Rachel Payne MP has introduced the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission Amendment (Function) Bill 2026 to Parliament, a bill aimed at restoring IBAC’s independence and discretion to properly investigate allegations of police misconduct in Victoria.
TRIGGER WARNING: This article references sexual assualt, police violence and family violence.
What the bill does
The bill repeals section 15(1A) of the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission Act 2011 — a provision that currently requires IBAC to deprioritise complaints about police misconduct and criminality in favour of corruption-related complaints. Repealing it would restore IBAC’s original mandate, allowing allegations of police misconduct and corruption to be assessed independently and on their merits, rather than police complaints being systematically pushed down the queue.
Rachel introduced the bill a week after Premier Ben Carroll announced plans to expand IBAC’s jurisdiction with stronger “follow the money” powers and a broadened definition of corrupt conduct. While welcoming that announcement, Rachel argued it doesn’t go far enough — stronger anti-corruption powers, she said, need to be matched by equally strong police oversight.
Why it’s needed
Rachel told Parliament that, due to the current legislative technicality, IBAC investigates just 1 per cent of all police complaints — a figure she says is “a far cry from the independent, merit-based oversight Victorians were promised.” In 2022–23, almost 70 per cent of investigations conducted by Victoria Police into their own resulted in a recommendation of no action.
The amendment reflects recommendation 18 of the Integrity and Oversight Committee’s December 2025 report into the adequacy of the legislative framework governing IBAC, which found that IBAC’s competing responsibilities create tension between investigating corruption and investigating police misconduct, and recommended change so that serious police misconduct is treated as a priority alongside serious and systemic corruption.
Rachel was clear that the bill doesn’t expand IBAC’s powers or remove any existing safeguards — it simply restores the discretion IBAC needs to allocate its own resources and decide what warrants investigation, consistent with genuine operational independence.
A treaty and human rights lens
In her statement of compatibility, Rachel noted the bill promotes several rights under the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities, including equality before the law and protection from cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, by strengthening the ability to investigate police misconduct such as excessive force.
Her statement of treaty compatibility went further, addressing the disproportionate impact of police misconduct on First Peoples. Rachel pointed to the reality that Aboriginal Victorians are not treated the same way by Victoria Police as other Victorians — a pattern acknowledged by First Peoples’ legal and health bodies alike. Citing the Victorian Aboriginal Legal Service, she noted that systemic racism within the criminal legal system shows up as racial profiling, over-policing, use of force and higher rates of searches, arrest and remand. She referenced a recent case in which IBAC charged two Victoria Police officers with assault, after a senior constable allegedly struck an Aboriginal man in the head with a taser multiple times, and cited figures showing Aboriginal men in Victoria are 6.5 times more likely to be processed by police than non-Aboriginal men.
Rachel concluded that stronger, independent oversight provides “a meaningful pathway for addressing police misconduct affecting First Peoples,” without altering treaty processes or First Peoples’ self-determination arrangements.
Victim-survivors at the centre
Rachel dedicated much of her speech to the people directly affected by gaps in police oversight, acknowledging victim-survivors of police-perpetrated sexual and family violence in the chamber, including advocates from Flat Out’s Beyond Survival program.
She shared two accounts. Dr Jana Katerinskaja, an advocate for preventing police-perpetrated family violence, described how her safety plan was leaked to her perpetrator after she lodged a complaint, and how IBAC referred her complaint back to the same officers to handle — a process that, she said, consumed seven years of her life before her ex-partner was convicted of high-end family violence.
A second victim-survivor spoke of being raped by a member of Victoria Police, and described being met with what she called a “statutory NDA” and no updates once her complaint reached IBAC — reinforcing her view that police-perpetrated abuse silences victims twice over: first by the perpetrator, then by the system meant to hold them accountable.
Rachel also quoted police accountability lawyer Jeremy King, who said too many victims of police brutality feel civil litigation is their only path to accountability — a costly and blunt instrument that shouldn’t be the sole option available to people harmed by police.
