Hansard debates

Anthony MARSH (Nepean) (10:39): We support stronger powers for IBAC, we support giving the commission genuine capacity to follow the money through contracting change and we support the broadening of the statutory framework that has far too often left serious misconduct beyond the reach of Victoria’s integrity system. This bill does move in the right direction, but the government has stopped short at precisely the point where scrutiny matters most: retrospectivity. Genuine retrospectivity is a non-negotiable aspect of any reform to IBAC legislation. This bill expands the concept of ‘corrupt conduct’, replacing the existing ‘relevant offence’ threshold with conduct that would constitute ‘an offence or a serious disciplinary matter’. It broadens the benefit captured by section 4 and makes it clear that conduct can be corrupt even when the intended benefit or outcome was never ultimately obtained.

It also introduces associated entity and third-party contractor provisions. That is an important element because public money obviously does not stop being public money when it passes from a department to a head contractor, from a head contractor to a subcontractor or through another layer of some commercial arrangement. Clause 6 in the bill correspondingly expands the definitions of ‘public body’ and ‘public officer’, extending the existing provision dealing with public funds to persons and bodies that use or expend those funds. These are worthwhile reforms. They are also reforms that the coalition have been demanding for months, reforms that we tried to make law, but Labor blocked us from doing so at every turn.

On 3 March the Shadow Attorney-General, the member for Brighton, moved to introduce the coalition’s Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission Amendment (Follow the Money) Bill 2026 in this house, but Labor used its numbers to block the introduction of that bill. That is nothing short of a disgrace. The same bill was introduced in the other place. It was debated, and on 18 March it was amended to give the follow-the-money reform retrospective operation. The bill then passed the Council. It then came back to this house, but Labor again used its numbers to kill it. Now, months later, the government asks us to support this principle, the one that it refused to even debate when the coalition put it forward. While we welcome the desperate backflip, the history should not be rewritten, and their abandonment of true retrospectivity cannot be ignored.

The coalition’s bill confronted the obvious question that Labor’s bill now trashes. Ours made follow-the-money reform truly retrospective, and there was a very good reason for doing so. Corruption does not become less corrupt or less serious because it occurred before the Parliament finally gave IBAC the right legislative tools. A contracting arrangement does not become clean because the law at the time was too narrow to follow the money through every entity involved. If public money was misused five years ago, the public interest in exposing that misuse does not extinguish or disappear. The government bill accepts the principle only in part, and in fact it falls well short. Proposed section 200 applies the expanded regime to some pre-commencement conduct. It captures pending matters and investigations that are incomplete, but it draws a line around matters that IBAC has already dismissed, referred to another body or completed. Proposed section 200(3) then expressly provides that those matters cannot be reopened. This may determine whether serious historical conduct can ever be examined under the so-called stronger jurisdiction this Parliament is now trying to create.

The clear concern is about historical conduct connected with Victoria’s Big Build. Victoria has spent extraordinary sums of public money on major construction projects involving long and complex contracting chains. Where allegations have already moved through the integrity system under the old, narrower statutory definitions and a matter has been dismissed, referred elsewhere or completed, the new regime simply does not allow IBAC to go back and apply a broader law. That is the gap that the coalition wants closed. The Labor government cannot credibly tell Victorians that IBAC must be able to follow the money while legislating so that some of the money most in need of following sits behind a statutory line. It defies all common sense. Proper retrospectivity is also a matter of principle. IBAC is not a criminal court, and an IBAC finding is not a criminal conviction. We are dealing with the jurisdiction of an integrity body to investigate conduct and expose corruption risks. The Parliament can ensure that the jurisdiction is capable of examining historical conduct where the public interest requires it.

Our integrity agenda has gone much further than this bill. Our March follow-the-money bill also introduced a restrictive exceptional circumstances test for public examinations. In June the Shadow Attorney-General again sought to introduce a private members bill to facilitate timely IBAC reporting. I voted for that bill to be introduced, and Labor again voted it down in this house. The proposal would have preserved procedural fairness while seeking to prevent delay from becoming a mechanism by which important IBAC reports are kept from Parliament and the public. There is a pattern: the coalition proposes integrity reform, Labor then blocks it. Political pressure builds. Labor then returns months later with only part of the reform and asks everyone to forget what came before. It would be a joke if it was not so serious.

My constituents in Nepean care whether public money is protected, whether corruption is exposed and whether the watchdog has the powers that it needs. We support the broader corrupt conduct test. We support the associated entity and third-party contractor provisions. We support a stronger capacity for IBAC to trace the use and expenditure of public money.

But we are moving amendments because stronger integrity laws should not be designed with an artificial blind spot for the past. It should not be designed to hide the conduct of Labor and their mates in the past. In its current form, that is the poison in this bill. Victorians are entitled to more than a promise that future corruption will be easier to investigate. They are entitled to confidence that serious historical allegations can be and will be examined under a framework that is fit for purpose. If the Labor government truly believes IBAC should be able to follow the money, then it should let IBAC follow it wherever the evidence leads – through contractors, through subcontractors, through associated entities and, where necessary, back in time. That is the test of whether this is a genuine integrity reform or merely a political response to an integrity crisis leading into an election. We will fight to make this bill stronger, more complete and worthy of the public confidence that Victoria’s integrity system must command. It is up to the Labor government to show Victorians whether integrity is really non-negotiable, but so far their actions suggest the opposite.