Bill Debate: Inquiries Amendment (Special Prosecutor) Bill 2026

BILL DEBATE:

‘INQUIRIES AMENDMENT (SPECIAL PROSECUTOR) BILL 2026’.

Wednesday, 9 September 2026

Mr NEWBURY (Brighton) (14:49):

I rise to speak on the Inquiries Amendment (Special Prosecutor) Bill 2026. What Victorians would expect when they hear that a Bill is before the House to establish a special prosecutor is that that Bill would enable the creation of both the role and the powers associated with it. That is what I think every Victorian would expect.

What this Bill does is create special prosecutor as a position in Victoria, but it does not draft the powers that are attached to that special prosecutor, because, as the Government has admitted, they will do that in tranche two of the legislation.

As the Government has said, this Bill creates an office. It is much like everything this Government does on integrity: hollow. It creates an office, a position that exists, but then we shall wait six months if the Government is elected – and I do hope Victorians see otherwise – for a second Bill that will create additional powers and functions for the special prosecutor and provide for information sharing, investigation and prosecutorial powers.

I put and submit to the Chamber at the commencement of this contribution that we have a Bill before us that creates a special prosecutor without prosecutorial powers. This Bill does not provide a special prosecutor with prosecutorial powers. The only reason that this Bill could have passed through the Government process to be in the Chamber before us today without someone along the road saying, ‘Maybe the special prosecutor needs prosecutorial powers,’ is because someone, when that question was asked along the way, answered the question with, ‘But we need to do something before the election.’

A member interjected.

James NEWBURY: Speaker, the Minister at the table just swore across the table at me.

The SPEAKER: Member for Brighton, I did not hear.

Vicki Ward interjected.

James NEWBURY: You may deny it, but you just did it.

The SPEAKER: The Member for Brighton to continue.

James NEWBURY: Speaker, I have just raised the issue with you.

The SPEAKER: I did not hear it, Member for Brighton, so I cannot make a ruling.

James NEWBURY: Speaker, I am very, very disappointed.

The SPEAKER: Member for Brighton, you did not ask for a withdrawal.

James NEWBURY: I ask for a withdrawal.

The SPEAKER: The Member for Brighton to continue.

James NEWBURY: The special prosecutorial Bill that is before us is without prosecutorial powers. You do not have to take my word for it. You can look at the Minister’s second-reading speech, which I have here, which says that it will not be until early 2027 before prosecutorial powers are enabled.

How can it be that we have a Bill before us that creates a special prosecutor without any powers for at least six months? I do hope, as I said, the good people of Victoria see otherwise and change the Government in November. But how can it be that the Minister in their speech to this Chamber has said that they have rushed this Bill – my words – so quickly that they have created a position, an office, which I presume is going to be paid, without any powers attached to it, so without prosecutorial powers? I think any Victorian would presume a special prosecutor can prosecute; it is in the name. No, they cannot. The Minister has said so in their speech.

I would put, before we even begin debate on this Bill, that like with everything that comes from this Government on integrity, it is all hollow. It is all about being able to put out a media release, hold a press conference and say, ‘I have done something.’ Well, the Minister in the speech on this Bill admits that the underlying function, the power that enables a prosecutor to prosecute, is not enabled by this Bill. I think every Victorian would expect a prosecutor to have prosecutorial powers. Otherwise, what are they? A special nothing. They are called a special prosecutor; you would expect them to have the power to prosecute. But no, we do not have that.

When it comes to funding, I would like to put something on the record and to the Premier’s office. In relation to this Bill, we met with the Government, including with the Premier’s office, and we enabled an immediate introduction on the Bill. In good faith we did that.

