Wednesday, 4 March 2026

 Evan MULHOLLAND (Northern Metropolitan) (10:05): I lay on the table a statement of compatibility with the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006:

Introduction

In accordance with section 28 of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006, I make this Statement of Compatibility with respect to the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission Amendment (Follow the Money) Bill 2026.

In my opinion, the Bill is compatible with the human rights protected by the Charter. To the extent that the Bill may limit certain rights, those limitations are reasonable and demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society based on human dignity, equality and freedom, as required by section 7(2) of the Charter.

Overview of the Bill

The Bill amends the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission Act 2011 to expand the jurisdiction of the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission and provide further for public hearings and related investigative processes.

Key features of the Bill include:

• introducing a broad definition of “associated entity” to capture contractors, subcontractors and other entities involved in arrangements connected with public sector activity;

• expanding relevant definitions of public body and public officer to include associated entities;

• removing a provision requiring certain examinations to be held in private, thereby enabling greater flexibility in the conduct of hearings;

• providing for automatic repeal of the amending Act after one year.

The purpose of these amendments is to strengthen the capacity of anti-corruption investigations to examine the full flow of public funds and address misconduct connected with publicly funded activity.

Human rights engaged by the Bill

The Bill engages the following rights under the Charter:

• the right to privacy and reputation (section 13)

• the right to a fair hearing (section 24)

Each is considered below.

Right to privacy and reputation (section 13)

Section 13 protects individuals from unlawful or arbitrary interference with privacy, family, home or correspondence, and from unlawful attacks on reputation.

The Bill expands the scope of entities and individuals who may fall within the jurisdiction of anti-corruption investigations by including “associated entities” connected with public sector functions or publicly funded activities.

These measures engage section 13 because they may involve the collection, use or disclosure of personal or commercial information, or public examination of conduct.

Justification

Any limitation on privacy or reputation is reasonable and justified for several reasons:

• Legitimate purpose: The amendments are directed at preventing, detecting and exposing corruption and serious misconduct in connection with public sector activity and expenditure. Protecting public integrity and accountability is a pressing and substantial public objective.

• Rational connection: Expanding jurisdiction to associated entities and enabling appropriate public examination directly supports effective investigation of complex financial and contractual arrangements involving public funds.

• Proportionality: Existing statutory safeguards governing investigative powers, procedural fairness and decision-making continue to apply. The Bill does not create new coercive powers but extends the reach of existing oversight mechanisms where public sector interests are involved.

• Timeframe limitation: The amending Act is subject to repeal after one year, ensuring parliamentary review of its operation.

For these reasons, any interference with privacy or reputation is not arbitrary and is proportionate to the objective of maintaining integrity in public administration.

Right to a fair hearing (section 24)

Section 24 protects the right to a fair and public hearing in the determination of rights and obligations and in criminal proceedings.

The Bill removes a provision requiring certain examinations to be conducted in private, enabling greater flexibility in whether proceedings occur publicly.

Investigative examinations conducted by anti-corruption bodies are generally investigative rather than determinative of criminal guilt or civil liability. Nevertheless, procedural fairness considerations remain relevant where reputational or legal interests may be affected.

Justification

The Bill enables greater transparency in appropriate circumstances while existing statutory safeguards governing examinations remain in place. Decision-makers retain discretion regarding the conduct of hearings, allowing consideration of fairness, confidentiality and the interests of justice in each case.

The reform supports transparency and public confidence in integrity processes while preserving procedural protections. Any impact on section 24 is therefore limited and justified.

Other rights

No other Charter rights are materially engaged by the Bill.

Conclusion

The Bill strengthens the capacity of anti-corruption oversight to examine the use of public funds and the conduct of entities involved in public sector activity. While the expanded jurisdiction and increased flexibility regarding hearings may engage rights to privacy, reputation and procedural fairness, those impacts are limited, proportionate and directed toward a legitimate and significant public purpose.

