4A and repeals section ‍18(2)(c). It implements the substance of recommendation 91 and ensures the bill’s new written information power cannot be defeated by the very excuse a previous royal commission identified. This is also in line with the government’s 2022 recommendations to close this loophole, and indeed the government in 2022 said that they would so legislate, but they did not. Where they did not, we will.

This is a situation that does not require sensitive information to be published. The act’s confidentiality and information-handling protections continue to apply. It simply means that a claim of public interest immunity cannot be used to prevent a royal commission from receiving the material it needs to perform its task. The government should accept the amendment. If this government is serious about giving this royal commission the tools it needs, it cannot sensibly preserve a loophole that another royal commission expressly told it to close.

The people of the Mornington electorate and the people of Victoria do not expect special treatment, but they do expect honest government, safer roads, fair opportunities for local businesses and value for the taxes that they pay. They expect corruption and misconduct to be investigated regardless of who is involved or how politically inconvenient the facts may be. The Liberals and Nationals in opposition have been consistent in calling for this scrutiny. We support the establishment of the special prosecutor. We support a proper pathway from evidence to investigation and, where warranted, prosecution. We support the bill, but we urge the house to strengthen it by supporting our amendment moved by the member for Brighton, especially noting that the last major royal commission said that the current situation hindered its ability to find the truth. Let us support the special prosecutor but support this amendment to strengthen the bill.

 Sarah CONNOLLY (Laverton) (11:01): I too rise to speak on the Inquiries Amendment (Special Prosecutor) Bill 2026. This is a really important bill. It delivers on our Premier’s commitment to establish a royal commission into Victoria’s construction sector and to establish a special prosecutor. Today I am going to talk about why both of those two announcements are extremely important, and it is wonderful to have them before the house here today.

Like I said, the first act of our Premier when he assumed office was to call this royal commission, and it makes very clear the new priorities of this government as we look towards the future. The bills we are debating in this place this week make good on those commitments he made when he assumed office. I note that the other bill that is being debated this week delivers on the commitment to expedite the implementation of IBAC amendments, including their new follow-the-money powers, to come online this year. What this bill before the house does in relation to the special prosecutor is provide the legislative framework for a special prosecutor to work closely, importantly, with the royal commission. This is the first time that such an office has existed here in Victoria, and it will be a dedicated resource for this commission, because the royal commission on its own does not have the power to prosecute anyone. It can compel evidence and make findings, but it cannot actually put people before a court. That is exactly the intention of what the special prosecutor can and will do, so that when wrongdoing is uncovered by the commission it can be investigated and it can be pursued so that people who did the wrong thing can face the appropriate consequences.

The bill provides further qualifications of who can actually be appointed as a special prosecutor, which currently includes at least eight years of experience as a legal practitioner, and it sets out some of the basic functions and information-sharing powers that the special prosecutor will have. I understand that further legislation will build upon these powers and functions, but the framework in this bill means that one can be established and be up and running as soon as possible.

It has been very interesting to see some of the reactions over the past couple of weeks from those opposite with this bill and what we have announced in this space. We have known for months that they have been calling for a royal commission into these issues. Now we have done exactly that, and apparently it is not good enough. They have said that the terms of reference are too narrow. I find it very hard to see how that is the case when the terms of reference are actually looking at the construction sector. We know that the issues this royal commission will be talking about are systemic, industry wide, whether it is on government projects or in the private sector. In fact the terms of reference actually permit the commission to look at a range of matters, including the conduct of anyone. Then of course they have said it is not genuine and it is not serious. That flies in the face of what integrity experts, investigative journalists and stakeholders – the very people that they have been listening to these past couple of months – have said. Those experts have been overwhelmingly supportive of these steps that our government has taken. It is really important for those opposite, and particularly the community, to understand that. The experts have been overwhelmingly supportive of the steps the new Premier has taken. I am very curious as to what their problem is here, because those opposite seem to be the only people who cannot understand what the commission’s terms of reference say, and they are the only ones who do not seem to be taking this commission seriously.

I do want to be clear about the issue that those opposite have with this royal commission. I think their problem with it is that they are not the ones who were able to initiate it, and they thought that they would be. It is because they have lost a major pillar of their election platform. It is because they did not get to set the terms of reference. We know on this side of the house that deep down what they really wanted was not a royal commission at all – they wanted their own personal witch-hunt. We have seen on previous occasions when those opposite have been in government that that is what they intended all along.

What I will say is we know that it is up to the commission to determine who is to appear before it, and the special prosecutor will be able to call up those people. It is important that the commission has the power to do that, and it is important that the commission and the special prosecutor work really clearly together. The opposition have been raising issues in relation to this bill and the other bill before the house this week but not because they are interested in dealing with the systemic issues in our construction sector. The only thing I have ever seen the Liberal Party interested in when using the powers of the government is smearing political opponents, and that has certainly been the case over the past eight years. I have to say, as I look further afield at the United States, it seems to me to be right out of the Trump playbook.

I remember when they were last in power federally and the first thing they did was call a royal commission into union corruption, and it was one of the biggest wastes of Commonwealth money in recent memory. It did not expose any corruption. It took two years. It cost $46 million. It attacked workers and only resulted in a single conviction. Some might ask why they would have gone to that length; it was because their mates in Canberra wanted to smear Labor, smear the unions and smash workers rights. The royal commission that has been called into the construction sector by our Premier and the call to have a special prosecutor work closely with that commission show our intention is certainly not to smash workers; it is to undertake a proper investigation into what has occurred in the construction sector, both in public and private sectors of that industry. I think that is really important, because the majority of workers on construction sites – and I have certainly talked before here in this place about how I have got extended family members that have been involved in the construction industry in other states – are just normal, working-class mums and dads, getting on, making a living, putting food on the table. They are not involved in anything dodgy. This royal commission is to weed out the corruption and the wrongdoing that certainly exists on our sites, but it should not cast aspersions upon every worker at every site.

The special prosecutor, importantly, that we are appointing, will be independent of government, and they will not answer to the Premier, or any other minister for that matter. I think that is really important as part of the separation of powers, and this bill goes on to really clearly state that. If the commission and the special prosecutor think it is appropriate to question department staff or question ministers, be they current or former, or even wish to question former premiers, I am sure it is within their prerogative to do so. They do not need a witness list put in front of them by the opposition. It is entirely inappropriate that they keep trying to propose and put forward their own personal witness list for this royal commission.

The Premier said not so long ago that he would call for a royal commission. It was his first act as Premier, and he has done it. He said he would create a special prosecutor to work within the commission to investigate any alleged wrongdoing uncovered by the commission and act on it accordingly. This bill that we are debating here in this place today will deliver exactly that – it will deliver on that promise. Victorians should have the confidence that we are taking these issues seriously. The speed at which this legislation has been crafted and implemented should make it very clear that we are doing exactly what we said we would do, but we should be clear about what is right and wrong. It is right to investigate alleged wrongdoing and to investigate and address corrupt conduct. It is wrong, however, to use the powers of a royal commission as a political weapon against a government you disagree with – that is wrong. I do not think that Victorians would like to see it used that way. If those opposite are not happy with the terms of reference of this royal commission, if they are not supportive of the work we are doing and they think it is not good enough, they should be up-front about why that is the case.

On this side of the house, the Premier and the Labor team will continue to get on with the work of this commission so that Victorians can have greater confidence in the construction sector to work better so that we can get on with delivering the projects that Victorians certainly do value. The work of this royal commission is so important to ensure that this is the case. This is a really good bill, and I commend it to the house.

 Dylan WIGHT (Tarneit) (11:11): It is a great pleasure to rise this morning and make a contribution in favour of this bill. As I said during my contribution on the government business program and also in my contribution on the IBAC follow-the-money powers bill on Tuesday, when the Premier came to office his first act was to come out and call a royal commission into crime and misconduct in Victoria’s construction industry. He did so because Victorians deserve to know how organised crime made its way onto some government projects. We have seen that play out through the media, and Victorians deserve to know how that happened. The best way to do that is to hold a royal commission.

It was established on 20 August this year and will seek to give Victorians those answers. The objects of the royal commission, which are set out in the terms of reference, among other things, are to identify the nature and the extent of the misconduct, corruption, criminal conduct or serious misconduct relating to any major public and civil infrastructure projects in Victoria; to support the government to prevent future corruption, criminal conduct or serious misconduct; to rebuild trust in the integrity of the major construction sector; and also to instigate referrals to Victoria Police, IBAC, regulatory and licensing authorities and other relevant bodies by working cooperatively with the special prosecutor.

It is, as I said, the right thing to do, to have a royal commission. Royal commissions are inquisitorial by nature. They are set up to gather information and to hear evidence, but as you can imagine, given our separation of powers, the commissioner does not have the power to prosecute. What we often find in a situation of a royal commission is that prosecutions, when they need to be made, given evidence that may be heard, can take some time. The Premier’s commitment to setting up a special prosecutor to work alongside the royal commission will make sure that if there is evidence heard that requires referrals to police and prosecutions to be made, that can be done in the most timely of manners. I think that is the right call. Being here, debating this legislation and hopefully seeing its passage through this house and the other place in due course acquits that promise that the Premier made on day one of taking office.

What is also incredibly important with any of these processes, and in a royal commission in particular, is to ensure the independence of the process. It is important to ensure the independence of the royal commission to hear whatever evidence it needs to to give Victorians the answers that they seek but also to ensure the independence of the commissioner running the royal commission. It is why it is so absurd and so fraught with danger that the opposition decided, after they had had the wind taken out of their sails, to hold a press conference and seek to provide their own witness list to an independent royal commission. It is something that I have never really seen before and something that I never thought I would see in politics. We had the Leader of the Opposition and the member for Brighton, who claims to have a legal background, standing in front of cameras with a piece of paper, with the member for Brighton doing his scowl that he does, his kind of stank face – you know, standing there, looking down the pipe. To be standing there with a piece of paper with their own witness list to an independent royal commission I think is absurd, and it shows how immature this opposition still are. They are not ready to govern. They are not quite sure how government works. They are not quite sure how these processes work. They think it is a reasonable thing to do to stand in front of a camera and seek to influence, for their own political purposes, an independent royal commission. I do not think any of us have really seen that anywhere before. It really lifts the veil. It shows that this has never really been about policy for them. It has never really been about integrity for them. It has never really been about cleaning up corruption. It has all been about politics, as is everything with this opposition. It has been about politics. They thought that integrity was going to be a major issue heading into this election. I would contend that integrity is a major issue for voters going into every election. I would contend that voters care about the integrity of government and indeed opposition going into every election, and perhaps it is one of the reasons that we had two pretty significant victories in 2018 and 2022. But in doing so, they have sought to politicise this issue every single step of the way.

