Tuesday, 22 September 2026

 Evan MULHOLLAND (Northern Metropolitan) (20:51): I rise to speak to the Inquiries Amendment (Special Prosecutor) Bill 2026. What would Victorians expect when they hear that there is a bill before this Parliament to establish a special prosecutor? I think they would reasonably expect that the bill would create both the office of the special prosecutor and the powers to go with it. That is not what this bill does. This bill creates the office of special prosecutor, but it does not provide the prosecutorial powers that you would expect a special prosecutor to have. The government has admitted that those additional powers and functions will come later, in a second tranche of this legislation. We have a bill before us that creates a special prosecutor without prosecutorial powers, and only this Labor government could manage that. The government creates the office and creates the position, but Victorians will then have to wait another six months – if this government is re-elected in November – for another bill with additional powers and functions: information sharing, investigation and prosecutorial powers. I put to the chamber at the outset that we are establishing a special prosecutor who cannot prosecute. The only way a bill like this could possibly have made its way through the government process without somebody asking, ‘Shouldn’t the special prosecutor actually have prosecutorial powers?’ is because somebody said, ‘We need to do something before the election.’ This is what it looks like, and this is where we are at today.

You do not have to take my word for it. The minister’s own second-reading speech says those prosecutorial powers will not be enabled until early 2027. How can it be that we are creating the office of special prosecutor now but the powers that might make that office actually meaningful will not be enabled for another six months? The government has rushed to establish the position, presumably a funded position, without giving the position the basic powers Victorians would assume would come with the title. It is there in the name: a special prosecutor should be able to prosecute, but under this bill they cannot. It is another example of Labor’s approach to integrity: create the office, put out the media release, hold the press conference and say that something should be done. Premier Ben Carroll had, I believe, a couple of hours between when he knifed Jacinta Allan and when he held his press conference to consider the idea of a special prosecutor – if we take his word for it that he was not planning to roll Jacinta Allan for months. He had a few hours, and so he made this statement not actually having a plan. This kind of legislation is the end result of a line for the media rather than detailed policy work on what can be achieved through the Parliament.

There are serious questions that need to be answered about how this legislation has been handled. The member for Brighton Mr Newbury raised one of those matters in the other place. During the bill briefing Mr Newbury asked what I think is reasonable: how much will the special prosecutor cost? He was told by the Premier’s private office that he would be provided with a funding envelope and a figure for the cost. He then asked a very specific follow-up question: would that figure be provided before the bill was debated? He was given what he described as an ironclad commitment that it would be. And what happened? He received an email saying that the special prosecutor would be funded, which of course was not the question. A clear commitment was given by the Premier’s office about the cost of this office, and that commitment was not met – so much for integrity not being optional. Even the office of the Premier cannot keep their own commitments. On a bill dealing with integrity, you would think a commitment from the Premier’s office would mean something. But we have learned from this Premier that despite saying integrity is not optional, his actions prove that they are. We still do not know how much the special prosecutor will cost. We do not know what the funding envelope will be. What we know, because the minister has told us, is that the special prosecutor will not initially have prosecutorial powers.

There is another concern with the bill, and it aligns closely with the concern we raised in relation to the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission Amendment Bill 2026, and that issue is of public interest immunity. The member for Brighton circulated an amendment in the other place seeking to remove the immunity that applies to the royal commission, just as an amendment will be pursued in relation to an IBAC investigation. Public interest immunity or executive privilege or Crown privilege, as it also has been referred to, allows a minister, former minister, Premier or former Premier to claim privilege over information or documents that they may hold. The amendment in relation to IBAC legislation sought to remove the privilege from the context of IBAC legislation. The amendment to this bill seeks to remove it in relation to the royal commission, because this bill deals with the Inquiries Act 2014. I do not think many Victorians would believe that it is reasonable that a minister, former minister, Premier or former Premier could simply refuse to provide information or documents to a royal commission. I do not think many Victorians would even know that this immunity exists. Under the current act a former Premier such as Daniel Andrews could simply refuse to provide certain information or documents to a royal commissioner on the basis of that privilege. There is no requirement to provide some detailed explanation. They can simply say no.

