Wednesday, 18 February 2026

 David DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan) (15:52): I move:

That this house notes:

(1)   the Rotting from the Top report on corruption by Mr Geoffrey Watson SC tendered to Queensland’s Commission of Inquiry into the CFMEU and Misconduct in the Construction Industry;

(2)   the commentary on Victoria by Mr Watson was redacted from the released report despite indicating that up to 15 per cent of payments on Victorian Big Build sites may have been corrupt payments;

(3)   these corrupt payments would see the loss of billions of dollars of taxpayers money;

and calls on the Allan Labor government to institute a royal commission into corruption on Victorian government Big Build sites.

This is a very straightforward motion in one sense. It lays out the history of the release of this report to the Queensland inquiry by Mr Watson SC. He is an exemplary individual. He laid out the cost to Victoria and took very serious estimates. Those costs have since been supported by federal figures, by federal authorities. They indicate clearly that there have been state discussions by those federal individuals as well. It is not Mr Watson alone, but he is the most authoritative when it comes to these matters.

But we have all known for some time that there is a very serious problem with the CFMEU and its behaviour in Victoria and in particular its behaviour on Big Build sites. Good projects are dragged down and the costs explode because of this corruption. Good workers, workers who are doing the right thing, get naturally dragged in unfairly where these issues arise and where corrupt or other behaviour happens on sites. That is not what should be occurring.

The state government knew and did not act early enough, but that is not the primary point of this; the primary point is that we are in a position now where there needs to be several steps taken. There is no question that IBAC needs to be strengthened. Mr Redlich has been out. Others have been out. IBAC, the Ombudsman and others have called for additional funding. They have also called for additional powers. The state government reduced powers at IBAC in 2019.

Ryan Batchelor: No, it didn’t.

David DAVIS: Yes, it did, and it was wrong.

Ryan Batchelor: What powers? Name them.

David DAVIS: Go and have a look at the restoration of powers bill and you will see the precise detail of it. That bill actually had wide support in this chamber. The point I would make here is that powers for IBAC need to be expanded – there is no question about that – and the follow-the-money power in particular is a power that needs strengthening, and the Integrity and Oversight Committee has called for that. Others have called for that; IBAC has called for it. New South Wales has greater powers. Equivalent groups to IBAC have got greater powers, and that is one part of it. But that is not enough alone: we also need a full royal commission to deal with the scale of what has gone on here – the corruption, the frank corruption, that has occurred in this state.

I am conscious of time here – I want to make sure everyone gets the opportunity – but today I want to particularly quote Robert Redlich in a number of his contributions over recent days. On Sky News with Laura Jayes on the 17th of this month he said:

… and the second is there needs to be a board of inquiry or royal commission because this is such a broad and wide-encompassing area of corrupt conduct which has now spanned a very long period of time. And that’s beyond the capacity of IBAC.

That is what Robert Redlich said. He went on:

IBAC can’t conduct 60 or 70 different investigations into each of the specific allegations that have emerged from Geoffrey Watson’s report. This is something that a royal commission needs to do and which the royal commission can look much more broadly at issues like how the Labor Party has managed the conflict of interest it has with unions.

He talks at length on that. When you have got third-party relationships, he says:

… where you’re particularly close to those third parties … you’ve got to handle those conflicts of interest carefully. And that hasn’t been done with the CFMEU.

He spoke on ABC radio on 18 February. Raf Epstein, the interviewer, asked:

You think a royal commission is needed. Can you explain why you’ve come to that?

He said:

Well, I think two things are needed. One, as you’ve mentioned, is that IBAC powers need broadened to enable a dollar to be followed beyond public officials to private contractors, the union and those who are dealing with major infrastructure construction. But second, we need to have a royal commission.

That is Robert Redlich saying that. He went on:

Why? Because, as many have said, including one of your recent listeners, the problems in the construction industry in major builds has been an acute one for a long time and it continues.

He goes on to say:

It’s not as though we’re talking about some past event; as we speak we continue to haemorrhage our public funding because there is no –

Harriet Shing: So why didn’t he do anything about it?

David DAVIS: He did. You may want to attack Robert Redlich and his time as commissioner, but he did a very good job. He suffered under real pressure from –

Ryan Batchelor: On a point of order, Acting President, Mr Davis pointing across the chamber, and I believe that is against the standing orders.

David DAVIS: It is, and I am sorry. I was provoked, and I will avoid pointing. The truth is that I was provoked, and I am trying to restrain myself. I am not going to allow Robert Redlich to be attacked in this place in this way.

Harriet Shing interjected.

David DAVIS: Oh, you were. You were attacking Robert Redlich, and I want to say it is a part of the cover-up that you are engaging in.

Ryan Batchelor interjected.

David DAVIS: Yes, it is.

Harriet Shing: On a point of order, Acting President, I take offence at the insinuation that Mr Davis has just presented to this place, and I ask that he withdraw.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (John Berger): There is no point of order. I ask Mr Davis to continue.