Let us be really honest about the other layer of this: the opposition, when in government, would love to seek to de-unionise government projects across Victoria. Some of the demonisation of ordinary workers throughout this process by the opposition has been nothing short of disgusting. Whilst the government, in setting up the royal commission, wants the answers that Victorians are seeking about what has happened on some of these projects, what I will not stand for and what I will not do, ever, is stand in this place or in my community in Tarneit and demonise construction workers in Victoria, because for the most part I would say 99 per cent of these workers are good, hardworking, decent people that are doing nothing more than trying to provide for their families and, in doing so, building Victoria for us and for all Victorians.

We have been really, really lucky in the west to have a significant amount of incredibly important infrastructure projects that make it easier for people in Tarneit and Hoppers Crossing to live their daily lives. But also, the jobs that these projects are creating are contributing so significantly to Victoria’s economy. I mentioned on Tuesday, I think, the West Gate Tunnel – obviously a really significant project, a second river crossing into Melbourne. As somebody who spent eight years driving in from the west to Carlton every single day over the West Gate Bridge, I can tell you how amazing the West Gate Tunnel is as a project for me and for my family and for families in Tarneit and Hoppers Crossing, Point Cook and Werribee and also further west in Geelong as well. It means that they can get into the city quicker, if they are doing that on a daily basis in particular, and spend more time with their families.

We have also been lucky enough to have several schools built in my electorate. At the moment we are very close to finishing stage 2 of Brinbeal Secondary College. For anybody who has had one of these new schools, but in particular new secondary colleges, built in their electorate, they are absolutely amazing. Young people in Tarneit now have the opportunity, in my view, to attend a secondary college where the infrastructure is as good as any government school anywhere in Victoria, and that is right there in Tarneit. It is there in Tarneit not just because of a government that invests but because of the amazing construction workers that are just finishing that project at the moment.

And then the jewel in the crown, I would say, is the new West Tarneit station. We came to the election in 2022 and said that we would build a second station in Tarneit, and on Sunday we will open that station. The first trains will stop at West Tarneit station on Sunday, and all of that is possible because of a government that invests in the infrastructure that Victorians need, particularly out in the western suburbs, and also because of a group of amazing construction workers that have worked over the last 12 months day and night to make that station ready for people in Tarneit in September. A royal commission is incredibly important to get the answers that Victorians need, and having a special prosecutor next to it will make sure that they can get those answers faster.

 Paul MERCURIO (Hastings) (11:21): I am very happy to rise to give my contribution on the Inquiries Amendment (Special Prosecutor) Bill 2026. There has been some great debate today on this side of the chamber. Obviously that side of the chamber must like the bill, because they are not out here talking about it, against it or for it. What has been said in the past and the concerns they have do not really seem to be following through at all. They are not leading by example. They are not here. I am here, and I am very happy to be here.

A member interjected.

Paul MERCURIO: Thank you. I am here all day. I think this bill and the one we just debated, on similar topics, obviously go hand in hand. The last bill was the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission Amendment Bill 2026, about giving them powers to follow the money, which is really important, and also broadening the definition of ‘corrupt conduct’ – two things that are incredibly important and work in hand with this bill.

I am very happy that the first act by the Premier after assuming office was to call a royal commission into crime and misconduct in Victoria’s construction industry. People have been calling for it, and he listened and he has called it. The Royal Commission into the Integrity of Major Public and Civil Infrastructure Construction Projects in Victoria was established on 20 August this year. It is backed with a budget of $50 million and has been asked to report within 12 months. Its terms of reference are broad and expansive and its objectives include identifying the nature and extent of corruption, criminal conduct and serious misconduct on our major public and civil infrastructure projects; supporting government to prevent that conduct happening again; and rebuilding trust in the integrity of the major construction sector, as the member for Tarneit spoke so well about. It is also there to instigate referrals to Victoria Police, IBAC, regulatory and licensing authorities and other relevant bodies working cooperatively with the special prosecutor. That last point is exactly why this bill is in front of us today. I might just say the terms of reference have been broadly accepted by quite a few eminent people within our community.

Victorians undertake these major public and civil infrastructure projects together, funded by the public and delivered on behalf of the public. It is essential that they are carried out with the highest possible level of integrity and the trust and confidence of the Victorian community. That trust has been tested, we all accept that, and this bill is part of how we rebuild. But here is the thing about a royal commission, and it is important that people understand: a royal commission has no power to prosecute anyone and it cannot compile a brief of evidence. That is by design. It is an inquisitorial body and not an adversarial one. It does not carry judicial or prosecutorial powers at all. It can compel evidence, hold hearings and make findings, but on its own that leaves a gap between finding out what went wrong and doing something about it. This bill closes that gap. It amends the Inquiries Act 2014 to create the office of special prosecutor, the first of its kind in Australia, a dedicated resource working alongside the royal commission. As the commission uncovers evidence of corruption, the special prosecutor is there to work cooperatively with it, making sure that evidence gets to the right place – Victoria Police, IBAC, regulatory and licensing authorities or any other relevant Victorian, interstate, territory or Commonwealth body – so it can be acted on, not left sitting in a report gathering dust on a shelf somewhere.

Very importantly, the special prosecutor will be independent. They are not subject to the direct control of the Premier or any minister in the performance of their duties. The independence is not a technicality, it is the whole point. Victorians need to know that when evidence of wrongdoing comes to light it will be followed up on its merits, not on anyone’s say-so. I would also note that the special prosecutor remains a public body under the IBAC act, which means they themselves stay subject to IBAC’s oversight. That is exactly the kind of accountability built into accountability that this reform is all about, and it gives the community confidence that this office will operate fairly.

There has been some talk about the office of the prosecutor not being able to prosecute. In fact there are two tranches to this reform. The first one is setting up the office and empowering the office of the special prosecutor to give them the necessary reforms that they need. This bill is tranche 1 of the reforms to establish the office and provide scope for information sharing with the special prosecutor, as I said before. Tranche 2 of the reforms will be progressed in early 2027, and it will look to provide additional powers and functions to the special prosecutor, subject to consultation, and may include further information-sharing, investigatory and prosecutorial powers and to make other consequential amendments as required. The work is being done. The fearmongering from some who are suggesting that the special prosecutor will not be able to prosecute is misleading and disingenuous.

The bill also allows information to flow between the royal commission and the special prosecutor, including material the commission has received from Victoria Police, IBAC and other regulators. Bodies that receive information from the special prosecutor can report back on what action they intend to take. The special prosecutor is bound by the same confidentiality obligations that apply to royal commission officers. They are prohibited from knowingly disclosing information they acquire, except in prescribed circumstances, and anyone who receives information from them is barred from taking advantage of it. The special prosecutor will also be protected from legal liability while exercising their powers and functions. This is in line with the immunities already given to royal commissioners and staff. This is how you build a system that is not just thorough but accountable and fair at every step.

The second part of the bill gives royal commissions – this one and future ones – a new power to compel information. At the moment a commission can require someone to produce documents or attend a hearing. What it cannot do is require someone to put what they know into writing if that knowledge is not already sitting in a document somewhere. This bill fixes that. It means the commission can ask someone directly in writing to give a statement or answer specific questions before it ever needs to call a formal hearing. That is a practical change, it is an important change, and it means the commission can work out who knows what, target its efforts and avoid the cost and delay of trawling through mountains of paperwork when a straightforward written answer will do the job. This power will outlast the commission itself and the office of the special prosecutor, strengthening how future royal commissions in this state gather evidence. I will note this power already exists for some Commonwealth royal commissions. This bill simply brings Victoria into line, and it comes with the same checks and balances that already apply to a commission’s existing powers.

I also want to say something plainly because I think it needs saying in this debate: nothing in this bill and nothing in the bill we have just debated is about attacking unions. Unions have fought for the conditions, the safety standards and the fair pay that construction workers across the state and around the country rely on every single day. That history matters. The overwhelming majority of people working on our building sites, union members included, turn up and do an honest day’s work building the roads, hospitals and schools this state needs. This is not about union bashing. This is about making sure that whatever crime, corruption or serious misconduct has found its way onto a construction site, whoever is responsible, it gets found out and gets dealt with. That is what the royal commission’s terms of reference are about – looking at the conduct of everyone involved on these projects – and it is why the commissioner, not the government, decides whose actions are relevant. This bill supports that work by making sure when wrongdoing is uncovered it actually goes somewhere. It is about integrity for the whole industry, not an attack on any part of it.

What we are doing here is straightforward. We listened to what was needed to make sure a royal commission’s findings do not just sit on a shelf. We are giving it a dedicated, independent partner to make sure that when the truth comes out it leads somewhere. That is what accountability looks like, and it is what Victorians expect from major projects built with their money. This bill, together with the one we have just debated in this place, represents a new direction – one focused on transparency, independence and making sure integrity in our construction sector is not just spoken about, it is delivered. We have listened, we are acting, we will continue to act and I commend the bill to the house.

 Daniela DE MARTINO (Monbulk) (11:31): It was wonderful to hear the contributions of my fine colleagues in this chamber this morning. I was just listening to the member for Hastings and the very clear and important point he made towards the end of his contribution that this bill, the Inquiries Amendment (Special Prosecutor) Bill 2026, is incredibly important but in no way is it here to diminish or to bash unions and union members at all. We recognise on this side of the chamber the importance of unions and the union movement in representing people who often have very little power without collective voice and the good work they do in ensuring that members are paid well – decent wages for decent work – and return home safely. The union movement should be proud of all that it has done in this nation over many years to ensure that occupational health and safety is at the forefront of every workplace in this state. We have much to thank them for in that regard.