Here is where the debate becomes particularly interesting. Following the Royal Commission into the Management of Police Informants, this Labor government committed to removing that immunity by May of 2022. That was the government’s response to that royal commission’s recommendations. That was four years ago. I note that governments often make big statements about responses to royal commissions or reviews and never follow through on them, but in the government response to that royal commission, it agreed that it would remove that public interest immunity by May of 2022. Do you think that that happened? It did not.

The government committed, and that commitment remains to this day on the Victorian government website. It was meant to have been delivered by May 2022. Who was the Premier at the time? Daniel Andrews. This might go some way to explaining why this commitment has never been delivered, but some might ask whether anyone in the executive government would really use this immunity. The last person to use public interest immunity was of course then Premier Daniel Andrews. After the government had committed to removing the immunity, Daniel Andrews used executive privilege in relation to the Commonwealth Games. He did not wait for a particular request. He did not wait to see what document or information might be sought. He claimed the privilege over the issue before the request was even made. I do not think that would surprise many Victorians at all.

That is why this amendment matters. The amendment I am moving on behalf of the Liberals and Nationals is entirely consistent with the commitment that this Labor government – this government – made five years ago and said it would implement four years ago. The government has a very simple choice right now: it can vote for an amendment that is consistent with its own public commitment that still remains on the Victorian government website, or it can vote against it. That is the choice that this government faces. The choice of a government that says integrity is not optional is also a choice for the government keeping its own commitment that it made in response to another very serious royal commission. If Labor votes against it, Victorians are entitled to ask why this government wants ministers, former ministers, premiers, former premiers to retain the ability to say no when a royal commission comes asking for information. Why else would you want the immunity to remain in the Inquiries Act?

The Liberals and Nationals do have a clear view: when IBAC, our chief anti-corruption agency, comes asking for information or if a royal commission comes asking for information, a former minister or a former Premier who holds that information and knowledge of what they are asking should provide it. This is not a frivolous proposition, and I understand that public interest immunity can have a role in other circumstances. But what we are dealing with is the chief integrity agency or a royal commission, and I do not think Victorians would regard it reasonable for a minister, former minister, Premier or former Premier to simply say no. This is why we pursued this issue in relation to IBAC and why we are pursuing it again in relation to this legislation. In those circumstances, the privilege effectively allows information to be hidden from an integrity body. I presume this is why the Labor government itself has committed to removing it, and on that point I agree with it: it should not exist in those circumstances. And so it should, by its own commitment given on its own website right now and its own commitment given to a previous royal commission, support our amendment.

We are debating this legislation because every Victorian has seen the extraordinary allegations of corruption surrounding Victoria’s Big Build. We have seen what has been described as perhaps the worst corruption scandal in Australia’s history, with at least $15 billion worth of corruption involved, according to eminent corruption integrity expert Geoffrey Watson SC. Like this bill, like the IBAC legislation that is before the Parliament, this is the action of a government that knows it has finally been caught. It has taken a very long time to get here, and although the action is finally taken, too much of that action remains hollow.

We will not oppose this legislation, but it is worth remembering how rushed this bill is. The minister admitted in the second-reading speech that the special prosecutor will not have prosecutorial powers for what could be at least six months. Can you believe that: six months. Setting up an office so you can go to the election and say you set up this office and special prosecutor, yet you are not giving it the actual powers. It is like this government is going to an election promising the Victorian people a car and not actually putting the engine in the car before they sell it to them. That is what this government is doing. We are creating a special prosecutor without prosecutorial powers, which is the legislative equivalent of a pub with no beer.

I acknowledge that the bill enables information sharing. It establishes the office and allows information sharing, including with the royal commission. The Premier himself has said the special prosecutor is being established to enable prosecutorial action, yet the bill establishing the office does not give the office that power, and that tells you about the hollowness of Labor’s response to corruption on the Big Build. And when it comes to corruption on the Big Build, there are a number of matters that need to be put on the record. We know from public reports and the work of journalists, particularly Nick McKenzie, that the government had known for a long time about corruption allegations on government worksites. We know there were warnings in early 2022, and we know the former Premier, who at the time was Minister for Transport Infrastructure with responsibility for this project, was warned about labour hire firm Marda Dandhi, and those matters have been raised publicly in this chamber. We also know that allegations were put to the now Attorney-General during a meeting on a Big Build site. These were very senior ministers in this government who had specific serious allegations put to them, including allegations concerning behaviour and criminal activity.

