Hansard debates

Ben CARROLL (Niddrie – Premier) (12:08): Under the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006, I table a statement of compatibility:

In accordance with section 28 of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 (Charter), I make this Statement of Compatibility with response to the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission Amendment Bill 2026 (Bill).

In my opinion, the Bill, as introduced to the Legislative Assembly, is compatible with human rights as set out in the Charter. I base my opinion on the reasons outlined in this statement.

Overview

The Bill introduces amendments to the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission Act 2011 (IBAC Act) to expand IBAC’s jurisdiction to examine and investigate corruption.

The purpose of the Bill is to:

• Broaden the definition of ‘corrupt conduct’ to enable IBAC to investigate conduct that would constitute a ‘serious disciplinary matter’ or any offence, and

• Expand the definitions of ‘public body’ and ‘public officer’ to enable IBAC to investigate suspected corrupt conduct of persons performing public functions on behalf of the State, when the conduct is linked to the expenditure or use of public funds.

Human Rights Issues

The human rights protected by the Charter that are relevant to the Bill include:

• Right to freedom of movement (section 12)

• Right to privacy and reputation (section 13)

• Right to freedom of expression (section 15(2))

• Property rights (section 20)

• Right to a fair hearing (section 24(1))

• Right to protection against self-incrimination (section 25(2)(k)).

Currently the IBAC Act empowers IBAC to identify, investigate and expose ‘corrupt conduct’, but only if the conduct constitutes a ‘relevant offence’ (being an indictable offence against an Act or certain common law offences such as misconduct in public office and bribery of a public official). Clause 5(2) of the Bill removes the relevant offence requirement and expands IBAC’s jurisdiction to include conduct that would constitute a ‘serious disciplinary matter’ (as defined under clause 4(a)) or ‘any offence’. These changes will enable IBAC to investigate a wider range of unethical or integrity-comprising behaviours, common law offences, and summary offences which don’t meet the current threshold for a relevant offence.

Clause 6 of the Bill enhances IBAC’s capacity to examine corrupt conduct in the exercise or performance of public functions, including where those functions extend to private contractors if there is a connection between the alleged conduct and government funding. Pursuant to the amendments, IBAC will be empowered to investigate corrupt conduct of ‘associated entities’ as defined in clause 4(a), which will be included under the existing definitions of public body and public officer in section 6(1) of the IBAC Act. This will address corruption risks which are increasingly arising where public functions are delivered, or public funds are administered, beyond traditional government structures. This includes, for example, where there is misuse of public funds or lack of transparency of those funds, by a broader range of persons or entities who now deliver public functions, such as through public/private partnerships, or other complex contracting arrangements.

Clause 8(1) of the Bill provides transitional provisions to account for:

• active investigations underway before the commencement day or where IBAC has made a determination to investigate the complaint but taken no action,

• complaints or notifications already received by IBAC but not yet determined,

• complaints or notifications received after the commencement day and

• own motion investigations after the commencement day.

Investigations that have been finalised will not be subject to the reforms.

Clause 8(2) of the Bill provides a transitional provision to delay compliance with section 57 of the IBAC Act for a period of six months for any associated entity that will now be captured by IBAC’s jurisdiction. This seeks to provide IBAC additional time in which to update its policies and procedures and implement communications regarding the new obligations, so that any associated entities that do not already fall within IBAC’s jurisdiction can be made aware of their new obligations.

There is a strong public interest in ensuring that public funds are utilised appropriately and in line with their intended purpose. The reforms promote transparency and seek to build public confidence in both IBAC and the public sector, by allowing Victorians to trust that IBAC is equipped to investigate and expose corruption. As Victoria’s premier anti-corruption body, it is integral that IBAC is afforded necessary functions to examine and investigate the conduct of third parties who utilise public funds.

Expanding IBAC’s jurisdiction in accordance with the Bill does not, of itself, engage any human rights. However, the expanded jurisdiction will mean that more individuals and a broader range of conduct will be subject to IBAC’s scrutiny and investigative powers, consistently with the purposes of the Bill.

In my opinion, IBAC’s expanded jurisdiction, as provided in the Bill, does not alter the way in which its existing investigative powers affect human rights protected by the Charter or remove the legitimate objectives of those powers.

I note that the human rights outlined in this statement may already have been affected or limited by the IBAC Act as it exists now. Previous statements of compatibility have concluded even where rights are limited any such limitation are reasonable and demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society in accordance with section 7(2) of the Charter. The Bill does not affect those previous assessments. Moreover, even if it is considered that the Bill does affect or limit a human right, any such limitation would also be reasonable and demonstrably justifiable based on those previous assessments and the existing safeguards and limitations on certain IBAC powers in the IBAC Act. For example, any interference with the right to privacy in section 13 of the Charter arising from IBAC’s exercise of its powers will still be lawful and not arbitrary. This is because IBAC would not be properly equipped to perform its statutory functions of identifying, exposing and investigating corrupt conduct without its investigative powers, including the power to hold public examinations.

Further, although the Bill lowers IBAC’s investigation threshold, it does not remove any of the safeguards that apply to the exercise of the IBAC’s powers. Therefore, for any new persons or bodies that may be subject to IBAC’s powers, as a result of the amendments, the existing safeguards afforded to public bodies or public officers as currently defined in the IBAC Act will apply.

Existing safeguards under current sections 60(4) and 60(5) will also apply in relation to the transitional provisions. This will ensure that IBAC does not investigate conduct which occurred prior to commencement if, for example, it considers the conduct is trivial or is not satisfied that it is in the public interest to investigate the conduct.

Conclusion

I am satisfied that the Bill is compatible with the Charter and does not limit any rights in the Charter, for the reasons set out above.

The Hon. Anthony Carbines

Minister for Artificial Intelligence and the Digital Economy

Minister for Major Events

Minister for Medical Research

Minister for Racing

Minister for Economic Development