I am very pleased to speak in support of this bill, and from the outset I feel it is important to address some of the concerns the member for Brighton raised about public interest immunity claims under the Inquiries Act 2014. The first thing to point out is that the government has published whole-of-Victorian-government guidelines for public interest immunity claims, and the guidelines clearly outline how the state identifies and raises claims for public interest immunity claims before inquiries and royal commissions. This exists already, and what is clear from those guidelines is that decisions about making such claims are informed by what is in the public interest. If the public interest in disclosure outweighs the public interest in maintaining confidentiality, then an immunity claim cannot be made. Further, if the state does make a public interest immunity claim, it is then up to the royal commission to test the claim. If the royal commission determines that the public interest in disclosure of the information outweighs the public interest in its staying confidential, it will insist on the information being produced. That determination is informed by the terms of reference and how important the information is to the royal commission’s inquiry. We are leaving it up to them to decide.

The other thing to point out is that public interest immunity exists for important reasons. It protects sensitive and confidential information about matters including national security, police operations and the identity of sources. Settings for the release of documents and information need to ensure that they do not undermine or prejudice one of the ultimate objectives of the royal commission and special prosecutor by making information available to the very people who are likely to face prosecution for their involvement in crime and misconduct on construction sites. I will leave that part there. I think it is really important that we put that on the record and that those opposite are made aware of that.

Every day in electorates right across the state, including my beautiful electorate of Monbulk covering the Dandenong Ranges, Victorians have watched major public infrastructure being built with their money. Our record of investing in public infrastructure is plainly visible for anyone to see: level crossing removals, new hospitals, schools, road projects. In Monbulk district we have seen the Angliss expansion recently opened, numerous school upgrades and modernisations and a superb car park for our commuters at Belgrave station. Victorians and my people of Monbulk have every right to expect that money is spent honestly, that contracts are won on merit and that if crime or corruption has found its way onto our building sites, it is dragged into the light and it is dealt with. That is what our government has promised, and that is what this bill helps to deliver.

We know the multitude of workers, as I said before, have been honest and have done the right thing, but there are those who clearly have not. One of the very first acts of this government under Premier Carroll was to call a royal commission into crime and misconduct in Victoria’s construction industry. On 20 August this year, by letters patent published in the Government Gazette, that body was formally established as the Royal Commission into the Integrity of Major Public and Civil Infrastructure Construction Projects in Victoria, with the Honourable Christopher Kourakis AC appointed as commissioner. It has been given a substantial budget of $50 million and 12 months to report to ensure that the report is timely, and the terms of reference are broad enough to examine the nature and the extent of corruption, criminal conduct and serious misconduct on government-funded construction projects, the role of executive government and the impact of that conduct on construction costs borne by all of us as Victorian taxpayers.

This bill amends the Inquiries Act 2014 to do two key things: it establishes, for the first time in this state, the statutory office of the special prosecutor to work alongside the commission, and it strengthens the commission’s own power to require information. I am going to take the house through both of these in some detail because the design of this reform reflects a great deal of careful thought, and those who have been involved in developing this are to be commended for their tireless efforts to ensure that this royal commission does the job it is intended to do. By design, a royal commission is an inquisitorial body, it is not a prosecutorial one. It can compel evidence, hold hearings and make findings, but under the Inquiries Act it has no power to prosecute or to compile a brief of evidence. That is entirely appropriate to its function, but it means that left on its own a royal commission can uncover serious wrongdoing but has no direct mechanism to ensure it is acted upon. This bill is closing that gap by creating a dedicated specialist resource embedded alongside the commission, working in real time as evidence comes to light so that when wrongdoing is uncovered, it is investigated, it is pursued and people face consequences. It is what Victorians expect, it is what we expect and it is what this bill will ensure can occur.

The bill establishes the office as a single statutory position, the special prosecutor, to be appointed by the Governor in Council on the recommendation of the Premier following consultation with the construction royal commissioner. Independence is the foundation that this office is built on, and the bill is explicit that the special prosecutor is not subject to the direction or the control of the Premier or any other minister in performing their duties. On top of that, the special prosecutor remains a public body for the purposes of the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission Act 2011, meaning IBAC itself retains oversight of the role. In exercising their functions, the special prosecutor is protected from legal liability in the same way royal commissioners and their staff already are, so they can act on the evidence without fear or favour. Removal is similarly rigorous, and this is important: it can only occur by the Governor in Council on the Premier’s recommendation on specific stated grounds such as misconduct, neglect of duty or incapacity, with any acting appointment during a vacancy limited to three months. The office does not simply vanish the moment the commission finishes its work. It will continue for six months after the commission’s final report is tabled, so that referrals in train can be followed through.

The bill allows the commission to disclose to the special prosecutor information that is required, including material that has received from Victoria Police and IBAC where relevant to the special prosecutor’s functions. The special prosecutor can then refer that information to Victoria Police, IBAC, regulatory and licensing bodies and equivalent interstate, territory and Commonwealth bodies for them to consider what action their own functions allow. The special prosecutor is bound by the same confidentiality obligations that already apply to royal commission officers. The bill goes further by making clear that anybody receiving information from the special prosecutor must not take advantage of that information beyond its proper purpose. These are careful, considered safeguards around a genuinely new information-sharing power.

Clause 4 addresses a real and practical limitation in the current law. Today a royal commission can only compel the production of a document or thing that already exists at the time its notice is issued or compel someone’s attendance at a hearing. It has no power to require a person to set out in writing information that exists only in their knowledge. This bill fixes that. It will allow the commission to issue a written notice requiring a person to provide information or a statement in writing by a specified time and in a specified manner, including where the commission considers it appropriate, by requiring written answers to specific questions rather than requiring that person to give oral evidence at a hearing. This is a sensible, efficiency-driving reform, and importantly it is not limited to this commission. It will endure as a standing power for all future Victorian royal commissions long after this commission and this office have finished their vital work.

This bill is tranche 1 of a two-tranche reform, and tranche 2, expected to be progressed in early 2027, will consider further powers and functions for the special prosecutor developed in consultation with the commission itself, Victoria Police, IBAC and the Office of Public Prosecutions. This is not a delay; it is the right way to build durable institutions. Getting the architecture right, in proper consultation with the agencies this office will work alongside, matters more than rushing every element into a single bill. This is a carefully considered, thorough piece of legislation that will only serve us well, and I commend it to the house.

 Mathew HILAKARI (Point Cook) (11:41): I am actually quite surprised that I am standing up after another Labor member in this place, because –

A member: Where are they?

Mathew HILAKARI: They might have gone for lunch or they might have headed home for the day, but certainly for a political party who have been talking about these issues for a very long time and talking a very big game when they are in front of the cameras, they just have not turned up to this place. It has been Labor member after Labor member up on their feet because the Liberals and the Nationals either have just walked out of the building or simply do not care about this topic. I did hear the member for Brighton make his initial contribution to this, and I think my main takeaway from that was actually that he had complaints about his lack of access to executive privilege. That was the main takeaway for me from his contribution. I can understand that, because he has not been in an executive position. There is real risk in this state that he and others – to be really specific, One Nation – could be in that position of executive privilege, which I think is quite a scary thought.

By the way, I do not think the Liberal Party are going to have that privilege of having executive privilege at any time soon. I think that the risk to Victoria is that One Nation will form government, and those opposite will be simply crossbench losers. They will be relegated to therefore only being able to provide supply to One Nation or provide support in the house in terms of any motions of no confidence, and I wonder how long that confidence would exist. I am quite shocked to hear of their willingness to engage in preference flows between each other, understanding the nature of the discourse that One Nation brings to the table. I think Pauline Hanson’s first real contribution in Parliament 30 years ago – she is a veteran of politics – was to say that the country was being swamped by Asians. What a disgrace. Yet those opposite are working out what the best way is to do a preference deal and try and pretend they are not doing a preference deal. We see across the board in Victoria that they are willing to empower and put in a group of people like One Nation and the ideas that they espouse in a great multicultural state. Simply the best thing we have going for us is multiculturalism in Victoria. I was at an event this morning, Namaste Westside, promoting the western suburbs and the tourism that we have there, and that welcome idea of ‘namaste’ is something that we know that One Nation has no interest in – in fact the opposite, so I am deeply concerned about that. But I will move on from the member for Brighton.

The member for Ovens Valley had a great many complaints over the IBAC system. I thought he was a little bit churlish, because just sentences before, he indicated that he was very proud that the Liberal–National parties, when they were in government, set up IBAC. And yet they have had nothing but complaints since that point in time. So, as to the thoughtfulness that they brought to the table at that point in time, it is just interesting that they would celebrate and also commiserate and complain about it for a good 12 years after the fact. The Liberal Party did spend a lot of time talking about the need for a royal commission. Obviously we have delivered one. It has been a real priority for the Premier to put forward a royal commission and a special prosecutor, which we are discussing in this bill. But they are a little bit crestfallen.

Part of the reason I think they are not turning up to deliver any speeches on the special prosecutor or the royal commission and the reason they are sort of ducking and covering as quickly as they can is because their real intent around a royal commission was to set up a Tony Abbott–style royal commission. You would all remember that the federal royal commission into trade unions occurred in March 2014. They simply wanted to take those terms of reference and plonk them into Victoria. They are not known for their hard work in the Liberal Party. Hopefully they would have changed the name from ‘federal’ royal commission to ‘Victorian’ royal commission, but that would have been the extent of the work that they would be up for. That royal commission was a failure in one way. It did not really go to any issues of criminality or otherwise, but it was a success for the Liberal Party in the other way, in that it drained unions of their funds. That was a real intent of it: to try and take away the legitimate democratic representatives of working people, try and diminish them and try to crush them using the federal government’s finances, to try and diminish the finances of those trade unions that have set up and over time delivered huge wins for working Victorians and working Australians. That was really their intent. And they are absolutely crestfallen now because some of the people that they thought were their backers were not actually their backers; they were just looking for a decent royal commission to be set up. They have acknowledged that publicly, that the royal commission that we have set up in Victoria is appropriate and will get the task done alongside the special prosecutor that we are talking about today. They are just so crestfallen because they thought these guys were partisan actors. No, they were just looking for the appropriate integrity measures, and they have called out that these integrity measures are appropriate.

