Wednesday, 15 October 2025

 Richard WELCH (North-Eastern Metropolitan) (10:20): On behalf of Mr Davis, I move:

That this house:

(1)   notes the negative impact of corruption on Victorian employees and businesses both large and small, and the impacts of corruption in the construction sector, including the increased costs of state government major projects; and

(2)   in accordance with standing order 10.01, requires the Leader of the Government to table in the Council, within four weeks of the house agreeing to this resolution, copies of briefs relating to corruption in the construction sector, including the Big Build, and the cost of corruption in construction, provided by government departments to the Premier since 2018, to the Minister for Transport Infrastructure since 2018, to the Minister for Industrial Relations since 2018, and to the Treasurer since 2018.

I am pleased to rise and speak on Mr Davis’s behalf on this short-form documents motion 1090 on corruption in the Victorian building industry. Corruption has a very corrosive effect on business, on trade. It has a very corrosive effect on people’s individual lives and their families, and it also has clearly a financial impact on the state as well. Corruption is not just a terrible social contagion, it is a terrible business contagion and a terrible industry contagion. Any tolerance of it simply invites more of it. It is certainly something that needs a very, very firm hand on it from the outside, because corruption comes in all forms. There is overt corruption. There is loads of what we would call grey corruption. Grey corruption is where, at the margins, people may compromise or make accommodations thinking it is not necessarily quite wrong and not quite right. You soon find yourself on a very slippery slope to accepting things that should not be accepted.

In the Victorian context we have many cost overruns in our Big Build. We have great difficulty keeping to budget within our projects, and we know that we have issues with corruption on our industrial sites. This creates a really poor use of capital, and the state has limited capital to spend on these things. We are deeply in debt as a state. So making sure that we do not have corruption on our industrial sites is an important thing, but actually going beyond that and quantifying it and clarifying the nature of that corruption is equally important.

Under standing order 10.01, we ask the Leader of the Government to table in the Council, within four weeks of the house agreeing to this resolution, copies of briefs relating to the corruption in the construction sector, including the Big Build, and the cost of corruption in construction provided by government departments to the Premier since 2018, to the Minister for Transport Infrastructure since 2018, to the Minister for Industrial Relations since 2018 and to the Treasurer since 2018. There have been a large number of works in those periods. We have seen delays. We have seen cost overruns. We have seen unsavoury activities on many of these sites. It is important to understand what we know, when we know it, what we are going to do about it, how the problem was analysed and what considerations were brought forward in addressing it. It is a narrow motion. It should not be too onerous for the government to bring these forward. It is a matter of significant public interest and concern. I think the public, who are, after all, funding a lot of this through their taxes, are entitled to know. Do we have the governance and the processes across our construction sector and industrial sectors that are fit for purpose, fit for the future and that limit the mistakes of the past and set us up so that people, including vendors and suppliers and those in the supply chain, can tender in confidence and work in safety without any overt pressures or inappropriate pressures on them as well? I will commend this motion to the house, and I will leave it there.

 Sonja TERPSTRA (North-Eastern Metropolitan) (10:25): I rise to make a contribution on this motion standing in Mr Davis’s name, which again is a motion calling on the government to release documents. Of course it is our standard practice to not oppose documents motions, but it is curious the way the motion is framed. It talks about the negative impact of corruption on Victorian employees and businesses, and it implies that corruption is absolutely rife. All I would say is: if the Liberal opposition members have any information in regard to corruption, they should make complaints to the appropriate bodies. It is quite one thing to talk about corruption and continue to, I guess, make it up and continue to fan the flames of fear and distrust for people and yet provide absolutely no shred of evidence that there is anything going on, because the appropriate way to deal with that is for those opposite to make complaints to the appropriate bodies and actually let them investigate them.

Again, the narrative of those opposite is that there are cost blowouts. I mean, Metro Tunnel is being delivered a year ahead of schedule and on budget, and they hate that. You have only got to look at what the Auditor-General said about that. But they cannot handle that. I am telling you that this government has the confidence of the Victorian people, because we know we continue to get re-elected, and that is what those opposite cannot handle.

The other thing is that the second part of this motion calls for the Leader of the Government to table, within four weeks of the house agreeing to this motion, copies of briefs relating to corruption in the construction sector. Again it presupposes that there must be briefs on these matters given to the leaders. Integrity agencies, if they are going to investigate corruption, I am pretty sure, Mr Davis, would not be telling the government anything about it. They would be investigating it.

