Victoria’s Coalition is moving to dramatically strengthen Premier Ben Carroll’s new anti-corruption laws by stripping out restrictions that would prevent IBAC from reopening previously dismissed or completed matters, potentially putting controversies from the Daniel Andrews and Jacinta Allan eras back under scrutiny.

The opposition has confirmed it will support the broad direction of Labor’s Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission Amendment Bill 2026 but has circulated a series of amendments designed to make the reforms significantly more retrospective and increase the watchdog’s ability to examine past conduct.

The government bill was introduced into the Legislative Assembly on Tuesday and would deliver some of the largest changes to IBAC’s jurisdiction since the commission was established.

Its central reform is a new “follow-the-money” power allowing the anti-corruption watchdog to pursue public funds beyond departments and public officers and into private contractors, subcontractors and other entities performing functions connected with government.

It would also broaden the legal definition of corrupt conduct and allow IBAC to examine serious disciplinary matters, including serious breaches of codes applying to ministers, MPs and local councillors even where the conduct does not necessarily meet the existing criminal-offence threshold.

Premier Ben Carroll says the changes are intended to ensure corruption cannot disappear into complicated contracting chains on taxpayer-funded projects.

But the bill contains a major limitation that has become the centre of the political battle.

Government bill blocks IBAC from reopening completed matters

The transitional provisions allow the expanded jurisdiction to apply to some conduct that occurred before the new legislation begins.

For example, IBAC could use the new rules in relation to historical conduct where an existing complaint had not yet been dismissed, referred or determined, or where an investigation was already underway but had not been completed.

Old conduct that had never previously been the subject of a concluded IBAC process could also potentially fall within the expanded regime.

However, the government legislation expressly states that nothing in those provisions permits IBAC to reopen a complaint or notification it had already dismissed or referred to another body before commencement.

It also prevents the watchdog reopening an investigation it had already completed.

That distinction has infuriated the opposition.

Shadow Attorney-General James Newbury has accused Labor of giving IBAC stronger powers for the future while preventing those same powers from being applied to some of the most controversial matters from previous Labor governments.

The Coalition’s formal amendment would delete the provision preventing those old matters being reopened.

If passed, the change would substantially broaden the retrospective reach of the reforms.

It would not automatically restart every previous inquiry, nor would it amount to a finding that anyone had acted corruptly.

It would instead remove a statutory barrier that could otherwise prevent IBAC from reconsidering historical allegations using its newly expanded jurisdiction.

Andrews-era controversies return to the debate

The political significance is obvious because IBAC has spent years examining conduct involving Victorian governments led by Daniel Andrews.

One of the most prominent examples is Operation Richmond, the long-running investigation into the Andrews government’s dealings with the United Firefighters Union during a bitter 2016 enterprise bargaining dispute.

IBAC’s final report, released in August, did not make a finding of corrupt conduct.

It did, however, describe conduct by ministers, public servants and other participants as serious and concerning and found that established policies, conventions and codes had been circumvented during secret negotiations.

Andrews rejected suggestions of wrongdoing and maintained that the dispute needed to be resolved in the public interest.

That investigation illustrates why retrospective powers must be described carefully.

A power allowing IBAC to revisit an old matter does not mean the watchdog would necessarily choose to do so, and it certainly does not reverse previous findings or establish guilt.

But the Coalition argues there should be no legal rule preventing the watchdog from returning to historical conduct if the broader definition of corruption or new jurisdiction reveals issues it previously lacked power to examine.

Jacinta Allan’s Big Build referral is another flashpoint

The most immediate dispute involves allegations of criminal and corrupt behaviour on Victoria’s taxpayer-funded Big Build construction projects.

In July 2024, then-premier Jacinta Allan referred allegations involving the CFMEU and government infrastructure sites to IBAC.

The watchdog later determined that significant parts of the matter fell outside its jurisdiction because the alleged conduct involved private companies, subcontractors and individuals beyond the reach of its existing powers.

That limitation is precisely what the new follow-the-money legislation is designed to address.

Carroll has argued that similar allegations could be submitted again after the expanded legislation takes effect, including through people or agencies making a fresh referral.

The opposition says that is unnecessarily convoluted.

Its position is that IBAC should simply be permitted to reopen a matter it previously rejected or referred because the law at the time gave it insufficient jurisdiction.

Labor rejects claims that the drafting is designed to protect former premiers.

Special Minister of State Ingrid Stitt says the reforms will dramatically expand IBAC’s reach and are specifically designed to address serious allegations involving government-funded construction.

The government has also established a separate royal commission with broad terms of reference to investigate the construction sector.

Coalition also targets secret hearings and delayed reports

The retrospective amendment is only one part of the Coalition’s package.

Newbury has also circulated an amendment that would repeal a provision governing IBAC’s presumption that examinations are generally conducted in private.

Victoria’s existing legislation places substantial restrictions around public IBAC examinations.

Those protections were designed partly to prevent unnecessary reputational damage to people who may never be charged or formally found to have engaged in wrongdoing.

Critics have long argued the threshold is too restrictive and prevents Victorians seeing how important investigations involving senior politicians and public officials are conducted.