Now they have got nowhere to go, because no-one is going to back in their faux royal commissions anymore. They are going to find it really hard, should they be given the honour and privilege of forming government, which I do not believe they will, to rewrite those terms of reference, which they have every intention of doing. Everybody who is a member of a union across Victoria, every trade unionist and every worker in Victoria should fear a Liberal Party getting their hands on the reins of government, because that is exactly what they will seek to do. They will seek to smash unions, diminish their ability to ensure that workers go home safely and get decent pay and conditions. That will be their intent. I call out to every single worker across this state and their representative: understand exactly who we are dealing with here – people who are willing to use taxpayer funds to attack workers and to attack unions. They are not their own funds, by the way; they are not digging into their own pockets to do this but using taxpayer funds to undertake their partisan process.

If you remember the royal commissioner at the time who did the trade union royal commission within the federal scheme, it was Dyson Heydon. I do not say OAM anymore. He had to hand that back – a partisan actor known before he was set up as a royal commissioner. It was an absolute –

Daniela De Martino interjected.

Mathew HILAKARI: You are absolutely right, member for Monbulk, it was a stitch-up then. And the stitch-up that the Liberal Party and the National Party had been proposing has been taken away from them because an appropriate royal commission has been set up, with appropriate support, including what we have before us today in terms of the special prosecutor. This is part 1 of this set of work, and we need to do part 2 later on, in the next term of government.

The royal commission has been set up with a substantial budget of $50 million, which is appropriate. They need to report within 12 months, and they will be given, as the Premier has said, every support that they need to get the job done, because we do know there are absolutely concerns across the whole of the construction sector, and we are willing to examine our own efforts in government alongside the efforts of business. You might find it weird to hear the word ‘business’ used in conjunction with this royal commission, because when the Libs have been talking about it, they have never said the word ‘businesses’ – never. It seems to be absolutely relegated from their language, but the businesses, including their boards and their management, need to be held to account for their behaviour. This behaviour will be closely examined by the royal commission and referred on to the special prosecutor should this bill be adopted through both houses of this Parliament and approved by the Governor.

I have only got 30 seconds left, Acting Speaker. I would always seek extra time from you, but you do not always give it. The royal commission will identify the nature and extent of corruption, criminal conduct or serious misconduct relating to any major public civil infrastructure project in Victoria. It is right to do so. I wish I had more time to talk about this. I am sure a Liberal–National member will follow me straight after this and the 7 seconds that I have left. They have got the opportunity to stand up. No, they will never stand up for Victorians.

 Nathan LAMBERT (Preston) (11:51): I am sorry to disappoint the member for Point Cook, but I am standing up as another government contributor. I will come back to the lack of speakers from the other side of the chamber and very notably the lack of speakers from the Greens, full stop, on this bill. I will return to that topic, but before I criticise the Greens on that front, I would like to begin by recognising the contribution of the Greens member for Brunswick to our broader integrity packages. We have, especially those of us in the class of 2022, been listening to some valedictories in recent weeks, and with certain sadness we are realising we will not see a lot of people who have joined us for this term of government again. I have admired some of those valedictories. They have been remarkable contributions. I very much enjoyed the member for Essendon’s, who is with us now. He is known for his very considerable contributions to this chamber but got his valedictory into a wonderfully concise 90 seconds. It is worth checking out, for those who were not here to hear it. I loved the finish where he just said ‘Goodbye’ and down the mic went. Of course the member for Pakenham kicked that off, and we all reflect on the extraordinary contribution that she has made and the extraordinary contributions she could have made for Pakenham and Victoria had circumstances been different. The member for Brunswick is also departing due to very significant health challenges, and our thoughts are with him. We hope – and I am sure – that he will find some strength, solace and satisfaction in the fact that two of the things that he mentioned in his valedictory speech not that long ago – group voting tickets and the change to the definition of ‘corrupt conduct’ in the IBAC legislation – have now both occurred or are in the process of occurring.

I will turn now to the context for this bill, and that is particularly the ‘Building bad’ issue and the reporting of Nick McKenzie and the $15 billion figure that has dominated public debate. I do just want to say that were Geoffrey Watson here, I think he would say that the $15 billion number is not what he ever wanted people to be talking about. Geoffrey Watson had a very clear point to make in his Rotting from the Top report. His key thesis, in essence, was that the CFMEU construction and general division had changed since the Bill Oliver–Martin Kingham era. It had been taken over by other individuals. He lists a lot of them; obviously John Setka and Joe Myles have been particularly prominent in the commentary. His thesis is that these individuals and their colleagues took over the union, then the union took over certain projects. That is essentially the issue that he thinks we should be addressing, the intimidation and criminality that occurred with that. Certainly parts of his thesis have been substantiated by the investigations that have already taken place.

But I think it is so important to be clear that there has been a very, very strong response to those 2024 allegations. Of course they are serious, but I cannot overstate how important it is that the federal Labor government took over the administration and running of the CFMEU general and construction division. If we turn to Geoffrey Watson’s thesis about the individuals he mentions, the individuals that he mentions are no longer working in that union. In fact, as I understand it, almost 50 per cent of the people who were in the union at the beginning of the administration period no longer work there.

Anthony Cianflone interjected.

Nathan LAMBERT: Yes, thank you, member for Pascoe Vale. It is a very significant number. Not only that of course, but police have commenced investigations. There have been over 80 charges laid against, as I understand it, over 17 individuals. There seems to be this view amongst the opposition that that is nothing, and to those opposition members who are here I put this question: can you think of any scandal nationally, Australia-wide, in the last decade that has attracted 17 people being charged? I know charges are not convictions, but that is a very serious response. If we think of HIH, if we think of the Pyramid collapse, if we think of the Royal Commission into Misconduct in the Banking, Superannuation and Financial Services Industry, if we think of the fact that tobacco companies in this country knowingly sold a carcinogenic product to people for decades – never apologised for it, covered it up and tried to sell it to children – and if we think about James Hardie with asbestos, which did the same thing, in none of those scandals were 17 people charged. Within the relatively small organisation that the CFMEU construction and general division was – not small, but I believe about 100 or so employees – to have 17 of them charged at this point is a very significant response, and to have, as I understand it, well over 50 moved on from their positions is about as big a response to an organisational scandal as we have seen in this country, probably since the Fitzgerald inquiry. It is a very, very significant response.

A very important thing that I would like to put on the record here is that the Greens are not speaking on this bill because the Greens supported the Setka-era CFMEU. The Greens stood up and lectured us about integrity on the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission Amendment Bill 2026, but they are not here on today’s bill, because Max Chandler-Mather went to the ‘Defend the CFMEU’ rally, and when he was repeatedly asked did he criticise John Setka’s behaviour, he repeatedly went to that same response we often hear from them, where he said, ‘Oh, look, we don’t condone violence of any kind, but …’ He refused to ever specifically address any of the allegations in Geoffrey Watson’s report with respect to Setka and other individuals, and that is why we do not see the Greens here today.

I began by thanking the member for Brunswick for his contribution, and I do worry – there was a tradition that the Greens were very what I might call broadsheet Greens. They were good on policy detail – robust policy detail, progressive policy detail – and I think the member for Brunswick was one of those people and made a really significant contribution. There is a rise now of these tabloid Greens, who have no interest in policy detail except for manipulating it for a TikTok or Instagram reel, and Max Chandler-Mather, who contributed so little to our public policy debate, was one of those people. I would just say that I hope that is not a trend that continues, because many of us will miss the days in which the Greens actually made a proper, considered contribution to public policy rather than just chasing engagement and likes on social media.

I want to touch also on this notion of grey corruption or soft corruption that is often associated with Robert Redlich, who puts that view forward. I do think we have to be very careful. Corruption is a very serious issue, and people misusing their public office for improper private gain is a very real problem. But I think that in order to deal with it as a real problem we have to be black and white about the fact that that is a form of poor behaviour that is very different to maladministration. I worry that when you listen to Robert Redlich he says that we made the wrong decisions about the Commonwealth Games and that was corruption. As I understand him, he says that if a school principal were to order some office paper and the Forest Stewardship Council certification was not correct or something that would be corruption. I think we have to be very careful, as there is a difference. You can criticise administrative decisions of course – they are criticised in this place every sitting week in a lot of detail ‍– ‍but there is this notion that the Victorian government should have just immediately stopped all construction procurement as soon as allegations about the CFMEU arose. I say that is not the right perspective, firstly, because the very serious response was taking place that I have set out, which was the right response; but secondly, as I think the member for Tarneit touched upon, if we had stopped all construction projects, we would have been stopping projects the vast majority of which had perfectly honest people doing perfectly honest work.

I note that the Baillieu and Napthine governments were governing in a period where there were some very serious different allegations about the CFMEU. Did they stop all construction projects? No. Did they continue the M80? Yes. Did they continue the regional rail link? Yes. Did they continue the desalination plant? Yes. Did they even take the steps we are taking today to deal with that problem? No. You can criticise them – I am criticising them right now for that – but do I suggest that Ted Baillieu was corrupt? Am I saying that Denis Napthine was corrupt? No. I do think – and I say this specifically to Robert Redlich and those who have this view – we need to be clear that those administrative decisions that I can criticise, as I have just done, of the previous Liberal government are not the same as corruption. We see that locally. We have proceeded with a lot of important projects locally, and I do not think it was wrong for us to proceed with upgrading Reservoir High School just because there were allegations about the construction sector taking place. Certainly as far as all of us locally could see, those projects were being done in an honest and good way, supporting local employment and, most importantly, providing local benefits.

Just touching on Reservoir High, I did earlier this week congratulate Zoe Lyon and Daniel Luttick on bass in my members statement, but I am just repeating it now because I made a slight mistake and I am just tidying that up for Hansard. So well done to Zoe Lyon and Daniel Luttick on bass in the Reservoir High musical.

