Key Takeaways
- Premier Jacinta Allan announced a plan to broaden IBAC’s investigative powers, including “follow‑the‑dollar” authority and a wider definition of corrupt conduct.
- The reforms will not be considered by parliament until after the November 2026 state election; a panel of integrity experts will report by May 2027, with legislation expected by the end of 2027.
- Integrity experts welcomed the move, the Greens criticised the delayed timetable and alleged “weasel words,” and the Opposition labelled the delay a sham and called for immediate action.
- The proposal responds to a December 2025 integrity‑and‑oversight committee report and builds on years of revelations from the Building Bad series about corruption in Victoria’s Big Build program.
- Despite the announcement, IBAC’s current powers will remain unchanged for voters heading into the upcoming election, leaving the anti‑corruption framework unaltered in the short term.
Context and Background
Victoria’s Independent Broad‑based Anti‑corruption Commission (IBAC) was created in 2012 under the Baillieu government to oversee integrity across the public sector. From its inception, IBAC’s mandate has been limited to investigating conduct that, on reasonable grounds, appears to constitute a criminal offence. This narrow threshold has repeatedly hindered the agency’s ability to probe systemic misconduct that falls short of criminality but still erodes public trust—such as favouritism, undue influence, or serious breaches of public trust. Over the past two years, the newspaper’s Building Bad investigative series has exposed alleged corrupt union officials, organised‑crime infiltration, and dubious contractors operating within the state’s $100 billion Big Build infrastructure program, prompting mounting pressure for IBAC to be equipped with stronger investigative tools.
Premier Allan’s Announcement
On Monday, Premier Jacinta Allan unveiled a suite of proposed changes to IBAC’s powers and operations, describing them as “the most far‑reaching overhaul” of the agency since its establishment. The announcement was made alongside Integrity Oversight Victoria representatives and drew a mixed response: integrity experts praised the prospect of long‑awaited enhancements, the Greens expressed scepticism about the government’s genuine commitment to reform, and the Opposition criticised the delayed timeline as a political sham. Allan acknowledged that corruption on major project sites had been highlighted by the Building Bad series but stopped short of endorsing the $15 billion cost estimate cited by Geoffrey Watson, SC, and the Fair Work Commission’s Murray Furlong.
Core Proposed Reforms
The government’s reform blueprint, endorsed by cabinet, includes five principal changes. First, IBAC would acquire “follow‑the‑dollar” powers akin to those of the Auditor‑General, enabling it to trace the flow of public funds through private and third‑party contractors. Second, the definition of corrupt conduct would be broadened to capture serious disciplinary offences, conduct worthy of termination, and behaviour that constitutes a serious breach of public trust. Third, IBAC would be empowered to make and publish formal findings of corrupt conduct and to table recommendations in parliament outside of formal reports. Fourth, amendments would ensure that IBAC’s investigations are not hampered by data stored off‑site or in the cloud. Finally, a new criminal offence would be created for the destruction or concealment of documents relevant to an IBAC preliminary inquiry or investigation.
Definition of Corrupt Conduct
Currently, IBAC can only launch an investigation when it suspects, on reasonable grounds, that a crime has been committed. This requirement has been criticised by former commissioners Stephen O’Bryan and Robert Redlich, as well as incumbent Commissioner Victoria Elliott, who argue that it forces the agency to wait for criminal‑level evidence before it can even begin looking for misconduct. Integrity experts contend that aligning Victoria’s definition with that used by New South Wales’ Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) would allow IBAC to examine serious, systemic, and non‑criminal conduct that undermines trust in public institutions. Transparency International Australia’s Clancy Moore warned that, without such alignment, Victorians could continue to engage in practices that would be prosecutable elsewhere.
Government Response to Integrity Committee
The proposed reforms stem from a December 2025 report by parliament’s integrity‑and‑oversight committee, which evaluated IBAC’s powers and made 31 recommendations. The government declared its support for 21 of those recommendations, including the push for follow‑the‑dollar authority and enhanced public‑hearing capabilities. A panel comprising representatives from IBAC, the Ombudsman, Integrity Oversight Victoria, and Victoria Police has been tasked with developing the finer details of the reforms, with a reporting deadline set for May 2027. The resulting legislative changes are expected to be passed by the end of 2027, meaning any new powers will only become law well after the forthcoming state election.
Political Reactions
Greens MP Tim Read, who chaired the integrity‑and‑oversight committee that produced the December 2025 report, warned that the government’s language contained “weasel words” and amounted to little more than rhetorical support without concrete commitment. He argued that unless IBAC’s definition of corrupt conduct mirrors NSW’s ICAC standard, Victoria will continue to tolerate wrongdoing that would be prosecuted interstate. The Coalition, which has pledged to grant IBAC follow‑the‑dollar powers and to establish a royal commission into Big Build corruption, dismissed Allan’s announcement as damage control, asserting that Victorians will head into the election without stronger anti‑corruption laws. Integrity experts, meanwhile, welcomed the move as a necessary step but stressed that timely implementation is crucial to restore confidence in the anti‑corruption framework.
Implications and Outlook
If enacted, the reforms would markedly increase IBAC’s capacity to follow money trails, conduct public hearings for educative and preventative purposes, and act swiftly against document tampering. Such tools could help uncover the deep‑seated networks of corrupt union officials, organised crime, and shonky contractors that have allegedly plagued the Big Build program. However, the postponement of any legislative action until after the November 2026 election means that voters will evaluate the government’s integrity record under the existing, limited IBAC regime. Critics argue that a royal commission or similar inquiry remains indispensable to fully cleanse the construction sector, a view echoed by both the Greens and the Coalition. The ultimate test will be whether the expert panel’s recommendations translate into robust legislation that survives parliamentary scrutiny and delivers the transparency and accountability promised by Premier Allan.
Conclusion
Premier Jacinta Allan’s announcement signals a recognition that Victoria’s anti‑corruption architecture requires strengthening, particularly in light of prolonged allegations of misuse within the Big Build program. The proposed enhancements—follow‑the‑dollar powers, a broader definition of corrupt conduct, greater transparency, safeguards for digital evidence, and a new document‑destruction offence—represent a comprehensive attempt to modernise IBAC. Yet the deliberate deferral of any parliamentary consideration until after the state election, coupled with scepticism from cross‑bench commentators, leaves the timing and sincerity of the reform in question. As Victoria approaches the polls, the integrity of its public‑sector oversight will remain a pivotal issue, with the fate of IBAC’s empowered future hinging on whether the government can convert its announced intent into timely, enforceable law.