A personal tribute
Rachel closed her speech with a tribute to her late grandmother, Doll — the matriarch of her family, whose quiet strength masked years of violence at the hands of Rachel’s grandfather, a senior police officer. Rachel spoke of how her grandmother could not speak out against a police officer, knowing she wouldn’t be believed, and how that same silence still traps others today. “We should not accept a society where survival depends on a person’s ability to escape quietly,” Rachel told the chamber. “We owe them a system where they can speak without fear… where no person, regardless of rank, position or reputation, is beyond accountability.”
Rachel acknowledged the organisations who have worked alongside her on this issue, including the Police Accountability Project, Inner Melbourne Community Legal, Melbourne Activist Legal Support, the Victorian Aboriginal Legal Service, the Human Rights Law Centre and Youthlaw.
Read the complete Hansard transcript below.
Full Transcript: IBAC Amendment (Function) Bill 2026
Statement of Compatibility with the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities
Rachel PAYNE (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (10:18):
I lay on the table a statement of compatibility with the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006:
The Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission Amendment (Function) Bill 2026 is compatible with the human rights protected by the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006.
Overview of the Bill
The Bill repeals section 15(1A) of the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission Act 2011. Section 15(1A) requires IBAC to deprioritise complaints about police misconduct and criminality, subjugating them in favour of corruption related complaints.
Human Rights Issues
The Bill does not directly limit any human right protected by the Charter.
The amendment does not expand IBAC’s coercive powers, alter existing safeguards, create new offences or remove any existing legal rights.
The repeal may promote a number of Charter Rights and values, including:
- the right to equality before the law under section 8, by supporting the equal consideration of complaints regardless of whether they are characterised as serious, systemic or individual in nature;
- the right to protection and equal benefit of the law under section 8(3), by strengthening the capacity of integrity oversight mechanisms to respond to allegations of corruption and misconduct;
- the protection from torture and cruel, in human or degrading treatment, by levelling the ability to investigate police misconduct matters, including excessive use of force, release of confidential material, or racial slurs;
- the right to an effective and accountable public administration system that is consistent with the rule of law, a value reflected throughout the Charter.
The Bill preserves IBAC’s discretion to determine how best to allocate resources and perform its statutory functions. It does not require the investigation of any particular matter and does not interfere with the operational independence of the Commission.
Conclusion
The Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission Amendment (Confirmation of Function) Bill 2026 is compatible with the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006.
Statement of Treaty Compatibility
Rachel PAYNE (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (10:18):
I lay on the table a statement of compatibility with the Statewide Treaty Act 2025:
Overview
In accordance with section 66 of the Statewide Treaty Act 2025, I make this Statement of Treaty Compatibility with respect to the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission Amendment (Functions) Bill 2026.
The Bill amends the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission Act 2011 to repeal section 15(1A), and this amendment strengthens the operational independence of IBAC and allows for IBAC to make decisions for what warrants investigations, how these investigations are conducted and where its resources are best directed.
Effective and independent oversight of police is particularly critical for First Peoples in Victoria, who experience disproportionate levels of police contact, intervention and use of police powers.
This disparity must be understood within the broader historical and contemporary context of colonisation, dispossession, and the longstanding over-representation of First Peoples in the criminal justice system.
Section 66(3)(a)–(c): Opportunity for advice and representations
The Assembly advised that it did not wish to make a representation at this time, as its Community Governance and Answerability Framework required under the Statewide Treaty Act is yet to be implemented.
The Assembly noted that the Framework will provide the mechanism through which the views of Community are reflected in its representations.
Section 66(3)(d): Compatibility with Treaty objectives
In forming my view regarding the compatibility of this Bill with the objectives set out in section 66(3)(d) of the Statewide Treaty Act 2025, I have considered whether the repeal of section 15(1A) of the IBAC Act 2011 may affect First Peoples differently from other Victorians, having regard to the ongoing impacts of colonisation and the overrepresentation of First Peoples within Victoria’s criminal justice system.
Advancing the inherent rights and self-determination of First Peoples
The Bill does not confer, remove or alter rights specific to First Peoples, nor does it affect arrangements relating to Traditional Owners, self-determination structures, Treaty processes or First Peoples’ representative institutions.