So it is a ridiculous motion. If you knew anything about the way that corruption agencies investigate things – they do so with secrecy for very good reasons, because they actually want to make sure that they are getting good evidence and it is not tainted. Again, this idea that there would be some kinds of documents floating around – mate, knock yourself out. Honestly, seriously. Because again, if there is any evidence of corruption that the Liberal opposition have, they should give it to the appropriate authorities so they can investigate it, and again, I am yet to see anything, any shred –

David Davis: I have.

Sonja TERPSTRA: Well then, you should give it to IBAC and the Ombudsman – good.

David Davis interjected.

Sonja TERPSTRA: And what has happened, Mr Davis? We are still waiting to hear what is happening, because again, all those opposite want to do is to continue to talk down and create fictional complaints. The constant Olympic-level whingeing and complaining about anything that this government does – it is a good thing that no-one is listening and you are just talking to yourselves, because again, all you have got to look at is the fact that this government continues to get re-elected and we continue to invest public money in much needed infrastructure projects like Metro Tunnel, like North East Link, like West Gate Tunnel and like the Suburban Rail Loop, because we know these are the projects that Victorians voted for and want this government to get on with. I think those opposite must have some KPIs about how many bot farms they have got to support. Every time we put something up about Metro Tunnel, the absolute torrent of abuse that comes from Facebook bot farms generated by those opposite is so fake and obvious. It is so fake. The fake outrage is just beyond the pale.

It is our government’s position that we never oppose documents motions. We always support them. We will not be opposing this motion. Again, it is just simply a fishing expedition by Mr Davis, continually fishing for things to look at – because again, what is their policy? What is their alternative? No policies, no alternatives. They do not build anything, because they are incompetent, and the Victorian people know it. That is why they keep voting for this government.

The PRESIDENT: Before I call Mr Davis, I just remind the chamber that there is a list of unparliamentary words that have been precedents of previous Presidents, and calling someone a goose is on that list.

David Davis interjected.

The PRESIDENT: I think it was actually from you calling someone a goose years ago. So I just remind you that it has been determined – calling someone a goose is unparliamentary.

 David DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan) (10:30): In his case it was true.

I am pleased to rise on this matter of the documents motion in my name and note Mr Welch has made a very helpful contribution. This notes the impact of corruption in Victoria. Transparency International says that between 3 and 8 per cent of government procurement internationally is actually corrupt purchases, so that is that is the number that you are talking about. That is what they say. It might be that we are a bit less than that; it might be that we are a bit more. What we also know is that in this state there are massive, massive cost blowouts on our major projects – huge blowouts – and they are inextricably linked with the behaviour of a certain union and other unions as well, and it is very clear that the costs are loaded onto families and taxpayers across the state.

The Metro Tunnel was spoken about before – a good project in concept at $9 billion, less satisfactory at somewhere between $14 billion and $15 billion. That is actually a huge cost blowout. Now, why has that cost blowout happened? That is a fair question. It is a massive cost blowout – huge. It appears the government speaker just recently did not understand that that is a concern to the community. Yes, we are concerned about massive multi-billion-dollar cost blowouts on major projects. The list now shows more than $50 billion in cost blowouts under this government on major projects. That is not the original price of the project, that is the difference between the final price and the original costings. That is a huge amount of money. It is a major part of the state’s debt, and that is actually a big issue for Victorians now and into the future.

We are interested in preventing corruption. We are interested to see what the government has been briefed, what the government is doing and what steps the government has taken. If, as Ms Terpstra said, the government has referred these matters to authorities – to IBAC and others – we would welcome that. But if the government has sat on its hands and not acted swiftly and properly, that would concern us. Ms Terpstra seemed to think that there were not briefs on this. Well, I can inform her I have two of them in my possession, actually, which were sent to the former Minister for Transport Infrastructure, now the Premier, and they relate to CFMEU corruption. The government has provided part of the briefs but not the full amount of the briefs. But I am certain that across government it is not just the Minister for Transport Infrastructure who would have requested briefs or been provided briefs on corruption in this government. I would be staggered if the Treasurer has not had such briefs. I would be staggered if the former Treasurer did not have such briefs. I would be staggered if the Premier and others have not looked at these matters. It would be surprising and problematic if they had not. So we would expect briefs on corruption and what the government is doing in that area. We would expect to understand what steps the government has taken.