Andrews himself was questioned behind closed doors during IBAC investigations while premier.

The opposition amendments would also change how IBAC special reports are finalised.

People or public bodies facing adverse material would generally be given three months to respond, unless IBAC approved a later deadline.

If they failed to respond in time, the watchdog could transmit the report to Parliament anyway.

The change follows years of controversy over delayed IBAC reports, particularly Operation Richmond, which became tied up in lengthy procedural and court disputes before finally being published.

The Coalition’s amendment specifically provides for the new reporting rule to apply to the Operation Richmond report process.

Carroll’s bill significantly expands IBAC even without the amendments

The fight over retrospection should not obscure the extent of the government’s own reforms.

Under the current Act, IBAC’s jurisdiction can break down when public money moves through layers of commercial entities that are not themselves conventional public bodies.

The new bill introduces definitions covering associated entities and third-party contractors, including subcontractors operating several levels below the original government contract.

It also broadens the concept of corrupt conduct so IBAC is no longer dependent in every circumstance on establishing conduct linked to a narrowly defined “relevant offence”.

Serious misconduct capable of leading to dismissal or a significant disciplinary sanction could enter the watchdog’s jurisdiction.

Ministers, parliamentary secretaries, MPs and local councillors could also be examined over serious breaches of their applicable codes.

Carroll has described the package as necessary to ensure every taxpayer dollar can be traced.

His government says the measures will operate alongside the construction royal commission rather than compete with it.

A second bill gives the construction inquiry stronger tools

Carroll has simultaneously introduced separate legislation expanding the powers available to Victorian royal commissions and establishing a Special Prosecutor for the construction inquiry.

The Royal Commission into the Integrity of Major Public and Civil Infrastructure Construction Projects was established after Carroll became premier and is being led by former South Australian chief justice Chris Kourakis.

Its task is to examine alleged corruption, organised crime, serious misconduct and weaknesses in oversight across major government-funded construction projects.

Existing Victorian royal commissions can compel witnesses to attend hearings and require documents or other material.

The new Inquiries Amendment (Special Prosecutor) Bill 2026 would go further by allowing a royal commission to require a person to provide written information or a written statement by a specified deadline.

The government says this is designed to stop witnesses avoiding scrutiny simply because they did not create or retain a physical document recording what happened.

Failure to comply with lawful royal commission requirements can attract offences under Victoria’s inquiries framework.

The legislation would also establish Victoria’s first dedicated Special Prosecutor attached to this royal commission.

The prosecutor would operate independently of the Premier and ministers while working alongside the inquiry.

Relevant information could be transferred to Victoria Police, IBAC, WorkSafe, labour-hire regulators and other state or Commonwealth authorities capable of taking enforcement action.

That is important because a royal commission itself can expose misconduct and make findings but cannot independently prosecute someone in a criminal court.

Carroll has said further powers for the Special Prosecutor are also planned as the government develops the new model.

Big Build allegations drove the integrity overhaul

The reforms follow escalating allegations about organised crime and misconduct within parts of Victoria’s construction industry.

Investigative reporting and a subsequent report prepared by barrister Geoffrey Watson SC for the CFMEU administrator alleged bikie involvement, intimidation, drug activity, corrupt contracting practices and other serious conduct around major worksites.

Those allegations have not produced findings that everyone working on Big Build projects, or the union as a whole, engaged in criminal conduct.

Many matters remain allegations that will now be tested by the royal commission and law-enforcement agencies.

But the scale of the claims helped trigger the political crisis that ended Allan’s premiership and led Carroll to announce the royal commission as one of his first acts in office.

The inquiry’s Letters Patent allow it to investigate major public and civil infrastructure construction and the systems that may have permitted corruption, crime and serious misconduct.

Carroll has promised public hearings and said the commission will “follow the money”.

The political fight is now over how far back IBAC should be allowed to look

There is broad agreement between Labor and the Coalition that Victoria’s anti-corruption watchdog needs stronger powers.

The dispute is increasingly about whether those powers should stop at matters that have already passed through IBAC’s hands.

Labor’s bill says historical conduct can come within the new regime in multiple circumstances, but preserves finality for complaints already dismissed or referred and investigations already completed.

The Coalition wants that protection removed.

If Parliament accepts Newbury’s amendment, IBAC would have substantially more freedom to reconsider conduct from previous governments using legal powers it did not have at the time.

That could bring matters associated with the Andrews and Allan administrations back into the watchdog’s field of view.

But there remains an important difference between being legally capable of reopening an issue and actually doing so.

IBAC is an independent agency. Political parties can change its jurisdiction, but they cannot simply decree that a former premier is guilty or order a particular investigative outcome.

For Andrews, Allan and others who served in senior roles during more than a decade of Labor government, the immediate issue is therefore not a new finding of wrongdoing.

It is whether Parliament will remove a legal barrier that currently gives some previously examined matters a degree of finality.

That question is now sitting squarely before Victorian MPs — at the same time a new royal commission is preparing to investigate how organised crime and alleged corruption became entangled with some of the state’s biggest taxpayer-funded projects.