If somebody approaches a minister and says that very serious criminal conduct is occurring on a government worksite for which the minister has responsibility, Victorians would rightly expect something to be done. So when the Attorney-General was asked about allegations that had been put to her, she initially suggested publicly that those allegations had been referred to police. She was later forced to clarify that this was not correct. Those allegations had not been referred by the Attorney-General to police, they had been passed on internally, and this was significant, because the then Premier Jacinta Allan had made clear that her expectation was that allegations of criminal behaviour would be referred to police.

I remember speaking about allegations of criminal coercion and corruption that had been put to me, and I remember several members of those opposite, including Minister Shing, yelling across the chamber as to whether I had reported those allegations of coercion and corruption to the appropriate authorities. In fact I had. The then Minister for Transport Infrastructure had already put out a statement in that regard, because the concerns that we put to the government were of such serious nature. So while lecturing the opposition about whether or not we had referred serious matters, it had ministers like the Attorney-General not actually properly referring matters for investigation. Indeed I had to have about a year-and-a-half-long fight in VCAT to obtain documents about the North East Link, which showed that the assembly of the tunnel-boring machines was significantly delayed because of untoward CFMEU activity, and also that the CFMEU were preventing surveyors from accessing the North East Link. None of this would have come out unless we had fought the government in VCAT, something it would have spent a lot of money on lawyers trying to keep secret. But it goes to the attitude of this 12-year-old government – it would rather hide these things under the carpet than have to acknowledge that there is something wrong and has been something wrong.

We also know that many of these allegations were put to the former Premier, Jacinta Allan, when she was the responsible minister. She later wrote to IBAC about those investigations, although she wrote to IBAC in July 2024, almost two years after those allegations were first raised with her. IBAC responded three months later, in October of that year, saying it did not have the powers to investigate what had been referred to it and that the matters had been referred to police. You would think a senior minister or the Premier receiving that response would have done something about it.

Victorians did not learn about that response from IBAC until this year. We found that out after the former Premier had received a response saying IBAC could not investigate those matters. That referral matters, because as the Premier has said, the special prosecutor, the royal commission and the IBAC legislation are intertwined. Yet the former Premier’s referral to IBAC cannot be investigated by IBAC under the legislation that was introduced earlier, because of the way it retrospectively operates, other than where it relates to something new. You would think that if the current Premier wrote to an agency and said, ‘Here is a former referral. I would like you to investigate it,’ then the agency would have the power to do so. And of course it does not.

I hope this Parliament takes the opportunity to strengthen IBAC. Perhaps given more time, this bill could have actually provided the special prosecutor with prosecutorial powers. That might be an idea. Given how rushed this legislation has been, apparently there was not enough time to draft those provisions. One thing we can do now is deal with the ability of members of the executive to claim privilege and refuse to provide that information to the royal commission. That is what my amendment seeks to do, and I will ask for my amendments to be circulated. No, you have not got them. Okay. They are working hard at the printing press, I think. I thank the parliamentary staff for their work. There must be a lot of amendments, as there were a lot of amendments laid out in the lower house as well on these bills.

This is what Victorians would expect. I say again that position is entirely consistent with the commitment that this Labor government made itself. I invite the speakers of the government after me and the minister to explain why they would oppose an amendment that seeks to complete a government response to another royal commission that still appears on the Victorian government website as government policy. Why would it seek to oppose an amendment as simple as that?

When it comes to integrity, this Labor government’s response is always hollow, and this bill is another example. The minister has admitted in their speech that this legislation does not provide the basic prosecutorial powers that Victorians would expect a special prosecutor to possess, and those powers will not come for another six months. We will not oppose the bill – we support the creation of the office – but we will not pretend that establishing a special prosecutor without prosecutorial powers represents a complete response, because it does not. Victorians deserve better than another integrity announcement that creates the appearance of action while the substance is pushed off until later. I will leave my remarks there.

