Thursday, 24 September 2026

 Ingrid STITT (Western Metropolitan – Minister for Health, Minister for Mental Health, Minister for Ambulance Services, Special Minister of State) (17:00): I will begin by acknowledging that there is broad support for this bill in the chamber. This bill is part of the Carroll government’s commitment to integrity and to acting on allegations of crime, corruption and misconduct on government-funded major construction projects in Victoria. This bill will provide important new resources and powers to the Royal Commission into the Integrity of Major Public and Civil Infrastructure Construction Projects in Victoria. It will create an 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 and attendance to give evidence at hearings.

The bill creates an 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 the 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 the 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. The special prosecutor will be appointed by the Governor in Council on the recommendation of the Premier, following consultation with the royal commissioner. The special prosecutor will be independent of government. The bill clearly states they are not subject to the direction or control of the Premier or any other minister. This is critical to public confidence in the office. The special prosecutor can only be removed from office on grounds such as misconduct or neglect of duty. The appointee will be required to have at least eight years experience as a legal practitioner. The bill facilitates the appointment of a Crown prosecutor, should they be recommended for appointment to the role.

The functions of the special prosecutor are to work cooperatively and in conjunction with the construction royal commission to refer information to Victoria Police, IBAC, regulatory and licensing authorities and any other relevant Victorian, interstate, territory or Commonwealth body for investigatory, prosecutorial or regulatory action. The bill enables regulated flow of information between the office of the special prosecutor and the construction royal commission, including the sharing of information obtained by the commission from Victoria Police, IBAC and other regulatory and licensing authorities with the special prosecutor. The special prosecutor can have access to information acquired by the commission and can share that information with other authorities. The bill also ensures the special prosecutor has the same confidentiality and information-sharing obligations that currently apply to royal commission officers under the Inquiries Act. The bill permits bodies that receive information from the special prosecutor to report back to the royal commission and special prosecutor on the actions they intend to take in relation to that information.

The bill will commence on the day after it receives the royal assent and ahead of the November caretaker period. Together these reforms will enable the construction royal commission to carry out its duties in accordance with the commission’s objectives and terms of reference. Importantly, we are establishing the special prosecutor in two phases. This is because we need to understand how the royal commission wishes to use this additional resource as its inquiry evolves. This bill represents phase one of the establishment of the special prosecutor. A re-elected Carroll government will introduce legislation to specify further powers and functions of the special prosecutor. It is essential that any additional powers and functions are developed carefully and in consultation with the commission, Victoria Police, IBAC, the Office of Public Prosecutions and others to ensure that they do not prejudice or unduly interfere with the existing powers and functions of those bodies. The intervening period will enable the appropriate model of interaction between the different entities to be designed based on the commission’s specific operating model. In the meantime, the special prosecutor will have a significant role in assisting the work of the commission as an independent, dedicated and embedded resource.

Clause 4 of the bill gives Victorian royal commissions new powers to compel the production of information and witness statements. This will broaden the existing powers under the Inquiries Act. Currently Victorian royal commissions can compel the production of documents and the attendance of an individual to give evidence at a hearing, but this does not enable them to compel the production of information that does not exist in documentary form or that is not readily identifiable across a multitude of documents in advance of calling an individual to give evidence at a formal hearing. The new power will enable the construction royal commission and future royal commissions to compel a person by written notice to give information or a statement in writing before a specified time and in a specified manner. This is intended to include information created from a person’s knowledge, in addition to information held in documents. Commonwealth royal commissions already have this power under section 2(3A) of the Royal Commissions Act 1902. These new powers will assist the royal commission to target its efforts and avoid unnecessary cost and delay by obtaining specific information without needing to call for or trawl through vast document searches, obtaining relevant information from an individual in circumstances where no relevant documents exist or identifying who has what information relevant to the commission’s inquiry before convening formal hearings by requiring a witness statement. These new powers are subject to the same processes, checks and balances as the existing compulsive powers of a royal commission. They will arm this and future royal commissions with the ability to obtain fulsome evidence in a targeted and efficient manner. The principal concern raised about the bill relates to a staged approach to the vesting of powers in the special prosecutor. We have explained why this approach is both necessary and desirable, as it will ensure the ultimate model is tailored to the royal commission’s needs.