Accordingly, in my opinion, the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission Amendment (Follow the Money) Bill 2026 is compatible with the human rights protected by the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006.

 Evan MULHOLLAND (Northern Metropolitan) (10:05): I move:

That the bill be now read a second time.

I am delighted to speak on the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission Amendment (Follow the Money) Bill 2026, a bill brought to this place by the Liberals and Nationals. This is an important and absolutely necessary reform for the people of Victoria, and it comes to this house at a time when public trust in the integrity of government spending has been broken.

Why has it been broken? Because we have recently learned that the corrupt CFMEU bosses and their underworld friends have been engaged in corruption and rorting on what can only be described as an industrial scale. It is the biggest corruption scandal in the history of the state of Victoria.

Victorians work hard. They pay their taxes in good faith. They expect their money to be spent honestly, carefully and in the public interest. When that trust is broken, when public funds are misused or siphoned away through misconduct, this Parliament has a duty to act. At least $15 billion has been stolen from Victorian taxpayers, and this Labor government and this Labor Premier, Jacinta Allan, knew about it and let it happen. I really hope that those opposite in the government reflect on this fact – reflect on the fact that the leader of their party, the Premier, allowed every household in their electorate to have on average $5000 stolen from them.

Victorians expect that when their taxes are collected those funds are managed responsibly, lawfully and transparently. They expect that major projects are delivered efficiently and that the enormous sums allocated to infrastructure are spent in the public interest. Above all they expect that those entrusted with public money are held to the highest standards of accountability. I think it is fair to say that we have not seen that to this date – $15 billion. We saw disgraceful attacks on Geoffrey Watson SC, one of the most pre-eminent legal minds in the country, a former New South Wales ICAC commissioner, in his evidence to the Queensland royal commission. We have seen extraordinary attacks on his character and his 18 months of work to try to discredit Geoffrey Watson.

We have seen every excuse under the sun on why IBAC should not be given these powers or why it is not the right time. We saw media briefing to the Age as recently as Friday saying that some government members wanted the government to move on giving IBAC follow-the-money powers. But that briefing also said that this is being managed by both the Premier’s office and the Attorney-General Ms Kilkenny and it would be really up to them to decide the pathway forward. Obviously they decided that IBAC’s recommendations – that our integrity agency recommendations – were not going to be picked up by the government, and you would have to wonder why. Why would this government, having just been exposed in the biggest corruption scandal in Victorian history, where $15 billion was siphoned off to the criminal underworld for strippers, to bikies, to all sorts of unsavoury activities, then turn around and say that they do not want to give our integrity agencies the ability to follow that money when it goes to contractors and be able to get to the bottom of it?

Then we see reporting from the Ombudsman that was in the Age today about the Victorian Infrastructure Delivery Authority, that its document keeping and reporting are abysmal.

This is the agency charged with both vetting contractors and getting money out the door to contractors and having oversight on all of Victoria’s infrastructure projects, and the Ombudsman has serious concerns with how that authority is being run. So why would the government then turn around and oppose IBAC having more powers or oversight to follow that money down to the contractor? You have to wonder why.

I think many government members are quietly reflecting on why the Premier, who was the Minister for Transport Infrastructure and responsible for the Big Build over the last decade, would now be turning around saying that she does not want a royal commission and she does not want to give IBAC the teeth that are needed to get to the bottom of this, the worst corruption scandal in Victorian history. The Premier is making the calls with her friend the Attorney-General, blocking out every everyone else, clearly blocking out every other view that supposedly Labor members privately have, that they need to do something on this. Why is the Premier not supporting further action to give IBAC teeth?

At present the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission does not have sufficient powers to properly investigate how public funds are spent once they pass into the hands of third parties. That limitation is not a minor technical issue; it is a serious structural weakness in Victoria’s integrity framework. It means investigators cannot fully trace the flow of taxpayer money through complex contracting chains, it means they cannot examine every entity that benefits from publicly funded work and it means they cannot uncover the complete picture when misconduct occurs within major projects funded by Victorians, and the consequences for this failure are enormous.

