Bill Debate: Independent Broad-Based Anti-Corruption Commission Amendment Bill 2026

BILL DEBATE:

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

Tuesday, 8 September 2026

Mr NEWBURY (Brighton) (13:38):

I rise to speak on the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission Amendment Bill 2026.

This Bill, sadly from Labor’s perspective, has been a shameful con. It is a shameful con on Victorians, because though the new Premier stood up on his first day in the job to say that integrity would not be optional, this Bill proves integrity is entirely optional under his watch and under this Labor Government. He is a continuation of Daniel Andrews’s and Jacinta Allan’s Governments – that is what he is.

Though we have been calling for IBAC to be given new powers, IBAC has been calling for powers, integrity experts have been calling for increased powers and frankly Victorians have been calling to see the corruption in this State cleaned up, we know this Bill will not do that, because what this Bill does is cover up what has occurred under Labor’s watch. That would not surprise any Victorian, because we have always said as a Coalition that this Labor Government cannot be trusted to ever get to the bottom of what has been the worst corruption scandal not only in Victoria’s history but arguably in Australia’s history – $15 billion of corruption.

You do not ask a criminal to clean up the crime scene. What this IBAC Bill does is enable what are called follow-the-money powers so that IBAC has the capacity to go to third parties, which has been a significant issue for IBAC in terms of operating investigations into matters, particularly in relation to the Big Build, where third-party contractors were at fault and alleged to have committed many of the corrupt acts. The Bill also changes the relevant offence threshold within the current act to extend the capacity for investigation beyond simply an offence to also cover a serious disciplinary matter.

But here is the kicker. Here is the bit that really matters in terms of what has occurred over the last 12 years: the Government has blocked retrospectivity where those matters have been investigated previously by IBAC, where IBAC has looked at them and on-referred those matters or where they have been dismissed. All of those matters are outside the scope of this Bill. I do not think any Victorian would accept what the Government is proposing, and I also suspect that neither will the Parliament. I suspect that the Government is about to get a lesson in parliamentary democracy, because this Bill is a cover-up Bill. That is what it is. This Bill says, ‘We are going to give IBAC powers, but we’re not going to allow them to look into the rorts that occurred under our watch.’ Though I will go into some detail of the particular examples of what cannot be investigated, I will start with the one that all Victorians know.

The former Premier, Premier Allan, wrote to IBAC seeking to refer Big Build allegations of corruption to IBAC for investigation. It is our view that the then Premier only did that because she knew that IBAC did not have the powers. It is our view that it was all one great big hoax. But nevertheless, the former Premier wrote to IBAC seeking an investigation, and lo and behold, she received a response back from IBAC to say that they did not have the power to investigate – because they did not. They did not have the power. The Premier did not admit to receiving that letter, by the way. She hid that one in the bottom drawer. But IBAC wrote back and said they did not have the power, so they referred the matters to police. As I said earlier, therefore all of those matters are now not in the purview of IBAC for investigation. Everything that the then Premier referred to IBAC for investigation, if this bill receives passage in its current form, will not be able to be investigated by IBAC. I think that says everything about what is a clear proof point of the ongoing cover-up by this Government.

I would take the house to Clause 8, which brings in a new section 200(3), and I will read it in:

Nothing in subsection (1) or (2) permits the IBAC to reopen –

let us get that clear: nothing permits IBAC to reopen; it could not be clearer, ‘nothing’ –

(a) a complaint or notification to the IBAC that it had dismissed or referred to another body before the commencement day; or

(b) an investigation, whether of a complaint or notification or an own motion investigation, that it had completed before the commencement day.

As I said earlier, what that Section makes very clear is that where an investigation has occurred and where a dismissal of a matter has occurred because IBAC may not have had the power – IBAC may have dismissed an allegation because it did not have the power to investigate – or where there was an on-referral, all of those matters IBAC cannot explicitly investigate.

Why would you possibly want to cover up entirely everything that has been referred within that remit? I have heard the Government say, ‘We have a Royal Commission.’ Well, I would say to the Government: what about every other single referral that went to IBAC over the last 12 years on any matter, on any instance of alleged corruption that has occurred in this state in the last 12 years? Under this Bill IBAC cannot look at those matters where those circumstances exist on any issue. I will give a very good example, because the Government is perpetuating the con. I referred the Government’s budget lotto deal to IBAC. It will not be investigable when this Bill passes, and it has not got the purview of the Royal Commission. That is specifically excluded from this legislation, which is why under Standing Orders I wish to advise the House of Amendments to this Bill and request that they be circulated.

We do not oppose and will support the underlying enhancement of powers to IBAC – of course we will. When asked about this I always make the point first: everything the Government does we have tried to do first. So of course we support additional powers, but we will also make sure through our Amendments, hopefully supported by the remaining members of the Parliament, that we pass a bill that Victorians deserve to see passed and see IBAC powers given in a way that not only Victorians expect but give the agency the powers they need to chase down the $15 billion of corrupted money and get the crooks, because that is what Victorians want to see. They want the crooks caught and they want the money found, and we know that this bill will not do that.

Let me speak to the proposed Amendments. Firstly, our Amendments will see the bill fully retrospective. That aligns with a Private Members Bill we moved in March that was supported by the Council. The Council passed that law and the bill, which would have enabled follow-the-money powers and which was passed by the will of the Council. It was brought back into the Chamber, and the former Leader of the House moved that the Bill could not even enter into this Chamber. She blocked it from entry into this Chamber and the Labor Members of Parliament opposed it. Our first Amendment will make the bill fully retrospective. That is what Victorians deserve, because they do not expect and they would not, in my view, support IBAC powers that block investigation into issues that have already been raised with the integrity agency. Why would they? Why would they support that cover-up?