In the briefing on this Bill one of the questions I asked was about the cost of the special prosecutor, which is not an unreasonable question. The Premier’s private office said to me that we would be provided with a funding envelope, a figure of the cost. I asked a follow-up question: ‘Do you give me a commitment that before this Bill is debated you will provide the funding amount for the special prosecutor to me?’ I was given an ironclad commitment that I would be. I was then sent an email saying that the special prosecutor will be funded, which is a clear breach of the promise. I say to the Premier directly: the Premier’s office provided a guarantee to me in an opportunity where we considered this Bill in good faith, and we would expect that that guarantee was lived up to, especially on a matter of integrity. The Premier’s personal office, at one of the highest levels, broke that promise. I would say to the Premier: when you give a commitment and you do so on integrity, you should live up to it, and that has not occurred in this case. We do not know how much the special prosecutor will cost. We do not know the funding envelope. What we do know, because of the speech in relation to this Bill, is that the prosecutor will not have prosecutorial powers. That is something we do know because the minister outlined that in the speech. But the commitment of how much the cost of operating the office will be, despite a commitment given, was not provided.

I do want to note that the Opposition will not be opposing the Bill. As I said earlier, we assisted in facilitating both this and the IBAC reform that came to the Chamber yesterday and was debated further today in fact. I put to the Government that we would be supportive of those Bills passing through the house sooner. The Government said that they did not want to pass those Bills through the House sooner. We put the position that these are very serious reforms, and we felt they should be in the Council at the latest by Thursday. The Government has taken a different view and has seen the view to be that these Bills do not need to be rushed and can take extra time to be debated, so there is no rush in the Government’s mind. Perhaps it is because, in relation to the special prosecutor Bill, all this Bill does is creates a special prosecutor without prosecutorial powers. Perhaps there is no need when all we are doing is creating an office which is going to cost an amount of money, which the Government will not provide publicly, without prosecutorial powers. Again, I say we would have been more than happy to facilitate speedy passage through the house and movement into the Council.

We do have a concern, and the concern aligns with one of the concerns we had with the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission Amendment Bill 2026, which is why under Standing Orders I wish to advise the House of Amendments to this Bill and request that they be circulated.

What we are seeking to Amend, which is aligned with the IBAC amendment of yesterday, is the removal of the public interest immunity. In relation to the IBAC legislation, that executive privilege, as many would understand it to be, or Crown privilege, as people who have been here longer would understand it, allows a Minister, a former Minister, a Premier or a former Premier to claim privilege on information or documents they may hold.

In relation to the IBAC legislation we moved an Amendment yesterday which would seek to remove that privilege. I suspect over the coming couple of weeks before these Bills are considered in the Council there will be some public debate over this issue as to whether or not a Minister, a former Minister, a Premier or a former Premier should have the right to simply say, ‘No, I don’t want to cooperate with IBAC. No, I don’t want to cooperate with a Royal Commission.’

The difference between the Amendment that was circulated just now and the Amendment that was circulated yesterday is yesterday’s removed that immunity as it related to an IBAC investigation, and what this Amendment does is remove that immunity as it relates to the Royal Commission, because we are dealing with the Inquiries Act 2014. Our Amendment today aligns with yesterday’s Amendment, and we would be seeking to remove that executive immunity in relation to a Royal Commission. I do not think any Victorian would believe that it is reasonable for a Minister, former Minister, Premier or former Premier to deny the right of access to certain information or documents. I do not think many Victorians would know that immunity exists whereby, for example, former Premier Daniel Andrews could simply say to a Royal Commissioner who asked for a document or information, ‘I won’t give you that document because I don’t have to,’ and there is no process by which they have to provide an explanation for that declining of information. They simply can say no. The act as it currently stands says they can do that.

For the House’s background, because this will be where the debate gets interesting on this Amendment, Labor agrees with me. I can see the Labor Members wondering, ‘Really? How could that possibly be? I don’t agree with the Member for Brighton ever.’ But the Labor Government agrees publicly with the removal of executive immunity. In fact, after the Royal Commission into the Management of Police Informants, this Labor Government committed to removing the immunity by May 2022. When was that? That was four years ago. Four years ago, the government committed – having already by that time committed – to removing the immunity in response to a previous royal commission. So over five years ago, 5½ years ago, this Government committed to accepting a finding of that Royal Commission. If you look on the Victorian Government website right now, you will see in the Government’s response that commitment being agreed to being delivered by May 2022. It is on the Government’s current website, to help everybody who is watching. You can Google it, and you can find that the Government committed to doing that by May 2022. By May 2022 the Government committed to removing that executive privilege. You would say to yourself, ‘Well, who was the Premier at that time?’ Former Premier Daniel Andrews. I do not want to be unkind, but I can certainly understand, perhaps, why that commitment to a Royal Commission has not yet been lived up to, considering who was Premier.