The Bill provides an opportunity to express a view on a significant public policy question. However, the Bill does not itself advance or diminish First Peoples’ self-determination and does not alter any mechanisms through which First Peoples exercise self-determination rights.
Accordingly, I consider that the Bill is neutral in its effect on the objective of advancing the inherent rights and self-determination of First Peoples.
Addressing the unacceptable disadvantage inflicted on First Peoples by historic wrongs and ongoing injustices of colonisation
In considering this objective, I have had regard to the disproportionate impact that First Peoples experience from police misconduct because they are disproportionately exposed to systemic racism by Victoria Police and the criminal justice system. This means that misconduct, excessive use of force, discriminatory treatment, inappropriate searches, arrests, detention and failures to properly respond to complaints can have a particularly significant effect on First Peoples.
First Peoples continue to experience higher rates of contact with the criminal justice system than non-Indigenous Victorians, reflecting broader patterns of disadvantage associated with colonisation.
The relationship between First Peoples and police cannot be considered separately from the history of colonisation. First Peoples have experienced generations of discriminatory laws, dispossession, exclusion and disproportionate involvement in the criminal justice system. These experiences have contributed to a profound and continuing mistrust of police.
Ensuring the equal enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms by First Peoples
I have considered whether the Bill may affect the equal enjoyment of rights and freedoms by First Peoples when compared with other Victorians.
It strengthens the equal enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms by First Peoples by seeking to ensure that police misconduct and neglect are subject to independent oversight, rather than being disproportionately dealt with through internal police processes.
The Bill provides a stronger accountability mechanism where police conduct that may involve discriminatory treatment of First Peoples can be addressed.
Having regard to the considerations above, I have considered whether the Bill compounds existing disadvantage, undermines self-determination, or increases unequal enjoyment of rights experienced by First Peoples. I have formed the view that the Bill establishes a meaningful pathway for addressing police misconduct affecting First Peoples.
Given the longstanding concerns about the disproportionate contact between First Peoples and police, including experiences of over-policing, discrimination and the use of police powers, there is a particular need for strong, independent and accessible oversight mechanisms.
Conclusion
Accordingly, in my opinion, the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission Amendment (Functions) Bill 2026 is compatible with the objectives set out in section 66(3)(d)(i)–(iii) of the Statewide Treaty Act 2025.
I therefore consider that the Bill does not adversely affect the advancement of First Peoples’ rights and self-determination, does not compound disadvantage resulting from historic wrongs and ongoing injustices, and does not diminish the equal enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms by First Peoples.
Rachel Payne MP
Member of Southeastern Metropolitan Region
Legalise Cannabis Victoria
Second Reading
Rachel PAYNE (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (10:18):
I move: That the bill be now read a second time.
The case for the bill
Police officers are given significant powers and responsibilities over Victorians. With this power, must come strong and independent oversight.
A week ago, the Premier Ben Carroll announced his intention to expand the jurisdiction of the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission (IBAC). In his announcement, the Premier mentioned that legislation is being drafted to give IBAC strong ‘follow the money’ powers and broaden the definition of corrupt conduct. We welcome this announcement, but these reforms fall short.
The Premier has an opportunity to go further and ensure these reforms also strengthen IBAC’s ability to independently oversee and investigate police misconduct, so that stronger anti-corruption powers are matched by equally strong police oversight.
If we are serious about integrity and accountability, IBAC must have the powers and resources to properly investigate allegations of police misconduct. IBAC should not have to choose between police oversight and its broader anti-corruption and ‘follow the money’ role.
The ammendment
This bill amends the IBAC act, to repeal section 15(1A). The repeal of section 15(1A) would restore IBAC’s original mandate and discretion, ensuring allegations of corruption and police misconduct are independently assessed on their merits. The repeal of section 15(1A) will ensure that IBAC has greater discretion to assess and investigate complaints about police misconduct.
This amendment is the result of more than a decade of recommendations, reviews and reports calling for stronger and more effective integrity and oversight arrangements in Victoria.
At present, and due to an unforeseen technicality, IBAC cannot effectively act on police misconduct. In fact, right now IBAC only investigates 1 per cent of all police complaints. This is a far cry from the independent, merit-based oversight Victorians were promised.