In relation to the opposition’s amendment, I am just going to place a few comments on the record. Some issues were raised about public interest immunity claims under the Inquiries Act. Public interest immunity is a well-established rule relied on by successive governments to protect the public interest in maintaining the proper functioning of government and its agencies. Accessing and making public interest immunity claims is a core duty of the state in our democratic system. Providing protection for material subject to public interest immunity in the Inquiries Act ensures that government departments and agencies go through the exercise of identifying which documents require special attention in relation to confidentiality. Government does this in accordance with the whole-of-Victorian-government guidelines for public interest immunity claims. 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. The commission and government agencies can consider how access to critical information can be provided without further undermining its confidential status where that is appropriate. The commission can assess where the balance lies between the public interest in disclosure or non-disclosure. That assessment is informed by the terms of reference and how important the information is to the royal commission inquiry.

Settings for the release of documents and information need to ensure 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. Merely repealing section 18(2)(c) would leave a regulatory vacuum in respect of the safeguards required to protect the further disclosure of sensitive and confidential information. That would be irresponsible and could prejudice police investigations and the personal safety of individuals. I know there will be some questions in committee. I will leave my remarks there. I do commend this bill to the house.

Motion agreed to.

Read second time.

Committed.

Clause 1 (17:11)

Evan MULHOLLAND: I circulate amendments in my name, as outlined in my second-reading speech. The amendments were not ready to be circulated at that point in time.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Are there any questions on clause 1?

Evan MULHOLLAND: Minister, why does the legislation not provide the special prosecutor with the powers to prosecute now instead of into the future?

Ingrid STITT: I did go through that in quite a bit of detail in my summing-up, Mr Mulholland, but I am happy to go to it again if that is your desire. Some of the issues that that you have raised and your amendment that you have circulated go to these concerns. Public interest immunity (PII), as we know, is a well-established rule. It is relied upon. But I think the circumstances of how these matters are determined with a royal commission are slightly different to the issues that we were discussing earlier in relation to the IBAC bill. But there is a process that government departments and agencies go through to exercise and identify which documents require special attention. Sorry, I am going on a completely incorrect tangent.

Evan Mulholland: It has been a long day.

Ingrid STITT: It has been a long week.

Evan Mulholland: Prosecutorial powers.

Ingrid STITT: Correct. Bear with me for one moment while I gather my thoughts.

As I was indicating in my summing-up, we will be establishing the special prosecutor in two phases, and that is because we need to understand how the royal commission wishes to use the additional resource as its inquiry evolves. This bill represents phase 1 of the establishment of the special prosecutor, and we intend to introduce legislation next term to specify further powers and functions of the special prosecutor. The reasoning behind this is that it is essential that any additional powers and functions are developed carefully, in consultation with the commission, Victoria Police, IBAC, the Office of Public Prosecutions and others to ensure that they do not prejudice or unduly interfere with the existing powers and functions of those bodies. The intervening period will enable the appropriate model of interaction between the different entities to be designed, based on the commission’s specific operating model. In the meantime, however, the special prosecutor will have a significant role in assisting the work of the commission, as an expert, dedicated and embedded resource.

Evan MULHOLLAND: What do you anticipate the special prosecutor will do from when it is established to a future second tranche of the legislation that will be introduced in the following term?

Ingrid STITT: This particular bill sets out the powers of the special prosecutor in accordance with the Royal Commission into the Integrity of Major Public and Civil Infrastructure Construction Projects in Victoria letters patent, and the special prosecutor will have the power to do all things that are necessary or convenient to be done for or in connection with or as incidental to the performance of their duties and functions.

As I have indicated, there will be two tranches to this reform. The special prosecutor is to work cooperatively and in conjunction with the construction royal commission to provide information or documents to Victoria Police, IBAC, regulatory and licensing authorities or other appropriate Victorian, interstate, territory or Commonwealth bodies for those bodies to consider whether to take relevant action in accordance with their functions.

Evan MULHOLLAND: Just on the appointment of a special prosecutor, when will the appointment of a special prosecutor be made by?

Ingrid STITT: It is intended that the appointment of the special prosecutor will be made as soon as practicable after the passage of the bill.

Evan MULHOLLAND: Do you have an exact timeframe, Minister?

Ingrid STITT: I do not have an exact timeframe, Mr Mulholland, but I can indicate that the appointment will be made in consultation with the royal commissioner.

