Bill Debate - Independent Broad-Based Anti-Corruption Commission Amendment Bill 2026 – Council Amendments

BILL DEBATE:

‘INDEPENDENT BROAD-BASED ANTI-CORRUPTION COMMISSION AMENDMENT BILL 2026 – COUNCIL AMENDMENTS’.

Thursday, 24 September 2026

Mr NEWBURY (Brighton) (18:15):

I rise to speak on the amendments to the Independent Broad-based Anticorruption Commission Amendment Bill 2026 and note that we are considering six Amendments.

As the Premier said, there was a lot of collaboration across both Chambers in relation to Amendments to the initial Bill. The initial Bill, we might remember, the Government said was right and did not need to be improved. Well, I start by saying that in relation to three of the six Amendments, the Government has picked up three of the Coalition Amendments, and those are, frankly, the substantial Amendments to the package that we are considering today.

The most notable of them is a level of retrospectivity that will allow IBAC to look at matters that have been previously referred to it that we argued could not be investigated because of retrospectivity blocking the first draft of the Bill included. We said no, it is not okay. We absolutely must see the worst corruption scandal in our state’s history fully examined in every way needed. That is why we called for proper retrospectivity, and the Government and the Premier said no. It is only because the Parliament has made it clear that the Government got it wrong that we have that Amendment before us now.

The other two Amendments that the Government has picked up from the Coalition include the ‘examinations generally to be held in private’ provision, which has seen an overwhelming majority of examinations held in private, an Amendment made by former Premier Daniel Andrews. I do not think it takes much to understand why the former Premier, who was subject to investigation, wanted that particular mechanism put in place. That rightly is being Amended today.

The third Amendment of ours being picked up relates directly to a Private Members Bill that we moved in this place, which, sadly, every Member of the Government opposed, which would have seen a faster tabling of IBAC reports, which should be the case. What we saw with the Operation Richmond investigation was a stain, sadly, and we moved a Private Members Bill because we felt those special reports should be tabled swiftly. So that third Amendment has been picked up by the Government, and I do note that.

The other three that I will mention briefly, which I believe the Greens will speak to, related to Amendments they put forward. The first is publication of the Ministerial Code of Conduct, which is already public, and codifying it. Of course we will not oppose that. It is published. Is the IBAC Bill the right place for that codification? Perhaps not, but we will not oppose that.

The second Amendment they are proposing is a new mechanism for the appointment of a Commissioner. Though we will not oppose it, there is, I think, genuine concern that in a deal the Government has done with the Greens a new mechanism of Commissioner appointment has been drafted on the fly to get the Government’s Bill through the Parliament. It is a concern. We will not oppose it, but we are putting on record that the Government drafted that Amendment today after a deal done last night. We are talking about the Appointment of a Commissioner to IBAC. This is no small thing.

Finally, there is the funding of IBAC, a new mechanism of funding, especially in terms of reporting through Parliamentary Committees. So, the bill has six Amendments.

The final point I will make relates to the Amendment we do not have before us, but which was part of a package of Amendments moved both here and in the other place, and that relates to public interest immunity. The Government has not accepted the need to include a public interest immunity Amendment in their package of reforms. Why would they? Because integrity will always be optional under this Government. Former Premiers Daniel Andrews and the Member for Bendigo East still have their power of cover-up. They still have the right, when IBAC comes knocking on the door, to not answer questions because that privilege still exists.

It should be seen by this Parliament as a mistake – frankly, a craven decision by this Government – to not allow IBAC to have the information it may request. If we are elected, we do not feel that this is right and should stand in its current form. I note in the other place, just an hour ago, the Government committed to reviewing the issue through a panel. I do not want to be too pessimistic, but I suspect their timeframe for reviewing the privilege power will be after the Royal Commission ends. I suspect the review would end after the Royal Commission ends.

We will not be opposing this package of reforms.

Members interjecting.

James NEWBURY: No, of course we will not. I said it at the start and the whole way through. Because the Government has picked up on many of our Amendments, we certainly will not be opposing it. But we will make the point that when it comes to public interest immunity, what the Government have done is simply allow themselves the protection that they have had, the protection that they want – the protection they want to leave with former Premiers. It is something that we strongly believe in, and should we be fortunate enough to be elected, we will fix.