This motion is a very straightforward motion. It points to briefs that are held by government. They are easy to locate. They should not be difficult to bring forward to the chamber. The chamber will be interested to see them. It is clearly in the public interest for this chamber’s scrutiny role to apply here – for the government to be scrutinised by this chamber; for us to, as a chamber, exercise that role in a robust way through documents motions of this type. If the government has a problem bringing forward those documents, we will no doubt hear about that, but the government will need to identify the briefs that were provided to those various ministers, and then the government will have to look at those. If there are claims of executive privilege or other, we would expect the government to proceed to the arbiter process that is laid out in chapter 10 of the standing orders for the chamber. Again, it is a very straightforward motion. It is in the public interest. Everything that is done to reduce corruption is helpful for taxpayers.

Also in response to Ms Terpstra – she wants to know what some of us have done when we have heard problems about corruption – in a number of cases a number of us have referred it to relevant agencies, and that is what we should do. I would expect the government would do the same – that government members and government ministers would do likewise. I do not find that to be a difficult concept, but what I do find a difficult concept is Ms Terpstra not understanding the significance of corruption to our state and the cost overruns on many of our projects.

 Ryan BATCHELOR (Southern Metropolitan) (10:35): I am very pleased to rise to speak on the short-form documents motion seeking information with respect to the negative impact of corruption on Victorian employees and businesses, both large and small. The government, as Ms Terpstra has said, does not oppose documents motions. They will be processed in the normal way and considered in accordance with the conventions that apply to such matters. It is also important to say that the government does not tolerate corruption in any form. We do not tolerate criminal or intimidatory behaviour within any workplace or organisation, and when allegations of such matters have been made, there have been referrals to appropriate authorities. Not only has the government taken action to refer matters to appropriate authorities, we have also initiated our own investigatory processes to look at how our programs and processes and procedures can be improved to strengthen against corruption risk. And we have on a number of occasions debated legislation in this chamber – legislation that has passed – in recent times to strengthen our protections against corruption and corrupt conduct.

We do know that organisations across the board face risks associated with corrupt individuals and corrupt practices, and we do know that all organisations who receive evidence that significant individuals within them have participated in conduct that is corrupt, that is criminal, should feel the full face of the law. That is the attitude that we are taking to the construction sector. It is also the attitude that obviously the Liberal Party itself has had to grapple with, when its former state director was convicted of fraud and sentenced to time in jail. Corrupt –

David Davis interjected.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Michael Galea): Order! Mr Davis.

Ryan BATCHELOR: Say it, Mr Davis. Say it.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Michael Galea): Mr Batchelor, through the Chair.

David Davis interjected.

Ryan BATCHELOR: Mr Davis seems to think that he can make political arguments that seek to wound the Labor Party or wound me about conduct that he alleges to have occurred 40 years ago. All I am doing is explaining that – whilst he was a minister of the Crown – the state director of the Liberal Party was embezzling funds provided to the Liberal Party for their purposes, and he ended up in jail. He ended up in jail. So whilst Mr Davis was a minister of the Crown, whilst there was a Liberal government in this state, the state director of the Liberal Party was embezzling funds. He was convicted of fraud and was sentenced to imprisonment. That is the record that the Liberal Party has with respect to corruption in this state. And when allegations of corruption have been made against activities that have occurred on building sites here in Victoria, they have been taken seriously. They have been referred to appropriate authorities, and action has been taken. Mr Davis, the Liberal Party want to somehow equate allegations of corrupt activity to other matters in the construction sector.

We do not have time, given the short amount of time that the sessional orders provide for these debates. As a result of the sessional orders that were put in place at the behest of Mr Davis, we simply do not have time to go into the detail of these matters here on the substantive, because the sessional orders prevent us from doing so. But we have had detailed debates about the government’s response to allegations of corruption in the construction sector here before, and I am sure the Liberal Party will raise them again. This government remains resolute against corruption in all its forms.

 Evan MULHOLLAND (Northern Metropolitan) (10:40): I have got about 13 seconds to speak on this, but I would like to acknowledge the contributions of my colleagues Mr Welch and Mr Davis and absolutely agree with them.

Motion agreed to.