Thursday, 4 December 2025

 Ryan BATCHELOR (Southern Metropolitan) (09:35): Pursuant to section 35 of the Parliamentary Committees Act 2003, I table the report on the inquiry into the adequacy of the legislative framework for the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission, including appendices and extracts of proceedings, from the Integrity and Oversight Committee, and I present the transcripts of evidence. I move:

That the transcripts of evidence be tabled and the report be published.

Motion agreed to.

Ryan BATCHELOR: I move:

That the Council take note of the report.

The Integrity and Oversight Committee is one of the joint investigatory committees of the Parliament and is tasked with oversight of our integrity agencies on behalf of the Parliament – agencies, such as IBAC, which are accountable to the Parliament. The IOC has a wide remit. One of the things that the committee decided to do was conduct a review of the legislative basis of the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission. Obviously, with IBAC now being more than a decade old and subject to a couple of tranches of legislative amendment over its history, the committee felt it was warranted to examine how the legislative framework for IBAC was functioning.

The committee over the last several months has undertaken a pretty comprehensive inquiry, hearing from a range of expert witnesses. I want to thank the committee staff in particular for helping us as a committee navigate through the complexity of some of the matters that present in an inquiry such as this. Sean Coley, the committee manager; the senior research officers, firstly Dr Stephen James and then Dr Chloë Duncan; Tom Hvala, the research officer; Whitny Kapa, the research assistant; Emma Daniel, the complaints and research assistant; Maria Marasco and Bernadette Pendergast, who assisted the committee with administration; Alex Li, an intern from Monash University who worked on the report; and Jessica Summers, who helped as an inquiry officer, made our task a lot easier.

The committee has made a series of recommendations to improve IBAC’s legislative framework, including recommending that the government consider making some changes to the definition of ‘corrupt conduct’, particularly to clarify the intent of the statutory provisions relating to misconduct in public office under the definition of ‘relevant offence’ in section 3 of the act and insert statutory offences. The misconduct in public office element of the definition of ‘corrupt conduct’ in this state was inserted by legislation in 2016. Its operation at common law is ambiguous, and the committee felt that, as similar jurisdictions have done around the world, it would be preferable for the elements of that offence to be clarified.

We made further recommendations about giving IBAC the ability to make public recommendations that it currently is required to make which relate to matters for departments and agencies to improve the transparency of their operations. The committee examined the current arrangements for public examination, resolved that they were appropriate and did not recommend any changes on that front.

There was some interesting discussion about how particularly the relationship between the police oversight jurisdiction of IBAC and the public misconduct jurisdiction of IBAC interrelate and the operation particularly of section 15(1A) of the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission Act 2011 and the impact that that section has had on the way that IBAC has had to make decisions about certain matters. Certainly the committee has seen, following some reports from what was then the Victorian Inspectorate, now Integrity Oversight Victoria, that some of the matters that IBAC has had responsibility for in the police oversight jurisdiction, particularly around oversight of police-perpetrated family violence, have been found to be a bit lacking. So there are some recommendations about improving the operation of and the relationship between the police oversight jurisdiction and the public misconduct jurisdiction. There was some particular evidence we received on some matters there, which people can go and have a look at. I think it is rather interesting and illuminating on that front.

It was a collegiate inquiry. There was a lot of evidence. I want to thank all of the witnesses who came and took us through some quite complex evidence. I also want to thank my fellow members of the committee: Ms Payne here; the chair, the member for Brunswick; the deputy chair, the member for Rowville; and also the members for Mildura, Hastings, Narre Warren North and Mulgrave. I commend the report to the house.

Motion agreed to.