We know that this system is failing. Repealing section 15(1A) is a good and necessary fix. It is consistent with the recommendations of the Integrity and Oversight Committee’s December 2025 report into the adequacy of the legislative framework governing IBAC.
The Integrity and Oversight Committee heard that IBAC’s different responsibilities can create a tension between investigating corruption and investigating police misconduct. That is why the committee recommended changing section 15(1A) in recommendation 18 of the report, so that serious police misconduct is clearly treated as a priority, alongside serious and systemic corruption.
Recommendation 19
Recommendation 19 of the report spoke to the need for IBAC to establish a dedicated police corruption and misconduct division:
… to increase public confidence in Victoria’s system for the handling of complaints about police corruption and other misconduct, improve its capacity to conduct effective investigations, enhance its independence, develop its expertise and improve its overall performance.
It was also recommended that IBAC should ‘retain the discretion to allocate resources’ between divisions.
At its heart, this bill is about ensuring that IBAC has the independence and discretion it needs to do its job properly and as intended. IBAC needs the powers, independence and resources to properly assess allegations of police misconduct, investigate where necessary, and ensure serious complaints receive the scrutiny that they deserve.
Strong oversight only works when the oversight body is genuinely independent and has the freedom to follow the evidence wherever it leads. This bill sends a clear message: restoring IBAC’s discretion and strengthening its operational independence is important for police oversight and accountability.
Treaty, colonisation and overpolicing
Victoria has now entered a new chapter through treaty. Treaty requires that we acknowledge the lasting and present inequities for First Peoples in Victoria. Treaty means that we have committed to changing the systems that produce unequal outcomes for First Peoples today. This includes the overpolicing that First Peoples continue to face and the unfair treatment they are known to experience by Victoria Police.
It is an uncomfortable truth that Aboriginal Victorians are not treated the same way by Victoria Police as other Victorians. Every representative body – First Peoples, legal, health – know this to be true, as do First Peoples themselves.
To quote the Victorian Aboriginal Legal Service:
Within the criminal legal system, systemic racism plays a significant role which greatly impacts the lives of Aboriginal people every day. This can look like racial profiling, racial abuse, over-policing, use of force, higher rates of searches, arrest, fines, bail refusal and remand.
This is quite simply shocking in 2026 and completely counter to treaty.
There are numerous high-profile cases of police abuse of power against First Peoples. Just two weeks ago, IBAC charged two Victoria Police officers with assault. It is alleged a senior constable unlawfully struck an Aboriginal man in the head with a taser multiple times.
Aboriginal men in Victoria are 6.5 times more likely to be processed by police than non-Aboriginal men. These figures show why strong, independent oversight of police is so important.
The case for independent accountability
For many Victorians, expensive and drawn-out litigation is the only meaningful avenue for police accountability. Litigation should not be the only option for people harmed by police.
Police accountability lawyer Jeremy King said:
I see too many cases where victims of police brutality feel their only option is to take legal action against police because the system has failed them.
But civil litigation is a blunt instrument and people should not have to face adverse cost consequences to hold police accountable.
A properly-resourced, independent oversight mechanism would save victims and their families the trauma of legal action and get them justice more quickly and efficiently.
We are in the so-called ‘tough-on-crime’ era.
Police have been given broader powers
As Victoria Police are given broader powers, the need for strong, independent oversight becomes more important. It becomes imperative. There is already a strong basis for making this argument. In November 2024, I spoke on the lack of transparency around police oversight in Victoria within this chamber. Only 1 per cent of police misconduct cases – including brutality – are investigated by IBAC, the rest are either dismissed or sent back to police. This figure should concern every Victorian.
Police should not be responsible for investigating their own. IBAC was established precisely because Victoria needed independent oversight of public sector corruption and police misconduct. If we want Victorians to have confidence in police, then we must ensure that allegations against police are investigated independently. Police cannot independently investigate themselves. This should be made a priority for IBAC.