For years IBAC has called for follow-the-money powers to address precisely this problem. Those calls have been consistent, clear and entirely reasonable. Yet they have been completely ignored by those opposite. Billions of dollars have flowed through taxpayer-funded major projects during this more than a decade old government. Alongside that spending have come deeply troubling allegations of misconduct and rorting on an extraordinary scale.

We have seen organisations like the AWU point out with the Suburban Rail Loop that the government’s processing is allowing a green light for CFMEU-aligned labour hire firms and contractors to be able to run rampant on the Suburban Rail Loop. So we are seeing history repeat itself in the same way it has repeated itself over the last decade of this government. Is it any wonder why the government does not want IBAC to have these powers? And here we are today, moving in this place a bill that would do just that.

As the Victorian Liberals and Nationals announced yesterday, we did include as part of our comprehensive package to tackle corruption and clean up Victoria that we would give IBAC follow-the-money powers. We would establish Construction Enforcement Victoria, backed by a construction code that works, and stamp out organised crime on government-funded projects. We would also introduce tough new laws, modelled on the racketeer influence and corrupt organisation laws in the United States, that will target criminal bosses who run organised crime networks, who continue to have influence on taxpayer-funded construction sites, and we will create a police taskforce to recover money stolen on government projects and work in conjunction with the Australian Federal Police.

This bill introduces a comprehensive definition of ‘associated entity’ covering contractors, subcontractors, agents, trustees, joint ventures, partnership arrangements and third-party providers linked to publicly funded work. The reform recognises a simple reality: public funds rarely move in a straight line from government to project delivery. They pass through multiple commercial relationships, layered contractual arrangements and complex financial structures. Where investigative powers stop at the first contractual boundary, large portions of public expenditure effectively sit behind any meaningful oversight. This bill ensures investigators can follow public money through every stage of those arrangements.

Again, you have to wonder why Premier Jacinta Allan, who was responsible for major projects for the past decade, would not want those powers. Why does she not want those powers? Why won’t she give IBAC the powers it has been requesting – eminently reasonable powers – to follow taxpayer money to where it has gone? Why does she not want to give IBAC those powers? We still have not had a clear explanation on why the Premier does not want to give IBAC those powers and why the Premier does not want a royal commission. We saw today about two-thirds of Victorians want a royal commission. An even higher number are very aware of the biggest construction scandal in Victorian history. As the member for Laverton pointed out, of course punters are speaking to her about the $15 billion. They are speaking to me about the $15 billion. I was at the Wallan market a couple of weeks ago, and that number was on everyone’s lips. You would never see the member for Kalkallo at the Wallan market, but I was there, and everyone was coming up to me talking about the $15 billion, just like they were going up to the member for McEwen and speaking to him about the $15 billion. He very publicly does not have nice things to say about the Victorian government, so of course he was deflecting any blame. But this is something that every single Victorian is concerned about, and rightly so. They should be concerned about it.

These reforms equip IBAC with the tools required to scrutinise contemporary government spending structures. Around $100 billion has flowed into major transport, construction and development projects across the state, and as I have outlined before, we have seen corruption on a scale of the likes of nothing in this country that we have ever seen – again, $15 billion. We have seen corrupt officials transform the CFMEU in Victoria into a crime syndicate, selling Big Build jobs to bikies who treated worksites like drug distribution centres, as an explosive report alleges. We saw with the Hurstbridge rail line site taxpayer-funded cars used for hit jobs. Drug distribution, strippers, you name it – everything happened on that site, with competing gang members having a turf war over one government construction site. And you mean to tell me that did not contribute to any blowouts?