If I take another example, we had some challenges with the procurement of the Preston Cricket Club nets. I am not going to tell the whole story now, but basically in the end we just had to get that project done. Full credit goes to Richard Norris from Preston Cricket Club, who particularly pressed that. Actually, I will update the house on Richard Norris. I have mentioned this before, but he is entering now his 60th year on the general committee of Preston Cricket Club and his 78th year volunteering with the club. He started in the 1948–49 season, when most of Reservoir was just paddocks, and I believe – I will put it on the record here – that Richard Norris currently holds the record for the longest ever voluntary contribution to a sporting club in the state. If anyone in the chamber has anyone who has served longer, please feel free to let me know. I thank Richard for his work. He will remember on that particular project in the end we just had to get it done. As I say, people may criticise our administrative decisions on that project, but it is not the same as corruption.

So, having touched on what I think are two very important points, our response to the allegations that have been made by Geoffrey Watson and Nick McKenzie and others has been very, very significant, and we should be careful to delineate between those very, very serious issues and other questions of maladministration. I commend the bill to the house.

 Anthony CIANFLONE (Pascoe Vale) (12:01): Acting Speaker Farnham, it is lovely to see you in the chair, of course, and to follow my very good friend and neighbour – physically and geographically in my electorate but also here in the seating plan of the chamber – the member for Preston after a very, very comprehensive and fantastic contribution, particularly calling out the Greens and their hypocrisy on these issues and their deafening silence on this particular issue as well.

I rise to support the Inquiries Amendment (Special Prosecutor) Bill 2026. This bill is an important step towards the Victorian Labor government’s commitment to upholding integrity and uncovering misconduct in Victoria’s construction industry. The bill seeks to amend the Inquiries Act 2014 to establish the office of the special prosecutor, led by an appointed special prosecutor to work cooperatively in conjunction, of course, with the Royal Commission into the Integrity of Major Public and Civil Infrastructure Construction Projects in Victoria. The Victorian government undertakes major public and civil infrastructure projects on behalf of all of the Victorian community, and it is essential that such projects are conducted with the highest possible level of integrity and have the trust and confidence of the Victorian public. The royal commission has been established to identify the nature and extent of corruption, criminal conduct and serious misconduct affecting Victorian government-funded construction projects.

But a royal commission has no power to prosecute or compile a brief of evidence under the Inquiries Act. This is appropriate, given the role of the royal commission as an inquisitional forum rather than an adversarial forum with judicial or prosecutorial powers. However, the royal commission has the potential to uncover evidence of criminality and serious misconduct and corruption. The special prosecutor is intended to work parallel to the royal commission to provide information to Victoria Police, the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission, IBAC, and regulatory and licensing authorities or other appropriate Victorian, interstate, territory and Commonwealth bodies to consider relevant actions in accordance with their functions. The bill will ensure that there is a dedicated specialist resource working alongside the royal commission so that when wrongdoing is uncovered it is investigated and prosecutions can be pursued.

Given the complexities associated with legislating for a fully empowered office of special prosecutor, necessary reforms will need to be undertaken in two tranches. This bill is tranche 1 of those reforms to establish the actual office of the special prosecutor and provide scope for information sharing by and with the special prosecutor. Tranche 2 of the reforms will be progressed in early 2027 to provide additional powers and functions to the special prosecutor, subject to the consultation and engagement that is required, and may include further information-sharing, investigatory and prosecutorial powers. It will make other consequential amendments as required, such as amendments relating to the admissibility of evidence obtained by the construction royal commission in subsequent legal proceedings.

The special prosecutor will focus on ensuring that appropriate action can be undertaken by relevant law enforcement, integrity and regulatory bodies where evidence passed on from the royal commission indicates that further investigation and action could be taken to address instances of criminal or corrupt conduct and serious misconduct. The special prosecutor will do this by working in cooperation and collaboration with the royal commission to provide relevant information to the appropriate body for them to consider whether to take relevant actions in accordance with their functions. The bill provides that legislative vehicle to create the statutory office of the special prosecutor in the Inquiries Act, which consists of one special prosecutor appointed by the Governor in Council on the recommendation of the Premier following consultation with the construction royal commissioner. The bill provides that the special prosecutor must be an Australian lawyer of at least eight years standing and provides for an initial appointment term of up to two years. This appointment may be extended by up to 12 months by the Governor in Council on the recommendation of the Premier. To ensure the independence of the role, the special prosecutor will not be subject to the direction or control of the Premier or any other minister in respect to the performance of their duties and functions and the exercise of their power. The performance by the special prosecutor of their functions and the exercise of their powers will be carried out fairly and independently.

The special prosecutor will remain a public body for the purposes of the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission Act 2011 and therefore subject to oversight by IBAC. Independence from government is central to public confidence in the special prosecutor’s operations as it will ensure that the performance of their functions is conducted without any government influence. The special prosecutor will have the power to do all things that are necessary or convenient to be done for, in connection with or incidental to the performance of their duties and their functions. The bill will enable the royal commission to disclose to the special prosecutor any acquired information, including information received from regulatory and licensing authorities, it considers relevant and appropriate for the performance of the functions of the special prosecutor under the Inquiries Act or any other relevant act, for that matter.

The special prosecutor will play, of course, a key role in increasing confidence in the integrity of the Victorian construction industry, ensuring that relevant information can be provided to appropriate bodies to consider relevant actions in accordance with their functions. The royal commission and the special prosecutor will represent another major important step forward to ensure that the events that led to the royal commission can never occur again.

Of course this bill is part of our Victorian Labor government’s commitment to integrity and to acting on allegations of crime, corruption and misconduct on government-funded major projects across the state. The Premier’s first act after 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 allegedly onto building sites, who allowed it to happen and how we can make sure that it must never happen again. The royal commission was established on 20 August 2026 and will give Victorians those answers.

The commission’s terms of reference are broad and expansive. The commission will be funded by a budget of $50 million and has been asked to report back within 12 months. The objectives of the construction royal commission are set out in the terms of reference that they will be adhering to, and they include, amongst other things, identifying the nature and extent of corruption, criminal conduct or serious misconduct relating to any major public and civil infrastructure projects in Victoria; supporting the government to prevent further corruption, criminal conduct or serious misconduct and rebuild trust in the integrity of the major construction sector; and instigating referrals to Victoria Police, IBAC, regulatory and licensing authorities and other relevant bodies by working cooperatively with the special prosecutor, which this bill is all about.

Of course these reforms have not happened in a vacuum; they have not happened in isolation. Further to the member for Preston’s contribution, we have as a government taken serious ongoing action in this space. I just want to take us back through a little bit of a timeline here, because it was the federal Labor government that did place the CFMEU into administration and appointed an administrator back in 2024, with around 270 union officials removed when the administrator took control at the time. At the state level our Victorian government continued to support that strong and robust action through a range of measures. We wrote to the federal government to exercise its powers under the Fair Work Act 2009 to review and, if necessary, terminate any CFMEU enterprise bargaining agreement on Victorian construction sites to prevent and deter any further alleged criminal activity. We asked the ALP national executive to immediately suspend the CFMEU construction division from the Victorian Labor Party over two years ago now, I believe, and subsequently also banned donations from the CFMEU and suspended the construction division from the Victorian ALP – a major step.

We referred all these matters, when initially raised, accordingly with Victoria Police, IBAC and other relevant authorities, and Victoria Police has continued to pursue many of these matters via Operation Hawk. I refer to the paper just today. Operation Hawk to date has resulted in over 80 criminal charges associated with around 17 or 18 individuals alone. We commissioned the independent construction sector review, the Wilson review, to expose and take action against any rotten or toxic culture within the building industry, which recommended and led us to implementing even further measures, including a new single point of entry complaints referral body for the sector relating to Victorian government construction sites – the construction referral service.

We have since also strengthened the Victorian Infrastructure Delivery Authority’s, VIDA, ability to direct the removal of individuals engaging in unlawful practices. We strengthened the Labour Hire Authority’s powers by expanding the fit and proper person test to include past indictable convictions, insolvencies, close associations with unfit persons or membership of criminal organisations, amongst other changes, to enable the LHA to publish more information about licensing decisions. We have introduced a new criminal offence of causing or threatening to cause detriment to a person who makes a complaint to Workforce Inspectorate Victoria. The Labour Hire Authority changes alone have already resulted in over, or at least, 140 labour hire businesses and organisations having their licences cancelled and almost 50 licence applications being refused from businesses in the construction industry. The Supreme Court, from what I understand, has issued to date around $800,000 to $900,000 in penalties to five construction companies and three company directors for their involvement in unlicensed labour hire operations in the sector.

We have also since strengthened a broad range of other laws to complement these efforts, including cracking down on organised crime: anti-bikie laws, illicit tobacco laws and so much more. We have established as well the organised crime command through Victoria Police with a $170 million investment – a new permanent organised crime command which, once fully staffed, will have 158 ‍additional staff. It brings together under the one roof Operation Hawk, which has been targeting that alleged organised crime activity within the construction industry; the VIPER Taskforce, Victoria Police’s statewide tactical and investigative capability targeting serious and organised crime; Taskforce Lunar, which is targeting organised crime syndicates associated with illicit tobacco trade and arsons; and Operation Eclipse, which has targeted organised criminal activity around arson extortion attacks against Victorian hospitality businesses. With more time I would love to go on, but again this is just another important step in our tranche that takes real action and serious action when it comes to questions around integrity and transparency on our construction sites.

 Eden FOSTER (Mulgrave) (12:11): I rise today in this chamber to speak in strong support of the Inquiries Amendment (Special Prosecutor) Bill 2026. I am very surprised to see those opposite not speaking anymore. I thought they would be quite keen to talk on this matter, but clearly not. This legislation represents a vital, uncompromising step forward in our government’s commitment to upholding integrity, exposing corruption and eliminating criminal misconduct within Victoria’s construction industry. The Victorian government undertakes major public and civil infrastructure projects on behalf of the Victorian community. These are the roads, the rail lines, the schools and hospitals that connect our neighbourhoods and serve our families. When the government invests hard-earned taxpayer dollars into infrastructure projects, Victorians have a fundamental right to expect that every single dollar is spent with the absolute highest level of integrity and transparency. Victorians deserve answers. They deserve to know how organised crime found its way onto some of our building sites, who allowed it to happen and, crucially, how we make sure it never happens again. In saying that, though, most of our building is done by hardworking, honest, responsible people. Acting Speaker Farnham, you have been in the construction industry. I see a nod, yes, that is correct. This is not about bringing down those that are in our construction industry. It is just about bringing down those that are doing the wrong thing. Most of our schools, our hospitals and public transport infrastructure are built by hardworking people. We support them, we back our workers, but we also need to find out why certain things happened and dig a bit deeper.

