Rachel intended to speak in support of a bill to expand the powers of the Independent Broad-based Anti-Corruption Commission (IBAC). One of the proposed changes would include the removal of a requirement that corrupt conduct must include a relevant offence. It would also allow IBAC to re-examine previously dismissed matters.
While Rachel did not get the chance to speak in the Legislative Council chamber, her intended speech is provided, below.
Wednesday the 4th of March, 2026
Rachel Payne (South-Eastern Metropolitan):
I rise to make a brief contribution in support of the Independent Broad-based Anti-Corruption Commission Amendment (Ending Political Corruption) Bill 2024.
Victorians are increasingly turning away from the major parties, and they are doing so for good reasons.
When our integrity agency is denied the powers it needs to meaningfully address corrupt conduct and is opaque by design – it’s not doing much to restore faith in democracy.
If the government doesn’t want to take transparency seriously, then it’s up to us as non-government members to hold them to account.
That’s why we are pleased to offer our support to the Bill before us today that will make changes to the Independent Broad Based Anticorruption Commission, known as IBAC.
In present form, these changes include an expansion of the jurisdiction of IBAC by removing the requirement that corrupt conduct must include conduct that would constitute a relevant offence. A relevant offence is defined as an indictable criminal offence as well as certain common-law offences. These changes are intended to apply retrospectively to conduct that occurred before commencement of the legislation, as well as allowing IBAC to re-examine matters that it had previously dismissed or referred to another agency.
We understand further amendments will be made to this Bill. In brief, these are related to “follow the money” powers by broadening the definition of corrupt conduct, removing some public hearing restrictions and clarifying that a finding of corrupt conduct isn’t a finding of criminal misconduct.
It is important to acknowledge that debate on this Bill comes in the wake of recent reports of billions of taxpayer dollars being left unaccounted for on major projects in Victoria.
While there has been debate about the exact dollar figure, at the end of the day it’s not about that. It’s about the public who want to understand how this corruption was allowed to happen, and they want their integrity bodies to have powers to investigate!
As a member of the Integrity and Oversight Committee for some years, I am intimately familiar with these issues. The final report from our investigation into the adequacy of the legislative framework for the Independent Broad-based Anti-Corruption Commission recommended, among other things, that:
1. the Victorian Government seek to broaden the definition of ‘corrupt conduct’ in s 4 of the IBAC Act 2011 (Vic), to remove the requirement that conduct constitute a relevant offence and include matters involving a serious disciplinary offence, misconduct worthy of termination or other relevant offences or instances considered in breach of public trust in the public officer by reason of their appointment as a public officer.
And:
2. the Victorian Government seek to amend the IBAC Act 2011 (Vic) to provide the Commissioner of the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission with powers comparable to the Victorian Auditor-General including: Follow-the-dollar investigatory powers.
I would like to briefly touch on why these recommendations were made.
The definition of ‘corrupt conduct’ in Victoria’s legislation creates a high threshold for an investigation that limits corruption to conduct that amounts to indictable offences or specific statutory crimes.
An expanded definition of corrupt conduct and a clarification that a finding of “corrupt conduct” is not a finding of criminal misconduct was called for in many submissions to the inquiry. IBAC argued the NSW ICAC’s broader definition may better reflect public perceptions of what constitutes corruption and is arguably easier for the community to understand.
An expanded definition would also include follow-the-dollar investigatory powers to allow IBAC to oversee the use of public funds whether expended through public or private entities.
The issue of public hearings did not make it into the final recommendations of this report. However, I, along with my colleague Dr Tim Read MP, were one of the only two members of the committee to vote in support of a draft recommendation to remove the exceptional circumstances test for holding public hearings.
This test is understood to require circumstances that are highly unusual and quite rare. Only in this tiny minority of cases may an examination be public – this is wrong.
The debate on the idea of public hearings only in exceptional circumstances came to a head with the establishment of the National Anti-Corruption Commission, who were set up with a similar requirement.
At the time, a survey by the Australia Institute found that less than one in five Australians believed the Commission’s ability to hold public hearings should be restricted to when it would be in the public interest and in exceptional circumstances only. This was consistent across all voting intentions.
Before concluding, I want to acknowledge that we cannot have a conversation about making these changes to IBAC’s jurisdiction without discussing the need for additional resources.
In Integrity and Oversight Hearings earlier this week I asked the Commissioner about the consequences of a retrospective application of a broader definition of corrupt conduct, and she rightly pointed out that additional resourcing is critical for these changes to be effective.
So, I would like to see the government put their money where their mouth is. Act on integrity, reform these laws, and fund IBAC appropriately.
This isn’t the first time IBAC has asked for increased powers. They have been making these calls for many years and they have gone unanswered.
It is time the government stepped up and gave the community confidence that these reforms will be enacted.
Thank you.
Related:
- Support for inquiry into IBAC funding – Rachel Payne
- Governance and Integrity Bill Local Government Amendment 2024 – Rachel Payne
- Justice Legislation Amendment (Police and Others Matters) Bill 2023 – Rachel Payne