We saw pretty awful examples of corruption. We have seen contractors and workers on the North East Link being asked to pay $5000 to get work on the site. How is that legal? We see contractors on the current Suburban Rail Loop sites being kicked off because they refused to pay a bribe. Again, the Minister for the Suburban Rail Loop, who loves to waffle in her answers to questions, refused to answer directly about those allegations that were reported to the Fair Work Commission and about whether she had been briefed on that situation on current Suburban Rail Loop sites. The same minister was reported as one of the only ministers backing in the Premier’s call not to have a royal commission.

I wonder why the Minister for the Suburban Rail Loop does not want a royal commission when this corruption and coercion is happening right now on Suburban Rail Loop sites. This minister still is living in a fantasy land where the 2019 cost estimate of $30 billion to $34 billion is still within the target band, even though construction costs have increased by 20 per cent and even though the CFMEU is running rampant on SRL sites right now, kicking contractors off sites.

We saw that a professional hit was planned on Mr Irving after he took over the union. We saw that Mick Gatto makes $5 million a year as a construction industry enforcer, which he denies. The union had a relationship with corrupt police, and ex-cons were paid $300,000 a year for roles they did not fulfil. How do you go from exiting prison one week straight into a health and safety role on the government’s Big Build, straight on to a six-figure salary on the government’s Big Build, after you have just been in prison for violent and very serious offences? This is what is happening in Victoria. We all know a lot of those roles have very little to do with health and safety but are more about controlling the turf on government construction sites. I know how it is run, and those health and safety roles are being abused, which is why we need follow-the-money powers.

We saw a woman locked in a small room on a half-built state government hospital by a man previously jailed for violence against women who smoked ice in her face as he detained her. We saw another woman bashed by a bikie-linked health and safety representative on his lunchbreak from a government-funded project in an attack caught on camera. Yet the government does not want a royal commission and the government does not want to give IBAC the powers it needs to follow the money to these contractors and where taxpayer money is going. You have to wonder why. Why does the Premier not want this, why does the Attorney-General not want this and why does the Minister for the Suburban Rail Loop not want it when at least two of her ministers do want a royal commission and multiple backbench members do want a royal commission?

I tell you what: under Jess Wilson and our Liberals–Nationals team we will not be letting this go. This is not something that can be pushed to the side by a few announcements on legislation we have not seen. This is not something that the Premier can just avoid by going out for the day when there are bad news stories, as she always does. This is going to keep haunting this government all the way until November, when the good people of Victoria finally turf them out of office because they refused to back their calls for a royal commission. Over two-thirds of Victorians want one. You have refused the recommendation of IBAC to give them follow-the-money powers to follow the money where it goes.

$15 billion has been lost in the biggest corruption scandal we have ever seen in the history of Victoria, and this government does not care. Think about what $15 billion could have bought: 130,000 new nurses, teachers, coppers in our community to keep our community safe. Yet the government has to cut Parentline, VicHealth, our arts organisations. We have got the worst paid teachers. All sorts of other programs this government has had to cut, but $15 billion can be lost on construction sites to the criminal underworld, a continuing pattern from this government to deny and block all accountability and all scrutiny.

IBAC must be able to follow public money through every layer of contracting, subcontracting and associated commercial arrangements. It must be able to investigate any entity that benefits from taxpayer-funded work. It must be able to trace funds, examine relationships and expose misconduct wherever it occurs. We have seen the integrity body ask for stronger authority, and the government refuses to provide it.

This legislation strengthens the ability of integrity authorities to follow public money wherever it travels. It expands jurisdiction to reflect the structure of contemporary infrastructure delivery. It enhances investigative processes and reinforces accountability across complex contractual work. At a time when public concern about the management of major projects is widespread and deeply felt, where Labor have ultimately failed to protect the integrity of taxpayer funds, these reforms are necessary to restore confidence in the integrity of government spending. For those reasons, I commend the bill to the house.

 Lee TARLAMIS (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (10:29): I move:

That debate on this bill be adjourned for two weeks.

Motion agreed to and debate adjourned for two weeks.