That is precisely why the Premier’s very first act upon assuming office was to establish the Royal Commission into the Integrity of Major Public and Civil Infrastructure Construction Projects in Victoria. Formally established by letters patent on 20 August 2026, this royal commission has been given a broad, expansive mandate, a $50 million budget and a clear directive to report within 12 ‍months. Its core objective is clear: to uncover the nature and extent of corruption and criminal conduct on public infrastructure projects; to support government efforts to rebuild trust in the sector; and to instigate direct referrals to law enforcement and regulatory authorities. However, as every member of this house should know, a royal commission is an inquisitorial body, not a judicial or prosecutorial one. Under the Inquiries Act 2014 a royal commission has immense powers to compel evidence, hold hearings and make findings, but it does not have the power to lay charges, compile briefs of evidence or prosecute offenders in a court of law. It is entirely appropriate that these functions remain separate to preserve the core function of a royal commission, but we must also ensure that when evidence of serious criminality and systemic corruption is uncovered, it does not sit idle on a page – it must lead to swift, decisive action. That is why this bill creates the office of the special prosecutor for the first time in Victoria. By amending the Inquiries Act 2014, clause 5 of this bill establishes a dedicated specialist and embedded resource that will work in parallel and in close cooperation with the royal commission.

This bill creates the legislative framework for a special prosecutor appointed by the Governor in Council on the recommendation of the Premier following consultation with the royal commissioner to operate alongside the inquiry in real time. Rather than waiting until the conclusion of a lengthy inquiry to begin sifting through thousands of pages of evidence, the special prosecutor will act as a bridge. As evidence of criminal conduct, corruption or regulatory breach is exposed, the special prosecutor will process that information and channel it directly to Victoria Police, the Independent, Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission, regulatory and licensing authorities and relevant interstate or Commonwealth bodies. This streamlines the pipeline to prosecution, ensuring that law enforcement agencies can consider immediate, relevant actions within their respective jurisdictions.

To ensure the public can have total confidence in this office, the bill guarantees the complete independence of the special prosecutor. The special prosecutor will not be subject to the direction or control of the Premier, any minister or the government of the day. They will perform their duties fairly, independently and transparently. The special prosecutor will remain a public body under the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission Act 2011, ensuring they are subject to rigorous oversight by IBAC. The bill also sets high statutory standards for the role. The appointee must be an Australian lawyer of at least eight years standing, appointed for an initial term of up to two years with the flexibility to extend for a further 12 months if necessary. It also appropriately accommodates the potential appointment of a Crown prosecutor or senior Crown prosecutor, preserving their statutory rights, pension entitlements and position. Crucially this bill establishes a two-way regulated flow of information between the royal commission and the special prosecutor, ensuring strict confidentiality and information-sharing safeguards equivalent to those applying to royal commission officers. It also permits bodies receiving information from the special prosecutor to report back on the actions they intend to take, creating full operational accountability.

This bill represents tranche 1 of our reforms. Because creating a fully empowered statutory special prosecutor is a complex legal endeavour, we are taking a measured, deliberate approach. Tranche 1 establishes the statutory office and enables information sharing and embedded operational workflows ahead of the November caretaker period. Early in 2027 a re-elected Carroll government will introduce tranche 2 legislation to grant further investigative, prosecutorial and evidence admissibility powers to this special prosecutor. It is essential that these further powers are designed carefully in consultation with Victoria Police, IBAC, the Office of Public Prosecutions and the royal commission itself so that we build a robust legal framework that does not interfere with existing statutory functions.

Beyond establishing the special prosecutor, clause 4 of this bill delivers critical enhancements to the investigative tool set of all Victorian royal commissions. Under the Inquiries Act 2014 a royal commission can only compel the production of existing documents or summon individuals to give oral evidence at a hearing. It cannot compel a person to create a written statement or compile information that is not already documented. This bill fixes that limitation by granting Victorian royal commissions the power to compel a person by a written notice to provide specified information or a written statement within a designated timeframe. This aligns Victoria with Commonwealth powers under section 2(3A) of the Royal Commissions Act 1902. This simple yet important reform will save immense time and public funds. It allows the royal commission to target its inquiries with precision instead of trawling through millions of pages of corporate documents or dragging witnesses into expensive, protracted oral hearings just to establish basic facts. The commission can compel direct written answers and witness statements up-front. This will streamline proceedings, clarify who holds relevant knowledge early in the process and ensure evidence-gathering is both fulsome and efficient. Crucially, these information-compelling powers are subject to standard legislative checks and balances, and they will endure in the Inquiries Act long after this specific royal commission concludes.

There is so much more that I could say, but I have under 30 seconds left. Let me remind the house of what the terms of reference explicitly empower the royal commission to investigate: the conduct of anyone engaged in corruption, criminal conduct, and serious misconduct across major public and civil infrastructure projects – any conduct that is corrupt, criminal or undertaken for illegitimate purposes. I commend the bill to the house.

 Martha HAYLETT (Ripon) (12:21): I rise to speak on the Inquiries Amendment (Special Prosecutor) Bill 2026. This is an important piece of legislation that goes directly to the issues of integrity, accountability and public confidence in the delivery of major public infrastructure projects across our great state of Victoria, and I thank every member in this place who has made a contribution, including the member for Mulgrave just before me. As members of this place, we have a responsibility to make sure that public money is spent properly, that public projects are delivered with integrity and that when allegations of corruption, criminal conduct or serious misconduct emerge, governments act decisively. That is exactly what this bill seeks to do. This legislation forms a key part of our Labor government’s commitment to uncovering misconduct within Victoria’s construction industry and restoring public trust in the systems responsible for delivering the schools, hospitals, roads, rail projects and infrastructure that Victorian communities rely upon every single day. It supports the work of the Royal Commission into the Integrity of Major Public and Civil Infrastructure Construction Projects in Victoria established on 20 August 2026 to investigate allegations of corruption, criminal conduct and serious misconduct affecting government-funded construction projects.

As the member for Ripon, I know how hard rural and regional Victorians work and how strongly they expect governments to be good stewards of public money. Across my electorate, people want to see investment in roads, hospitals, schools and community infrastructure. They also want confidence that every dollar committed to those projects is being spent honestly and in the public interest. When allegations of criminal influence, corruption or misconduct arise on projects funded by Victorian taxpayers, communities rightly expect action. They expect governments to investigate, uncover the truth and hold those responsible to account. That is why the royal commission matters and why this bill is so important. The royal commission has been tasked with identifying the nature and the extent of corruption as well as of criminal conduct and serious misconduct associated with major public and civil infrastructure projects. Its objectives include rebuilding trust in the integrity of the construction sector and supporting referrals to law enforcement and integrity agencies through cooperation with a special prosecutor.

One of the fundamental realities of royal commissions is that while they are powerful investigative bodies, they are not prosecutorial bodies. They can compel evidence, they can summon witnesses and they can make findings, but they cannot prosecute criminal offences. They cannot lay charges, and that is a deliberate feature of the system, reflecting the fact that royal commissions are inquisitorial bodies rather than courts. However, a royal commission has the potential to uncover significant evidence of criminal conduct and corruption. This bill addresses that gap by creating something new for Victoria, the statutory office of the special prosecutor. The special prosecutor will work alongside the royal commission and act as a dedicated specialist resource focused on making sure that information uncovered during the inquiry is referred to the appropriate authorities for further investigation or action. The special prosecutor will be able to provide information to Victoria Police, IBAC, regulatory and licensing authorities and other relevant Victorian, interstate, territory and Commonwealth agencies so they can consider what actions fall within their respective powers and responsibilities. This is a practical reform. It creates a direct pathway between the royal commission’s investigative work and those agencies responsible for enforcement, regulation and prosecution.

Importantly, this legislation makes sure that the special prosecutor is independent. The bill explicitly provides that the special prosecutor is not subject to the direction or control of the Premier or any other minister when carrying out their functions. The role will be appointed by the Governor in Council following consultation with the royal commissioner and must be filled by an Australian lawyer with at least eight years standing. Those safeguards matter. Public confidence depends upon integrity processes being free from political interference. Victorians need to know that decisions about referrals and investigations are being made independently and based on evidence. The bill also establishes clear accountability measures around appointment, removal and confidentiality obligations. It allows a special prosecutor to be removed only on specific grounds such as misconduct, neglect of duty or inability to perform the functions of the office. The role will also be subject to confidentiality obligations similar to those that already apply to royal commission officers.

This legislation also introduces another significant reform. It strengthens the information-gathering powers available to Victorian royal commissions. At present royal commissions can compel the production of documents and require witnesses to attend hearings and give evidence. But there are circumstances where vital information may not exist within a document. Sometimes information exists only in a person’s knowledge. Sometimes obtaining a simple answer requires investigators to search through thousands upon thousands of documents. This bill addresses that challenge. It creates a new power enabling a royal commission to compel a person to provide written information or a written statement by a specified time and in a specified form. That may include answers to questions, the provision of specific information or the preparation of a witness statement. This reform will improve efficiency and effectiveness, and it will enable royal commissions to obtain targeted information without unnecessary delay. It will help identify key witnesses, it will reduce the need for costly and time-consuming document searches and it will assist commissions to gather evidence in a more structured and effective manner.

Another important aspect of this bill is that these strengthened information-gathering powers will continue beyond the life of the construction royal commission itself. This means future Victorian royal commissions will also benefit from these improved investigative tools. This legislation represents the first stage of a broader reform process. The Labor government has made clear that further work will be undertaken during 2027 to consider additional powers and functions for the special prosecutor. These reforms will be developed in consultation with the royal commission, Victoria Police, IBAC, the Office of Public Prosecutions and other stakeholders to make sure that any further arrangements are effective, practical and legally robust. That is a sensible approach. These are significant reforms. It is important that they are developed carefully, informed by the practical experience of the royal commission itself and by the agencies responsible for enforcing the law. I also note that the royal commission has attracted significant public and media attention, as we all know, and that key stakeholders have indicated their willingness to cooperate with the inquiry. That cooperation will be essential in making sure the commission can undertake its work thoroughly and transparently.