Our second Amendment inserts a timely reporting requirement for reports. What we saw with the Operation Richmond report was a disgrace. Years – seven years, from memory – of backwards and forwards trying to cover up a report being tabled. Shameful. Our Amendment will ensure there is an insertion into the legislation which makes clear our expectation that reports are tabled as timely as possible.

It will then ensure that, though the court will still have full jurisdiction in relation to any matter that is put to the court – and so they should – they will have a clear legislative understanding of our expectation as a Parliament that when it comes to IBAC’s investigations, the Parliament expects those reports to be tabled. So, when a matter is before a court, though they will give it the consideration that it deserves, whatever that application may be, by a person or party associated with a report at that time, there will be a clear legislative underpinning whereby the court can rely on an understanding that the Parliament expects that report will be tabled as timely as is possible, and I think all Victorians would expect that. When you are talking about a report by your chief anti-corruption agency, Victorians do not want to see a merry-go-round of years of court action or procedural games to stop that report being tabled. Though people involved should have the capacity to appeal to a court where a matter has arisen, it should not be endless, and it should not be a reward where the purpose of that action is to frustrate the tabling.

Our third Amendment would repeal the examinations to generally be held in private provision. Only this Government could possibly want to shut out public examinations, and we know why. We have seen how many Labor Members of Parliament have been involved in integrity investigations. It therefore is of no surprise that the Government tried to close the door on investigations and keep them held in private. What this Amendment will do is repeal that provision, and that again follows the Private Members Bill that was moved in March.

There is a fourth Amendment, which is a new concept and one that I have already flagged with all other non-Government Members in this Parliament both in this place and the other place. Currently a Minister has a public interest immunity privilege protection when it comes to certain documents they may hold. In shorthand, a Minister can say, when IBAC comes knocking, ‘I’m not going to give you the document because it’s a Cabinet document’ – or a former Minister, or as might be the case, a former Premier, and I can think of one or two. When
someone knocks on the door and says, ‘I want some information’ – knock-knock knock – the former Premier can, under the current legislation, say, ‘I have public interest immunity from providing that information,’ and it is a full stop, blanket immunity. Well, no more, if this Amendment is passed.

I say to my colleagues on the crossbench in the other place specifically but also in this place: that is a new proposal, one that we have not moved by Private Members Bill before, but I think is very meritorious. I also note that a removal of that immunity when it comes to IBAC should extend to the Royal Commission, because that immunity exists when the Royal Commission comes knocking to the Ministers and the former Premiers – they have the immunity there too. So, I give notice that we intend to move a similar Amendment in relation to the Royal Commission through the Inquiries Act 2014, because we are going to remove that power.

We are making it clear, and we are seeking the Parliament’s support. We are going to make it clear so what the Ministers know and what the former Premiers know can no longer be covered up under some fake guise of public interest immunity. I think we all want to know what they know. We all want to know, and we are looking forward to a proper Royal Commission that ensures they get asked, because, as the Coalition has said, if we are in Government, former Premier Daniel Andrews and former Premier Jacinta Allan will be before the Royal Commission. They will be –

Nathan Lambert: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, I ask the Member on his feet to refer to current Members of this place by their correct titles.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I remind the Member for Brighton; that is twice.

James NEWBURY: Thank you. Further to the Amendments circulated, I want to put on record the number of times the Coalition has raised issues with IBAC, which now this Bill would seek to block, and it is important to make this point because much of the public allegation in this Big Build corruption scandal – the biggest scandal we have seen in Victoria’s history – has been referred to our chief anti-corruption agency. For some time, in substance, the behaviour of the CFMEU has been reported – particular allegations on sites such as widespread ghost shifting, double payments, false signings, corrupt practices involving labour hire companies and failure to intervene in public scandals. All of these issues have been referred to IBAC. Can IBAC investigate them if this Bill is passed in its current form? No. What a shameful con. The Government’s response is, ‘Well, we have a Royal Commission.’ As I said earlier, what about every other corruption matter that has been referred to IBAC over the last 12 years? All of it –
Michael O’Brien interjected.

James NEWBURY: I think you could probably, Member for Malvern, refer the last 12 years to IBAC as a bulk job lot. But it is true to say that every other matter, and the lotto corp deal which was referred to IBAC, that is not within the jurisdiction of the Royal Commission was referred to IBAC. What about the secret tax? What about the new secret tax that Victorians found out about? Is that within the remit of the Royal Commission? No. Do Victorians deserve to know who knew what when? Yes. That is why we will move Amendments to ensure that happens.

Our Amendments will make sure that IBAC finally has the powers that they need, the powers that they deserve and the powers that our integrity experts, agencies and Victorians have been calling for. Instead, we have a Bill which reverts entirely to Labor type, which is to cover up, cover up corruption, cover up a $15 billion corruption. Even today when the Premier was asked about what is in the bill in black and white the Premier did not tell the truth. He did not tell the truth. He claimed that IBAC could investigate when his Bill says otherwise. How shameful. That is why this is a shameful con. Though we support any Bill that brings about new powers to IBAC – any bill – because we want them there, we are going to amend this one, and we are seeking support from the rest of the Parliament, because Victorians deserve to get to the bottom of corruption in this state, and with these Amendments in place they can.