70% of IBAC cases in 2022-23 resulted in “no action”
In 2022–23, IBAC reported that almost 70 per cent of investigations conducted by Victoria Police resulted in a recommendation of no action. Independent scrutiny is not about undermining police – it is about strengthening the police force. When police know their conduct is subject to fair, independent and transparent oversight, it helps build a culture where good practice is recognised, misconduct is addressed and accountability is taken seriously.
That matters for recruitment and retention too. Victoria Police is facing a significant workforce shortage, with current estimates pointing to a shortfall of roughly 1500 vacant positions. Workplace culture and independent oversight matter because they help create a police force where good officers are supported, respected and want to stay.
Strong accountability isn’t about undermining police. It is about building trust, improving culture and making sure Victoria can recruit and retain the best people. Police officers should be able to work in an environment where professionalism, integrity and speaking up are valued, not one where toxic behaviour is allowed to become part of the culture. If we want to attract and keep good police officers in Victoria, we need to create a police culture that allows for this, and independent oversight can play an important role in making that happen.
Victim-survivor voices
Too many victim-survivors are unheard, unseen and let down by a system that is meant to deliver justice and accountability. Behind every statistic, every failed investigation and every gap in police oversight is a real person whose life has been impacted. Victim-survivors deserve to be heard. They deserve accountability. And they deserve a system that puts their rights and safety first.
I must take a moment to acknowledge the people who we have worked closely with. Firstly, I would like to acknowledge victim-survivors who are here with me this morning and the victim-survivors of police perpetrated sexual and family violence advocacy group Flat Out and its Beyond Survival program. I would like to take this moment to share a couple of victim-survivor stories.
Dr Jana Katerinskaja is an advocate for preventing police perpetrated family violence:
As someone who was experiencing family violence from a police officer, when I lodged a complaint my safety plan was leaked to my perpetrator.
Police were protecting their own. IBAC referred my complaint back to those same cops to handle, with catastrophic outcomes. IBAC should not have to prioritise corruption complaints over complaints about life endangering or criminal conduct by police.
As the Attorney General later formally found in 2024, Victoria Police’s lawyers responded to that by breaching the Model Litigant Guidelines: Unnecessarily protracting the lawfare for years and not producing smoking gun documents. My ex was convicted of high-end family violence, but this battle consumed 7 years of my life.
Victim-survivor 2:
I was raped by a member of Victoria Police. First police perpetrators silence us and then the system silences us further. When I went to IBAC, I expected my complaint would go back to Victoria Police, but I didn’t expect to be treated callously, and basically hit with a statutory NDA and denied updates or information.
We give police so much power, so they need proper oversight. We are letting good cops down if we don’t set up a system that cleans out the bad cops, and that lets everyone down and causes the sort of thing I’ve suffered.
Stakeholders that we have worked closely with: the Police Accountability Project, Inner Melbourne Community Legal, Melbourne Activist Legal Support, Victorian Aboriginal Legal Service, Human Rights Law Centre and Youthlaw. Thank you! These organisations do critical work in this space and have been advocating for police accountability for decades.
A tribute to Doll
Lastly, I would also like to pay tribute to my grandmother Doll, whose legacy will forever be cherished by our family. Doll was a woman of extraordinary strength. She was the matriarch of our family, a quiet achiever who held her family together through circumstances that no one should ever have to endure. She was an amazing cook and had a cheeky sense of humour. But behind that quiet strength was a life marked by violence. Doll’s husband, my grandfather, was a senior police officer, an alcoholic and a brutally violent man. He was untouchable. For Doll, escaping that violence was not simple or easy. She had to find a way to survive, to protect herself and her children, and ultimately to build a life of her own.
My grandmother could not speak out against a police officer. She knew she would be dismissed and not believed. Many others could not either. Many still can’t. We should not accept a society where survival depends on a person’s ability to escape quietly. We owe Victorians more than that. I owe that to Doll. We owe them a system where they can speak without fear, where their allegations are taken seriously, where police misconduct is properly investigated, and where no person, regardless of rank, position or reputation, is beyond accountability. That is what this bill is calling for. It means that no one is above the law, including those entrusted to enforce it.
I, on behalf of Legalise Cannabis Victoria, commend this bill to the house.