 Ryan BATCHELOR (Southern Metropolitan) (21:15): I am very pleased to rise to speak on the Inquiries Amendment (Special Prosecutor) Bill 2026, a bill that makes two incredibly important amendments to the Inquiries Act 2014, principally to establish the office of the special prosecutor to work in co-operation and conjunction with the Royal Commission into the Integrity of Major Public and Civil Infrastructure Construction Projects in Victoria – the construction royal commission, which is slightly easier to say – which will be an office that will work with that royal commission to enable issues or evidence about conduct that arises out of the course of the commission’s proceedings to be furthered to a prosecution and dealt with in a criminal context or other related prosecutorial fora. The bill also amends the Inquiries Act to make quite an important, enduring change to the act in relation to the powers of royal commissions – to strengthen their powers – to require information to be given to them rather than merely compelling the appearance of witnesses or compelling the production of documents.

The bill is a key element of what the Premier said very clearly and early on was the hallmark of his new direction on integrity matters here in Victoria. His first act was to announce that we would be setting up a royal commission into the construction sector, and he did it. He said he was going to legislate to create a special prosecutor, and this bill does that. He also said that he would bring forward a bill to give IBAC follow-the-money powers, and we are dealing with that bill as well in this week of the Parliament, and we had a debate and contributions on that immediately prior to this. So it is very clear that this government takes integrity very, very seriously. We take it seriously, and we are acting.

The royal commission itself has been set up, a commissioner appointed, letters patent issued, and the commission’s hearings and proceedings are going to start tomorrow. I am sure those of us that are not caught up in the proceedings of the chamber will be able to join in and watch on the live stream, as all and any Victorians who have got an interest in these matters will be. That royal commission is there because of the actions of this Premier – and we should be very, very clear about that.

The bill today is about creating the office of the special prosecutor to enable it to be established alongside the establishment of the royal commission so that it can get set up and hit the ground running, dealing with the evidence that arises in the course of the royal commission and enabling that evidence to be referred off to appropriate authorities to enable prosecution. Why is this important? I think fundamentally why it is important that we have a prosecutorial office standing alongside the royal commission is in part related to the fundamental purpose of a royal commission itself. Royal commissions, by their nature, are investigatory bodies. They have got significant powers to compel witnesses, to abrogate certain privileges, to make findings and recommendations. But royal commissions cannot find someone guilty of a crime; only a court can do that. A royal commission is a body established with an executive purpose, an investigatory purpose, not a judicial purpose. It is not a chapter III court empowered to make findings of guilt in criminal matters in an Australian context. The royal commission cannot find someone guilty of a crime. So if, as we should be, we are interested in finding people who are alleged to have committed criminal offences, where evidence has been collected in the course of the royal commission that gives reasonable grounds to suspect that a relevant criminal offence may have been committed, those people should be prosecuted.

A royal commission cannot do that. That is why we need someone to take forward those prosecutions into a court so that the courts can make findings of criminal conduct on the guilt or otherwise of people who are alleged to have undertaken certain criminal behaviours that the royal commission uncovers. That is why we need this body set up now, because the way that royal commissions historically have operated – not exclusively but generally – is that royal commissions have set up, gathered their evidence, conducted their hearings, written their report, made findings, published a report and then referred these matters over to prosecutors, which means that there can be significant delays in the bringing of prosecutions until after a royal commission process has concluded.

What this bill does is get the office of the special prosecutor up and running at the same time as the royal commission, which means that there can be a continuing dialogue and means that there can be information sharing. What this bill does to facilitate the sharing of relevant information between the royal commission and other bodies is to use the office of the special prosecutor as a vehicle to get that done so that we are not waiting and so that criminals are not remaining free from possible criminal sanction, even though their conduct may be scrutinised, investigated and have reports made on it by the royal commission. It is a very important body, a royal commission, but it cannot find someone guilty of a crime. Only a court can do that. To bring criminal charges before a court at the same time that the royal commission is operating is exactly what the office of the special prosecutor is designed to do.

The government’s commitments in relation to furnishing the special prosecutor with its range of powers have been divided into two tranches. The first tranche here is to get the body set up, get its information-sharing provisions enacted and enable it to commence its work, because we do not want to wait. The opposition may want us to wait. For some reason the opposition may want there to be no action taken until later – I do not know, but that might be the reason why. What we want to see is the royal commission and the office of the special prosecutor working side by side, establishing their mechanisms, establishing their ways of working and allowing the special prosecutor to pass relevant information from the royal commission to relevant bodies to enable matters to be further considered. There is a high degree of legal technicality that arises, particularly in getting evidence that is collected by royal commissions using powers and using evidentiary standards, that is different to that which applies in court proceedings.

