Rachel spoke on the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission Amendment (Follow the Money) Bill 2026, presented by the Liberal party. This bill would expand the powers of the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission (IBAC) to investigate potential corruption from misuse of public funds. While Rachel and Legalise Cannabis supported this bill and it passed through the Legislative Council, it was subsequently defeated in the Legislative Assembly.
Wednesday the 18th of March 2026,
Victorian Legislative Council
Rachel Payne (South-East Metropolitan):
I rise to speak on the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission Amendment (Follow the Money) Bill 2026 on behalf of Legalise Cannabis Victoria. If I am honest, I feel like I am getting deja vu from the number of times we have stood in this place and talked about legislative reforms for the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission, known as IBAC. But there is good reason for these plentiful motions, amendments and private members bills. Non-government members are using all the tools that we have available to us to try and get government to listen to voters and finally act on integrity. Instead of admitting fault in response to reports of $15 billion missing from Victoria’s major projects thanks to corruption, we have a Premier who ran a smear campaign on a respected integrity expert and threatened to end a press conference. At the same time, it came to light that the Premier sent a letter to IBAC asking them to investigate CFMEU corruption back in 2024, knowing they lacked – and continue to lack – the powers to investigate. And as recently as this week it came to light that there were other warnings about serious wrongdoing at the time. So the story continues, as does the government’s woeful response. The response on the issue of corruption has been disappointing. There seems to be a real fear of owning up to fault and responding with real action. It is not about debating exact figures on how much was lost; it is about Victorians who want to know how this corruption was allowed to occur and want IBAC to have the powers to actually investigate it. That is why, as non-government members facing a government who does not seem to want to take transparency seriously, we are forced to act.
I thank members of the opposition for bringing forward this bill for debate today. It takes important steps towards giving IBAC the powers it needs to more meaningfully address corrupt conduct. The bill expands the jurisdiction of the commission by inserting a new ‘associated entity’ definition. This will capture a broad range of entities and is in line with recommendation 5 of the inquiry into the adequacy of the legislative framework for the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission. As a member of the Integrity and Oversight Committee, which oversaw this inquiry, these are issues that I am deeply familiar with and recommendations that I was proud to support in the final report of the inquiry. This recommendation was that IBAC’s commissioner be given powers to investigate corrupt conduct of third-party and private subcontractors ‘where there is a substantial connection between alleged corrupt conduct and government funding’. These are known as follow-the-dollar investigatory powers. Without these powers there continues to be a glaring omission in our anti-corruption laws for what is a common practice in the construction industry: the use of third-party and private subcontractors. This bill will also remove the requirement that examinations are generally to be held in private. This was an issue that was considered in the inquiry; in fact it was almost a recommendation. While I supported the inclusion of a recommendation related to public hearings, funnily enough, opposition members of the Integrity and Oversight Committee did not support it. So today I do welcome the opposition’s change of heart on this issue.
The exceptional circumstances test for hearings to be held in public settings is far too high a bar. This means that only in a tiny minority of cases, with circumstances that are highly unusual and quite rare, would a public hearing be held. As I have mentioned in this place before, this issue is not new here in Victoria or nationally. 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 should be in the public interest and in exceptional circumstances only. This was consistent across all voting intentions. While I appreciate the need to be sensitive to the high burden placed on someone from an investigation, there also is a need for public interest and the public at large to have faith in government institutions. More public hearings will allow people to see these processes at work and hopefully build their trust in the existence of systems to identify and to respond to corrupt conduct.
I understand that the Greens will be moving two amendments on this bill relating to retrospectivity and clarifying the consequences of a finding of corrupt conduct. We support these amendments as they further speak to the recommendations of the inquiry and a proper investigation into corrupt conduct in Victoria’s Big Build. Now more than ever Victorians need and deserve fit-for-purpose integrity bodies, so let us expand IBAC’s powers and resource it accordingly.
Related:
- Expand IBAC powers to stamp out political corruption – Rachel Payne
- Support for inquiry into IBAC funding – Rachel Payne
- Omnibus bill promises broad justice reforms – Rachel Payne
- Transparency needed on police oversight in Victoria – Rachel Payne