Ultimately this bill is about giving Victorian taxpayers confidence in the integrity of major public infrastructure projects. It is about making sure serious allegations are properly investigated and that information uncovered through the royal commission can be acted upon. It is about ensuring public institutions have the powers they need to uncover wrongdoing and support accountability. For rural communities and regional communities like those across Ripon, where every infrastructure dollar matters, those outcomes are critically important. This legislation strengthens the royal commission, it establishes the independent office of the special prosecutor and it improves information-gathering powers. It represents another important step in restoring and maintaining public confidence in Victoria’s construction industry and the delivery of major public projects. That is why I commend this bill to the house.

 Kat THEOPHANOUS (Northcote) (12:30): I rise to speak on the Inquiries Amendment (Special Prosecutor) Bill 2026, a bill about ensuring integrity and accountability are at the heart of the delivery of major government-funded projects. It establishes the office of the special prosecutor to work alongside the Royal Commission into the Integrity of Major Public and Civil Infrastructure Construction Projects in Victoria, another important step in this government’s strong and definitive response to serious concerns about integrity in our construction industry. As his first act the Premier announced that the government would establish a royal commission to inquire into misconduct affecting Victorian government-funded construction projects, alongside a special prosecutor. On 20 ‍August that royal commission was formally established, with the Honourable Christopher Kourakis ‍AC ‍appointed as commissioner. It has comprehensive terms of reference that have been welcomed by the most eminent integrity experts.

Establishing this royal commission is a significant step. It gives us an independent process to uncover the facts, examine the evidence and identify the nature and extent of corruption, criminal conduct and serious misconduct affecting government-funded construction projects. But we also need to recognise what a royal commission is and what it is not. A royal commission is an inquisitorial body. Under the Inquiries Act 2014 it does not have the power to prosecute or compile a brief of evidence, yet through the course of its work this royal commission may uncover evidence of criminality, corruption or serious misconduct. That is why the special prosecutor matters, and this bill puts in place the legislative architecture to establish that special prosecutor. The special prosecutor will work in parallel with the royal commission and provide relevant information to bodies including Victoria Police, IBAC, regulatory and licensing authorities and other appropriate Victorian, interstate, territory and Commonwealth bodies. These bodies can then consider what action should be taken in accordance with their respective functions. It means we do not simply establish a royal commission, wait for the final report and then begin thinking about what comes next. Where relevant information emerges through the course of the commission, there will be a dedicated, embedded resource working in real time alongside it to help ensure that information can reach the appropriate authorities.

Importantly, it is not the role of government to determine who has done something wrong. It is not the role of ministers to determine what should be investigated or who should be prosecuted. Those decisions belong with independent institutions operating according to law and following the evidence. Our responsibility is to make sure those institutions have the framework they need to do their jobs, and a central feature of this bill is therefore the independence of the special prosecutor. The special prosecutor will be appointed by the Governor in Council on the recommendation of the Premier following consultation with royal commissioner Mr Kourakis. Once appointed, the special prosecutor will not be subject to the direction or control of the Premier or of any other minister in performing their duties, exercising their functions or using their powers. Their functions must be performed fairly and independently. The special prosecutor will remain a public body for the purposes of the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission Act 2011, meaning they will themselves remain subject to IBAC oversight. That independence matters. If we are serious about accountability, then we must be serious about allowing institutions to follow the evidence wherever it leads, and we must make sure the public can have confidence that decisions about that evidence are being made independently and without political interference.

The bill also establishes the information-sharing framework that will allow this relationship to work. The royal commission will be able to disclose acquired information to the special prosecutor where it considers that information relevant and appropriate to the performance of the special prosecutor’s functions. The special prosecutor can assess that information and provide it to the appropriate law enforcement, integrity, regulatory or licensing body so that that body can consider what action to take. At the same time, this bill puts important safeguards around that information. The special prosecutor will be subject to confidentiality obligations, restrictions and exemptions applying to royal commission officers, including restrictions on knowingly disclosing information acquired during their appointment, except in prescribed circumstances, and that balance is important. We want information to be able to move to the bodies that it needs to, but we also need that information to be handled appropriately.

I represent a community where people have strong expectations of their government. People in Northcote have a deep appreciation for the social contract. We are all a part of the democratic institutions we uphold and the laws and liberties that we respect. They go to work, they run their businesses, they pay their taxes and they contribute to our community. I think there is a very basic principle at the heart of this bill: people who do the right thing should be able to expect that the rules apply to everyone. That is especially important when we are talking about major projects being delivered on behalf of the Victorian community. Government undertakes major public and civil infrastructure projects with public money. That is the role and responsibility of our government as we plan for the future of our city and our state. Victoria remains the fastest growing state in the country, with our population expected to reach 10 million by 2051 – 8 million of those people will live and reside in Melbourne. We have a duty to plan for that growth with the services and city-building infrastructure we need to see us through the coming decades.

In Northcote we have benefited greatly from some of these fantastic infrastructure projects. Just this week we celebrated four years of the removal of the level crossing on Bell Street in Preston and the opening of the new Bell station. It is an award-winning station, having been named one of the world’s most beautiful passenger stations in 2024 by the prestigious Prix Versailles architecture and design awards. Many thanks to the work of Wood Marsh, who designed the striking multicoloured glass panels and the concrete pattern that mimic the roofscape of Preston’s post-war heritage neighbourhoods. But quite beyond its stunning architecture, this station has changed daily life for our community, dramatically improving the ability to move amongst our suburbs and easing what was one of Melbourne’s worst congestion points. We have seen similar improvements with the building of the new Chandler Highway bridge. The Eastern Freeway upgrade is also underway to reduce travel times and deliver a new bridge over the Yarra River as well. Our health workforce can now use the Metro Tunnel to get to our world-class health services in Parkville. Uni students can now more easily make their way to Melbourne Uni. The upgrade at the Austin Hospital ED will allow for 30,000 more patients each year.

These are projects that help make Melbourne one of the best cities in the world to live and are fundamental projects to shape our city and our lives, and the vast majority are built and delivered by hardworking Victorians who are doing the right thing. These are people who deserve to have their work recognised and celebrated. Where there are serious allegations about the infiltration of bad-faith actors, government has a responsibility to respond – not defensively, not looking the other way, but by opening those allegations to proper scrutiny and ensuring that independent bodies are equipped to deal with what that scrutiny uncovers. That is the approach this government is taking.

It is worth noting, as the member for Preston very aptly did, that the Greens are nowhere to be seen in this debate. They maintain a very problematic relationship with the CFMEU, and it is curious indeed that they are not willing to come into this chamber and speak in support of greater scrutiny in the construction industry. Let us not forget that it was not very long ago when the former Greens member for Griffith stood up to oppose the CFMEU being put into administration, a pretty shocking stance for the Greens to take in relation to what we know has been the infiltration of organised crime within the construction arm of the CFMEU.

I also want to acknowledge clearly that this legislation represents the first tranche of reforms relating to the special prosecutor. The bill establishes the statutory office, enables the necessary information sharing and puts the initial powers and functions in place. But there will be a second tranche of reforms. Importantly, though, the special prosecutor can perform meaningful functions under this bill from the outset. Information uncovered by the royal commission will not sit untouched until a final report. The special prosecutor can assess that information and provide it to bodies capable of considering further action. That is a practical and immediate function.

There is another significant reform in this bill which deserves attention. The bill strengthens the compulsory powers available to royal commissions in Victoria. At present royal commissions can compel the production of documents and require a person to attend and give evidence at a hearing, but the bill will go further, requiring a person, by written notice, to provide written information or a statement. That is a significant improvement to their powers and will ensure greater oversight and integrity. For all of the reasons that I have stated today, I commend the bill to the house.

 Kathleen MATTHEWS-WARD (Broadmeadows) (12:40): I rise in support of the Inquiries Amendment (Special Prosecutor) Bill 2026. This is an important bill because it is about integrity, accountability and restoring public confidence in the way major government-funded projects are delivered in Victoria. It is about making sure that if corruption, criminal conduct or serious misconduct is uncovered, there is a clear pathway to ensure that information is acted upon and the appropriate authorities can investigate and pursue consequences where necessary. As members know, one of the first actions of the Premier was to establish the Royal Commission into the Integrity of Major Public and Civil Infrastructure Construction Projects in Victoria. The royal commission was established because Victorians deserve answers. They deserve to know how allegations of criminal activity and misconduct may have affected parts of the construction industry, who was responsible and what reforms are needed to ensure that these issues do not occur again. This royal commission has been given broad terms of reference and significant resources. It has been tasked with identifying the nature and extent of corruption, criminal conduct and serious misconduct relating to major public infrastructure projects. It has also been asked to help rebuild the trust in the integrity of Victoria’s construction sector and to support referrals to law enforcement and integrity agencies and regulators where appropriate.

For communities like Broadmeadows, this really matters. Residents in Broadmeadows understand the importance of good public infrastructure. People rely on local roads, hospitals, schools, community facilities and public transport every day. There has been so much investment in the Northern Hospital, and the latest big upgrade is the new emergency department. As I said yesterday, we have so many good, honest construction workers in Broadmeadows who also want the sector cleaned up so that they can be as proud as I am of the things we have built. They have delivered life-changing infrastructure in my electorate, such as the Health and Community Centre of Excellence at Kangan Institute, a jewel in the crown of Broadmeadows, which gives so many people the opportunity to do our free TAFE programs there. The magnificent new tech school, with a focus on building skills in growth industries, renewable energy, advanced manufacturing, logistics, robotics and IT, is already opening imaginations, opportunities and possibilities and making a huge difference to our kids in the north. 120 new social homes are ready to open soon, giving many people the dignity and safety of a roof over their heads. And one of the many projects this Labor government is delivering is the provision of more than 15,000 new social and affordable homes.