What we do not want to see are any of the resulting criminal prosecutions not being sound, so the second tranche of legislation that the government intends to bring with respect to the special prosecutor will be carefully considered and legally sound and will make sure that any of the prosecutorial functions that this office undertakes are done, to the extent that it is possible, so as to enable it to withstand the sort of scrutiny that one might expect to come in the course of criminal proceedings. That is why the government is adopting this approach. Let us get it started; let us get it working. Let us get its operating processes and protocols working alongside the new royal commission – its staff, its commissioner and its exceptionally broad remit – so that it can start getting ready. Then with the second tranche of legislation we will make sure that we have got the legal provisions watertight so that the prosecutions, the criminal charges and hopefully the criminal convictions that arise out of the work of this royal commission are watertight and legally sound. That is the approach the government is taking. That is what this bill is seeking to deliver.

The other piece of important change that this bill makes is to ensure that there are new, enduring powers in the Inquiries Act 2014 for bodies such as royal commissions or other boards of inquiry, but for royal commissions now and in the future, to be able to request information and witness statements out of individuals. Currently the provisions that exist in the Victorian law can only require the production of documents and require witnesses to be compelled to give evidence. Often what makes a royal commission’s task easier is seeking for witnesses to provide written statements to it. Similar provisions to these apply in other jurisdictions, notably at the Commonwealth level, and have been used to great effect, particularly in the robodebt royal commission. The enduring change that we make here today is a very important additional power for all royal commissions now and into the future to enable them to do their job more effectively.

The Liberal Party seems, in the course of this debate and others, to be finding every reason why they do not support what the government is doing with the broad and expansive powers we have given to our royal commission. What the Liberal Party clearly want to do is try and nobble and hobble that royal commission from doing its job properly. That is why they have been so critical. That is why they have been trying to put their thumbs on the scales of justice in determining what the royal commission does and who it looks at. This government does not want to constrain the royal commission to only look at certain people. We do not want to constrain the royal commission in the way that the Liberal Party does, so that it could not do its job properly. What you see today and what you see tonight is yet another example of the Liberal Party talking down the very institutions, the very offices, the very roles and functions that are necessary to ensure that those who have committed crimes that this royal commission will uncover get brought to justice, and that if criminal charges are brought, those charges stick. That is why this government is doing this job properly. The other lot have a completely different approach. They are a joke.

 Jacinta ERMACORA (Western Victoria) (21:27): I am very pleased to follow my colleague Mr Batchelor, and I 100 per cent agree with the sentiment expressed. A number of my remarks do go to exactly the independence of the three institutions that are being put in place to investigate. This bill is part of Ben Carroll’s commitment towards integrity and the Labor government’s commitment to integrity, and it does two very important things. It creates the office of special prosecutor to work alongside the royal commission into the integrity of major public and civil infrastructure construction projects in Victoria and it gives the royal commission the power to compel the production of information and witness statements. It is part of what we are doing to fulfil our commitment to acting on allegations of crime, corruption and misconduct on government-funded major construction projects in Victoria.

The Premier’s first act after assuming office was to call a royal commission. Victorians deserve to know if organised crime has found its way onto our building sites, and if so, who allowed it to happen and how we make sure it never happens again. The royal commission, established on 20 August 2026, will give Victorians those answers. The commission’s terms of reference are broad and expansive. Its objectives are to identify the nature and extent of corruption, criminal conduct or serious misconduct relating to any major public and civil infrastructure projects in Victoria, and support the government to prevent future corruption, criminal conduct or serious misconduct and rebuild trust in the integrity of the major construction sector. It is also to instigate referrals to Victoria Police, IBAC, regulatory and licensing authorities and other relevant bodies by working cooperatively with a special prosecutor.

It is this last point that the bill particularly relates to: it creates the office of special prosecutor. The office is a dedicated resource specifically for the royal commission. A royal commission is an investigative body; it is not a court. It does not have regulatory or legislative powers. It cannot charge or prosecute anyone. 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 if wrongdoing is uncovered, that wrongdoing is investigated and pursued and people face the consequences.

All royal commissions already have the power to refer matters to law enforcement agencies, but we are strengthening that power with a specialist, dedicated and embedded resource in a special prosecutor, and they will work in real time as evidence of crime and misconduct is uncovered. This will streamline the process of action being taken where corruption, criminal conduct or serious misconduct is identified, as defined in the previous bill debated.