Evan MULHOLLAND: You said earlier that the government agreed with the principle of setting up a panel for the appointment process for an IBAC Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner. Did you have any consideration of a panel process for a position like a special prosecutor, especially given its significance in prosecutorial powers and the powers that it will hold, not being someone that can be called into disrepute?

Ingrid STITT: I am sorry, can you repeat the last part of your question?

Evan MULHOLLAND: As I was discussing, the government agreed in principle and agreed with an amendment to set up a panel for the purposes of making it clear for IBAC. Was that taken into consideration in the appointment process for a special prosecutor, or will that be, and if not, why not?

Ingrid STITT: In terms of the bill before the house, it is intended that the special prosecutor is appointed by the Governor in Council on the recommendation of the Premier, but before making their recommendation the Premier must consult the construction royal commissioner. I am certainly not going to pass any judgement on the process that a very esteemed commissioner will be involved in. There are also requirements in the bill about the appropriate suitability of the special prosecutor in terms of their legal experience.

Evan MULHOLLAND: What funding will be given to the special prosecutor?

Ingrid STITT: The cost of the special prosecutor will be met by the government, and it will be in addition to the $50 million that has already been committed to the work of the royal commission. Like the royal commission itself, the special prosecutor will be resourced to do its important job of working alongside the commission to ensure that when wrongdoing is uncovered it is investigated and pursued by the appropriate agencies. As I was saying earlier, the special prosecutor will be appointed by the Governor in Council on the recommendation of the Premier. They must be a person who is an Australian lawyer who has practised for not less than eight years, and they can be appointed for up to two years.

Evan MULHOLLAND: I understand it is in addition to the $50 million, but can you give us a ballpark on the funding? Are there any kind of funding requirements?

Ingrid STITT: As I indicated, the special prosecutor will be resourced in a manner that ensures that they can do their important work alongside the commission. There will obviously be the need to have remuneration associated with the role, and that will be in accordance with the single officer bands at schedule E of the appointment and remuneration guidelines. Obviously, the precise remuneration will depend on the appointee and their seniority, and those are discussions that will occur. The government is very clear that both the royal commission and the special prosecutor will be provided with all the resources they need to do their job.

Evan MULHOLLAND: Why does the bill allow for public interest immunity to be claimed by former premiers?

Ingrid STITT: I have gone in some detail already to the process that is undertaken for public interest immunity when it comes to the royal commission. I can certainly go back to those matters again, if that is the line of questioning you want to pursue. I outlined in my summing-up the important reasons why a proper process for public interest immunity sits alongside the royal commission’s work. PII is a common-law and statutory rule under which a court or inquiry will not order the production or admission into evidence of a document or information where the public interest in preserving confidentiality outweighs the public interest in producing or admitting the material into evidence. As I indicated earlier, there is whole-of-Victorian-government policy and procedure that determines how these matters are determined as to whether documents claim public interest immunity. It is important that the royal commission’s work continues, and that process I have clearly outlined in my summing-up.

Evan MULHOLLAND: Following the Royal Commission into the Management of Police Informants, the government actually committed to removing this ability. Why does that public interest immunity continue under this bill?

Ingrid STITT: It is important that public immunity be retained for the construction royal commission, and it is to ensure that highly sensitive information is protected in the public interest, such as law enforcement information that is disclosed which would put people at risk of serious harm or the release of information that would prejudice ongoing Victorian, national or interstate police criminal operations. Existing arrangements facilitate flexibility in how PII materials are used and managed. A complete statutory abrogation of PII would create a regulatory vacuum, as I indicated earlier, compromising necessary safeguards relating to disclosure of sensitive material, including that detailing police operations.

The royal commission also made it clear in its opening hearing yesterday that with respect to public interest immunity claims, given the terms of reference, the public interest in releasing documents is exceptionally strong. Counsel assisting highlighted that any claim will have to be made document by document and justified, and counsel assisting will test each claim. The royal commission also observed that transparency is key to rebuilding trust. The royal commissioner is independent, and he will make his own independent decisions in relation to every public interest immunity claim.

Further, the government takes very seriously the important work of the royal commission. The Victorian government approach to the royal commission was demonstrated when the relevant state department provided the two ministerial briefings to the royal commission that were tendered in evidence yesterday, with no public interest immunity claim being made. These two ministerial briefings are now publicly available on the royal commission website. I also note that the construction royal commission has published on its website a practice direction regarding the production and management of documents, including the process that must be undertaken by the commission when considering PII claims.