I hear Members asking, ‘But no-one in recent times could have possibly used the public interest immunity, because no-one in executive Government would decline the executive immunity, would they?’ Well, can I say to you, the last person to use public interest immunity was former Premier Daniel Andrews. After his commitment to remove that immunity in 2023, former Premier Daniel Andrews used his executive privilege when it came to – I am sure the House will not be surprised to hear – the Commonwealth Games. When it came to the Commonwealth Games, he used his executive privilege, and he used his privilege not on a particular request that was put to him. He used it before any request was put to him.

He claimed executive privilege on the issue, full stop. He did not wait to hear what he was going to be asked, he did not wait to hear what document he may be asked to provide. He simply claimed entire executive privilege when it came to the Commonwealth Games, which frankly I do not think would surprise any Victorian.

But this debate matters, because the Amendment we have circulated today is in line with a commitment given by this Labor Government five years ago, that they promised to have implemented four years ago. This Amendment is in line with a commitment they have not only previously made publicly but that is currently on the Victorian Government website as to be delivered by May 2022. The Government is either going to vote for the Amendment in line with their commitment which is public and which is in response to a Royal Commission or they are not. Every Victorian can assume that if the Government votes against this Amendment, what they are saying is that when it comes to the Royal Commission that has been created, they want Ministers and former Ministers, Premiers and former Premiers, to have the right to say no to the Royal Commission when it comes knocking. That is the only possible reason you could want the executive privilege, the public interest immunity, to exist in the Inquiries Act. We as a Coalition have a strong view that when it comes to our chief anticorruption agency, IBAC, and when it comes to the Royal Commission, if they come and ask for a document and a former Minister or a former Premier has that document, we would expect that it be provided.

This is not a frivolous request. I understand public interest immunity may need to exist in many other circumstances, but when it comes to the chief integrity agency and a Royal Commission, I do not think any Victorian would think it is reasonable for a Minister, former Minister, Premier or former Premier to say no when those bodies come knocking at the door. This is why we not only proposed it in relation to IBAC but we are proposing it in relation to this Bill, because we believe that in those two circumstances specifically it is only reasonable that that power not exist for a former Member of this place, a member of the executive, to hide what they know from an anti-corruption body. The privilege, though it should exist in some circumstances, is effectively, when it comes to an integrity agency’s request, hiding information from that integrity agency. That is the only possible way you could see it. I presume that is why the Labor Government committed to removing it, and I agree with them. I agree with their public commitment that that they will remove it, which is on their website, because it should not exist.

We are here with this Bill because we have seen, and every Victorian has seen, the most outrageous corruption occur in Victoria, perhaps the worst corruption scandal we have seen in Australia’s history, a minimum $15 billion corruption. This Bill and the IBAC legislation yesterday are acts from a dying government, from an end-of-days government, because they know they have been caught. It has been a long, long process to get here, and in both the legislation yesterday and the legislation today it is disappointing to see that though there is action, it is partly hollow action.

Although we will not oppose it – as I said earlier, we will support both yesterday’s and today’s legislation – it is worth noting that this bill has been so rushed. The minister themself in the second-reading speech admitted that the special prosecutor Bill will not have prosecutorial powers for an estimated six months, I would suspect. I mean, can you believe that the special prosecutor is being created without prosecutorial powers? What is it? What is it going to do? I will admit the bill enables information sharing. It enables the creation of the office, and it does
allow information sharing – for example, with the Royal Commission. But as the Premier himself said, this special prosecutor is being created to enable prosecutorial action to occur, and for the bill to not enable that I think says everything about the hollowness of action when it comes to the corruption on the Big Build. And on the corruption on the Big Build, there are a number of points I want to make.