The special prosecutor will be appointed by the Governor in Council on the recommendation of the Premier following consultation with the commissioner. They will be independent. The bill clearly states that they are not subject to the direction or control of the Premier or any other minister. I might just repeat that: the special prosecutor is not subject to the direction or control of the Premier or any other minister. This is critical to public confidence in that office and that role. They can only be removed from office on grounds such as misconduct or neglect of duty, so they are truly independent.

The job of the special prosecutor is to work in conjunction with the royal commissioner to refer information to the relevant authorities. That might be Victoria Police. It might be IBAC. It might be another regulatory or licensing authority. It might be here in Victoria, interstate or at the Commonwealth level. The special prosecutor and the royal commission will also be able to share information between themselves, including any information obtained by the commission from Victoria Police, IBAC and other regulatory and licensing authorities.

I do not know how you can run this down. And I agree with Mr Batchelor: it is really important that we let the independent regulators, the independent investigators and the independent enforcement agencies get on with their work without, as Mr Batchelor said, putting the thumb on the scales of justice. The strength of our IBAC reforms, the royal commission and the special prosecutor functions is their independence. As Victorians, as a Parliament and as a government, we should be vigilant against the use of these independent entities for any other purpose and for any political purpose in particular. Any specific direction of individuals or targeting of individuals or unions or other entities is inappropriate. We have had a clue in this chamber this afternoon. We have already heard the opposition in this chamber this evening conflating the CFMEU with all unions and making sweeping accusations about unionism, unions and therefore union members in general. That is a clue to the kind of thinking we have from those opposite.

We should all take care not to fall for this trap based on preconceived ideologies or opinions or for political gain. Independence is not always comfortable, but it is the right thing for all of us. Independent inquiry may by its nature not please everyone. The value of our royal commission and our IBAC reforms and our special prosecutor is their independence and therefore their ability to strengthen accountability over our public spending. What follows is the strengthening of our democracy. I will leave my contribution there and conclude that I heartily endorse this piece of legislation. It is extremely important and forms part of the trio of reforms that we are putting in place at the moment.

 Sonja TERPSTRA (North-Eastern Metropolitan) (21:36): I rise to make a contribution on this bill, the Inquiries Amendment (Special Prosecutor) Bill 2026. This bill is part of the Carroll government’s commitment to integrity and to act on allegations of crime, corruption and misconduct on government-funded major construction projects in Victoria. 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 onto our building sites, who allowed it to happen and how we make sure it never happens again.

The royal commission was established on 20 August 2026, and it will give Victorians those answers. The commission’s terms of reference are broad and expansive, and the commission will be funded with a budget of $50 million. It has been asked to report within 12 months. The objectives of the Royal Commission into the Integrity of Major Public and Civil Infrastructure Construction Projects in Victoria, as set out in the terms of reference, state that the commission will, among other things, identify the nature and extent of corruption, criminal conduct or serious misconduct relating to any major public and civil infrastructure projects in Victoria. It will support the government to prevent future corruption, criminal conduct or serious misconduct and rebuild trust in the integrity of the major construction sector. It will also instigate referrals to Victoria Police, IBAC, the regulatory and licensing authorities and other relevant bodies by working cooperatively with a special prosecutor. The bill will provide important new resources and powers to the royal commission. It will create the office of special prosecutor to work alongside the commission to refer individuals to authorities for prosecution or regulatory action. It will also provide the commission with new powers to compel the production of information and witness statements, not just documents or attendance to give evidence at hearings.

The bill creates the office of special prosecutor for the first time in Victoria. The office is a dedicated resource specifically for the major construction projects royal commission. It is important to acknowledge that a royal commission does not have the power to charge or prosecute anyone. It is an investigatory body only. It can compel evidence and make findings, but it cannot put people before a court. That is why we are establishing an office of special prosecutor, so that when wrongdoing is uncovered it is investigated and it is pursued and people face consequences. The Inquiries Act 2014 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 conduct and serious misconduct is identified. With that, I might conclude my remarks, and I commend the bill to the house.

 Lee TARLAMIS (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (21:40): I move:

That debate on this bill be adjourned until later this day.

Motion agreed to and debate adjourned until later this day.