Clause agreed to; clauses 2 to 4 agreed to.

New clause (17:27)

Evan MULHOLLAND: I move:

1.   Insert the following New Clause to follow clause 4 –

‘4A Variation or revocation of notice to produce or notice to attend

(1) Section 18(2)(c) of the Inquires Act 2014 is repealed.

(2) After section 18(2) of the Inquires Act 2014insert –

“(2A)   It is not a reasonable excuse for a person to fail to comply with a notice to produce or notice to attend by refusing to give information to a Royal Commission if the information is the subject of public interest immunity, including if it is subject to Cabinet confidentiality.”.’.

It provides that it is not a reasonable excuse for a person to fail to comply with a notice to produce or notice to attend by refusing to give information to a royal commission if the information is the subject of public interest immunity, including if it is subject to cabinet confidentiality. I think the thing that most people feared about this royal commission was that it would be another hotel quarantine whitewash where you would have former premiers or current ones saying that they do not recall or refusing to answer particular questions because the matter was privileged. This increases integrity by removing public interest immunity. I think the chamber should support it as well. We do not want to get to a point during this royal commission where we see, potentially, former premiers frustrating the work of the royal commission, because I suspect that is what may happen. I suspect we will be looking back at this time in the chamber when we could have done something and regret voting a particular way because of what we will see in the future. I ask the chamber to support my amendment.

Ingrid STITT: As I have already indicated, the government will not be supporting this amendment. Public interest immunity should be retained for the purposes of the royal commission to ensure that highly sensitive information is protected in the public interest, such as law enforcement information that, if disclosed, could put people at risk of serious harm or the release of information that would prejudice ongoing Victorian national or interstate police criminal operations. That is a very serious implication of the opposition’s amendment. Existing arrangements facilitate flexibility in how PII materials are used and managed. A complete statutory abrogation of PII would create a regulatory vacuum, compromising necessary safeguards relating to disclosure of sensitive material, including those detailing police operations.

As I just indicated in answer to Mr Mulholland’s question, I think it is a very important consideration to note the royal commission’s opening hearing remarks yesterday that with respect to the public interest immunity claim, given the terms of reference, the public interest in releasing documents is exceptionally strong. Counsel assisting highlighted that any claim will have to be made document by document and justified, and counsel assisting will test each claim. The construction royal commission has also published on its website a practice direction regarding the production and management of documents, including the process that must be undertaken by the commission when considering PII claims. There is a very robust process in place, and we do not support this amendment.

David LIMBRICK: I note the government’s comments on this. I am a bit perplexed by Mr Mulholland’s insistence that this is something very important. If it was very important, then maybe I would have gotten a briefing on it from the opposition rather than being briefed by the government on the opposition’s amendment. As it so happens, I think that the existing arrangements, in both the way that the inquiry is being conducted and the arrangements in the act, are sufficient. I do not know. If the opposition think this is important, maybe they should have briefed us on it. We have not been briefed on it. I do not know about other crossbenchers; maybe other crossbenchers are more important than me. Nevertheless if they want to get the support of the chamber, maybe they should ask for it.

Sarah MANSFIELD: The Greens will not be supporting this amendment. While I think we have sympathy for the intent here, as discussed with the IBAC bill, we do not believe that the way this is constructed, and particularly how it works in this instance, is appropriate. We are concerned that there could be unintended consequences that could potentially make things worse. We are not in a position to be able to support it today.

Council divided on new clause:

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: That will be our last division of the 60th Parliament. I thank everybody for their cooperation in committee over the term of the last eight years.

Clauses 5 to 8 agreed to.

Reported to house without amendment.

 Ingrid STITT (Western Metropolitan – Minister for Health, Minister for Mental Health, Minister for Ambulance Services, Special Minister of State) (17:40): I move:

That the report be now adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.

 Ingrid STITT (Western Metropolitan – Minister for Health, Minister for Mental Health, Minister for Ambulance Services, Special Minister of State) (17:40): I move:

That the bill be now read a third time.

Motion agreed to.

Read third time.

The PRESIDENT: Pursuant to standing order 14.28, the bill will be returned to the Assembly with a message informing them that the Council have agreed to the bill without amendment.