We know from public reports and the good work of many in the media, but specifically Nick McKenzie, that this Government had known for a long time about the corruption that was occurring on Government work sites. We know of warnings in early 2022, four years ago, and that the former Premier, who was at the time infrastructure Minister with responsibility for these projects, was warned about labour hire firm Marda Dandhi, and those issues have been raised in this Chamber and publicly, and those allegations were put to her. We also know of allegations that were put to the now Attorney-General in a meeting on the Big Build site. So, there were very senior Ministers in this Government – and this is all on the public record – who had very specific corruption allegations put to them, very serious allegations in terms of both union behaviour but also behaviour in relation to crime. You would think that especially as a senior Minister, but any Minister – and you would hope even a member of the backbench – if any instance is put to you, if someone pulls you aside and says, ‘Crimes A, B, C, D and E are occurring’ when you are on that site, you would do something about that.

We saw famously when it came to the Attorney that when asked in relation to crimes and matters that were put to her on the Government worksite, she initially publicly suggested that those allegations were put to police and then was forced to make a clarifying statement admitting that was not true. Those allegations were not put by the Attorney to police. They were passed on internally. They were not put to police. We know that, because that was a breach of then Premier Jacinta Allan’s edict that she had an expectation that where an allegation of criminal behaviour was put that would be referred to police. So, for the Attorney to be forced to admit that that had not happened spoke volumes. But we also know when allegations were put to former Premier Jacinta Allan when she was the Minister responsible, she wrote sometime later to IBAC in relation to those allegations. Although she wrote to IBAC in July 2024, almost two years after allegations were first raised with her, very swiftly I might say, in October of that same year – three months later – IBAC wrote back and said, ‘We don’t have the powers to investigate what you’re referring to,’ and those matters were referred to police.

Now, you would think, at the time a senior Minister or Premier with that information would have done something about that. We did not find out, as Victorians, about that response until this year. We found out this year that the former Premier was covering up the fact that she received a response saying IBAC could not do anything about it. The reason that referral matters is because, as the Premier has said, the special prosecutor, the Royal Commission and the IBAC legislation are all matters that are intertwined. Then Premier Allan’s referral to IBAC cannot be investigated by IBAC despite the legislation introduced in this place yesterday because its retrospectivity blocks that sort of investigation other than when it is new. You would expect that if the current Premier wrote to an agency and said, ‘Here is a former referral; I would seek your support on that referral,’ IBAC would have the power to do so. They do not, despite it being a Premier’s referral.

I do hope that this Parliament, across the Chambers, takes the IBAC Bill – and I suspect it will – and significantly enhances it, because we have an opportunity with the IBAC Bill to enhance it, just as we have with this special prosecutor Bill. Given the time perhaps we could have substantially enhanced it to give the special prosecutor prosecutorial powers, which would have been a novel idea, but given the time that would have been rather difficult to draft. However, one thing we can do as a Parliament is pick up the amendment that stops a member of the executive from claiming privilege and not passing on information they may have to the Royal Commission. That is what this Amendment that I have put to the Chamber will do: it will enable the Royal Commission to ask for information from Ministers, former Ministers, Premiers and former Premiers and they will be required to provide it, which every Victorian would expect. That position, I say again, is in line with the commitment given by this Labor Government that was due to be completed in May 2022 – over four years ago. It will be an interesting debate on the Amendment as to whether their public commitment to a Royal Commission finding is one that they live up to or whether they support the Amendment outright, which is what I put to them.

I will finish on the point that I began with and say when it comes to integrity the Government is always hollow, and this Bill is proof of that. The Minister, in his own speech, said that this Bill does not enable the basic functionality of the special prosecutor other than the creation of the office because the prosecutorial powers will not be enabled for at least six months. We do not oppose the Bill; we will support that creation, but we do note that, like everything else, with integrity this Government is hollow.