There is also so much investment in our schools. Labor is upgrading all of the special schools across the state, including more than $10 million to the wonderful Jacana School for Autism, and that is an incredible project we have delivered. We have delivered over $8 million to Hume Valley School and$20 million to double the capacity at Broadmeadows Special Developmental School, giving them a whole new indoor gymnasium, new art and food tech rooms, a performing arts centre and high-quality staff amenities. A $14.5 million project has delivered the leading-edge science, technology and arts building, new classrooms and a food technology hub at John Fawkner College. New music and arts rooms and student amenities have been delivered at Moomba Park Primary. There have been major upgrades at Meadows Primary and Fawkner Primary and full rebuilds of Westbreen and Glenroy West primaries. One of the first government owned and run affordable childcare centres has been built in Moomba Park: the Wimbi early learning centre. We have expanded so many kinders in my area to deliver our nation-leading free kinder program for three- and four-year-olds, making sure every child has the best start in life.

We have got new SES headquarters in Fawkner being built, the new ambulance station in Oak Park and the upgraded Broadmeadows court, with all of these done by our skilled construction workers. There is so much more. Improvements to parks, creeks and sporting infrastructure, and of course one ‍–

Cindy McLeish: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, on two issues, I noticed that the member on her feet is reading a speech, which she might like to pass over, but she is not even a little bit on the bill about the special prosecutor, and I ask you to bring her back.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Wayne Farnham): I will address one at a time. Member for Broadmeadows, are you reading a speech or reading from notes?

Kathleen MATTHEWS-WARD: I am referring to my notes, and I am also listing many of the construction projects that have happened in my electorate, which is relevant to the bill.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Wayne Farnham): Member for Broadmeadows, I will address the second point of order. The member for Broadmeadows is being relevant to the bill as it is to do with construction and the special prosecutor, but I remind the member not to go too broad.

Kathleen MATTHEWS-WARD: One of the things I am most proud of is the magnificent Glenroy station, which has been a game changer for Glenroy with the level crossing removal. I would like to thank all of the good people who have built or are building these important projects. Public infrastructure is key for our community’s future, and taxpayers rightly expect that money invested in these projects is spent properly and that projects are delivered with honesty and integrity. When governments invest billions of dollars in infrastructure, Victorians have the right to expect that these projects are free from corruption and criminal influence. They expect accountability and transparency, and this is exactly what the bill seeks to strengthen.

The key reform contained in the bill is the creation of the office of the special prosecutor. This will be a new office established specifically to work alongside the royal commission. It is important to understand why this is necessary. A royal commission is a powerful investigative body. It can gather evidence, compel witnesses and make findings. However, a royal commission cannot prosecute individuals. It does not have the power to bring criminal charges or conduct prosecutions; its role is to investigate and report. This bill recognises that limitation and addresses it. The office of the special prosecutor will work alongside the royal commission in real time. As evidence emerges, the special prosecutor will help ensure that information is referred to the appropriate agencies, including Victoria Police, IBAC, regulators and licensing authorities, so that potential wrongdoing can be properly investigated and addressed, which will be a whole lot quicker than just a royal commission. In practical terms, this means there will be a dedicated specialist whose sole responsibility is to help ensure that evidence uncovered by the royal commission does not simply sit on a shelf. Where information reveals potential criminal conduct, corruption or serious misconduct, there will be a structured process for referral to the authorities that have the power to take action. I think Victorians see this as common sense.

The bill also places significant importance on the independence of the special prosecutor. Public confidence depends on people knowing that decisions are being made independently and without political interference. That is why the bill makes it clear that the special prosecutor will not be subject to the direction or control of the Premier or any minister. The role will be filled by an experienced legal practitioner, and safeguards are included around appointment, removal and accountability. The special prosecutor will also be subject to the same confidentiality obligations that apply to royal commission officers. These measures are really important because they help ensure that the work of the special prosecutor is conducted fairly, independently and transparently.

The bill also improves the ability of the royal commission to gather information. Under the current law, a royal commission can compel the production of documents and require people to appear and give evidence. However, there are circumstances where relevant information does not exist in a document or where the information is spread across many sources and is difficult to identify efficiently. This bill addresses that issue by giving royal commissions the power to compel written information and witness statements directly. A person may be required to provide information in writing, answer questions or provide a witness statement before a specified time and in a specified manner. That may sound like a technical change, but it is actually a very practical reform. It means the royal commission can obtain targeted information more quickly, and we know we want quick action on this, which is why the Premier did this in one of his first announcements. It means investigators do not always need to sift through enormous numbers of documents in order to find a specific answer. It means people can be required to provide relevant information even when there are no existing documents. And it means that the commission can identify key witnesses and relevant facts before formal hearings take place.

Ultimately these reforms will help the royal commissioners operate more efficiently and more effectively. Importantly, these powers are not without safeguards. They will operate within the same framework of checks and balances that already applies to the existing compulsory powers under the Inquiries Act 2014. This is about improving effectiveness without compromising fairness. Integrity in public administration is not something Victorians should ever take for granted. Trust in public institutions takes a long time to build, but it can be damaged very quickly when allegations of corruption or misconduct arise. That is why strong institutions matter, that is why effective oversight matters and that is why this bill matters. I commend the bill to the house.

 Meng Heang TAK (Clarinda) (12:50): I rise today in support of the Inquiries Amendment (Special Prosecutor) Bill 2026. I will go straight to the bill, Acting Speaker Farnham, because I know this is a very important bill, and in your past life, before coming to this place, you had a lot of experience in building and construction, so I had better go right to the heart of this bill. This bill will introduce amendments to the Inquiries Act 2014 to establish the office of the special prosecutor to work in cooperation and in conjunction with the Royal Commission into the Integrity of Major Public and Civil Infrastructure Construction Projects in Victoria, the construction royal commission. Further, the bill will amend the Inquiries Act to strengthen a royal commission’s power to require information, as well as making minor technical and consequential amendments.

These are really important changes that are part of the legislative agenda of the government this week. Integrity has been the theme of this agenda. As we have seen, the Premier, from his very first day, has come out really strongly on this and made it very clear that integrity is not optional for this government. We can also see that with the legislation before us this week. This bill and the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission Amendment Bill 2026, which I was very glad to make a contribution on yesterday, both go to the heart of integrity in this state, and I am really glad to see both of them here before us this week.

As I have mentioned, this is something that is raised with me often in my community. Many of my constituents have a strong sentiment that Victorians deserve to know 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 powers and public hearings, with terms of reference that are broad and expansive with nothing off limits. This has been a really welcome announcement, and the bills before us here this week are further welcome developments, with follow-the-money powers, a broadened definition of ‘corrupt conduct’ and now the establishment of the office of the special prosecutor to work with the Royal Commission into the Integrity of Major Public and Civil Infrastructure Construction Projects in Victoria, the construction royal commission.

This will be the first time in Victoria that we have an office of the special prosecutor, which will be a dedicated resource specifically for the major construction projects royal commission, as we have heard from many speakers before me. It is important to acknowledge also that a royal commission does not have the power to charge or prosecute anyone. It is an investigatory body. It can compel evidence and make findings, but it cannot put people before a court. That is why we are establishing an office of the special prosecutor – so that when wrongdoing is uncovered it is investigated and it is pursued and people face serious consequences. That is what the community is calling for – my community and the broader Victorian community – that is what the community expects and that is why we see this bill here today.

We have seen the commitment to integrity from the Carroll Labor government this week – strong action on allegations of crime, corruption and misconduct on government-funded major construction projects in Victoria. That has been evident from the Premier’s first act after assuming office, that being to call the royal commission into crime and misconduct in Victoria’s construction industry. As I said, Victorians 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 will never happen again. Again, these changes and the establishment of the office of the special prosecutor are welcomed by my constituents.

I should also note the Inquiries Act already enables a royal commission to refer information to law enforcement agencies, but this bill will provide the major construction projects royal commission with a specialist, dedicated and embedded resource to work in real time as evidence of crime and misconduct is uncovered. The appointment of a special prosecutor will streamline appropriate action being taken by relevant bodies where corruption, criminal misconduct and serious misconduct are identified. These are important and strong changes that I am happy to support here today.

When we talk about major construction, there is so much happening in the Clarinda district and across the south-east. There are the hospitals: Monash Medical Centre and Monash heart hospital, right on Blackburn Road next to my electorate. Many of my constituents have benefited from the Monash Medical Centre and Monash heart hospital. On public transport, there is the Suburban Rail Loop. In terms of roads, there have been level crossing removals in Clayton. At Clayton South Primary School there is so much happening onsite at the moment with the $12.45 million new administration and learning building, which consists of a general-purpose classroom and a science space, and a new playground and landscaping – all happening at Clayton South Primary School.

Kathleen Matthews-Ward interjected.

Meng Heang TAK: Thank you, member for Broadmeadows. There is such a broad scope in terms of building, and we have heard that so much is happening also in the electorate of Broadmeadows from you, the speaker before me. It is a really exciting project and one of so many across our district and across the south-east.

There is so much construction happening also. It is very important to make sure that this is happening effectively, efficiently and with integrity across all our major projects, because the Victorian community expects that our tax dollars are spent effectively and efficiently. That is what we want to see so that we can continue to deliver amazing projects in Clarinda and in the south-east, like the work at Clayton South Primary School and like the massive $535 million expansion of the Monash Medical Centre at Clayton, which is now underway. That is an amazing project that will deliver a new seven-storey medical tower above the newly expanded emergency department. Once complete, the tower will include expanded maternity services, supporting around 2400 births annually; an operating theatre, providing capacity for up to 7500 more surgeries each year; a new intensive care unit with modern technology to support the hospital’s sickest patients; and a new medical equipment central sterile services department, helping deliver more surgeries. This is all happening in the south-east, near the electorate of Clarinda and in the electorate of Clarinda. They are amazing facilities that will be so important for my constituents in Clarinda district getting the health care that they need. That goes alongside Monash heart hospital and all the other amazing health infrastructure that we have delivered and supported in our health precinct.

Once again, I am glad to see this bill here before us today to make sure that we have that accountability and so we can make sure that we can continue to deliver those important projects for my constituents in the Clarinda district, across the south-east and across Victoria. I commend the Premier for bringing this bill to the house.

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

Business interrupted under standing orders.