David DAVIS: I will resist the interjections. Mr Redlich said:

A Royal Commission can look at not only the more interesting and juicy questions like the involvement of criminal gangs or bikies …

but it can look at the culture of the construction industry. He said:

It needs to explore how government manages dealing with affiliated unions with whom they have a conflict of interest. And then the question arises for the Royal Commission have those relationships been properly managed?

Mr Redlich said:

Have the unions been able to take advantage of their relationship with government? Has the situation got beyond control? What sorts of remedies are required?

A member interjected.

David DAVIS: I am quoting Mr Redlich on ABC radio with Raf Epstein:

The donations question, which now has been articulated in the speech, raises questions which the Royal Commission must look at. So it’s a very broad question that the Royal Commission would have to undertake.

I must say I agree with what Robert Redlich is saying. He is drawing a direct distinction between the work of IBAC and the specific new and additional powers that IBAC requires, and the opposition is very supportive of those steps and the advisements that he has made. But at the same time, he draws a clear distinction and says there needs to be a royal commission as well, and he explains why the depth of what is going on here needs specifically a royal commission. He goes on to say:

… it’s far from the complete solution. I mean, we’re dealing with a multitude of issues here and no particular body, whether it’s … Victoria Police or IBAC, can address all of those problems. What’s important is that if an examination of the construction industry is fully undertaken, one can identify the various aspects of the problem, all of which need to be addressed ... We know from past history that when the climate is right to have a Royal Commission because government accepts … there is a pressing need for it and a Royal Commission effectively undertakes the exploration of the issues, more often than not, the government of the day is then encouraged and willing to implement those recommendations.

He goes forward to make it very clear that there is a direct distinction. He draws closely on the material of Geoffrey Watson, who he believes has written a powerful report. That is what he called it. There are those who want to quibble about the $15 billion. He goes on:

But whether it’s $10 billion or $20 billion, it’s a massive loss of income, of public funding that should never have been sustained. And if a figure like that is accurate, then it’s one of the worst scandals that Victoria has … faced whether it’s the worst or not I think matters not the point is it’s an outrageous scandal and it needs to be stopped.

And he is quite right on that. With Tom Elliott, he said similar things:

The Act’s very explicit that IBAC’s role is to investigate misconduct by … public officials …

He drew a very strong case with Elliott about the need for IBAC changes, and they are a key point of what needs to be done.

My motion today, though, is about a royal commission, and it says that there has been this important report by Mr Watson SC that lays out the problems that have occurred here and that more needs to occur here in Victoria. We need a royal commission that can look at this closely, make the proper decisions and take the proper steps. I think Mr Redlich has nailed the issue here. It is not enough for IBAC alone to investigate. IBAC will not be able to manage the scale of what is required here, as the former IBAC Commissioner points out so clearly and cleanly. But he does make it clear that IBAC does need to be strengthened, and the opposition, the Liberals and Nationals, are minded to support such an approach and say that we do need to strengthen IBAC. This government has nobbled IBAC, has held back funding from IBAC and has made it very difficult for IBAC to do as much work as it should. Be that as it may, we have also tried. I have tried twice in this chamber to amend the budget bill that comes for Parliament and to actually insert additional money for IBAC. On each occasion, Labor voted against that. Labor voted down more money for IBAC, and we know why – because they have got a lot to cover up, and that is the truth of the matter.

I want to indicate here that I think Robert Redlich was one of the very best public officials. He is a person of enormous integrity. That is why I will not brook any criticisms of him in this place or elsewhere. He is a person of integrity. He is a Labor man, actually, from historical times. He was a Court of Appeal judge and did an amazing job on the Court of Appeal, but he was also a very, very competent, very, very grounded and very, very sensible IBAC Commissioner.

He did, it is clear, have difficulties with the way the government was treating IBAC, the way the government was trying to nobble IBAC and the way the government tried to strip powers from IBAC and strip money from IBAC. I for one agree with most of his points on these occasions. When he has given evidence in this place formally or when he has presented to a group of crossbenchers and opposition members, as I was part of arranging on a number of occasions, he was able up, in the Legislative Council committee room, to step through a number of issues and explain them to members of Parliament. I have high regard for him and his integrity and the incisive way he is able to look at these issues and make the points.

On those matters, I intend to stop my contribution to make sure that as many people as possible have an opportunity to speak. I regard it as beyond question that terrible corruption has occurred in this state under these arrangements, and I thank Mr Watson SC for blowing the whistle so sharply on that. We do know from what was going on earlier that there were deep problems, but the scale of this has been pinged by Mr Watson SC in his contribution. I think Robert Redlich understood the significance of that. He understood that only a full royal commission with full investigative powers, powers to go and ask for people and documents, will work out exactly what is going on and why and provide solutions, as outlined by Mr Redlich in those quotes I just read from his radio contributions. A royal commission is incredibly important. We need that, and that is what this motion calls for.

 Ryan BATCHELOR (Southern Metropolitan) (16:07): I am pleased to rise to speak on Mr Davis’s motion. At the outset I will say that, to give Mr Davis some credit, the wording of the motion that is before us is actually in some language that does not seek to misrepresent or overblow the claims that are made in the Watson report. It is probably credit to his 30 years of service in this chamber that in drafting a motion he does so in this way. I want to give him credit for it because some of the language that he uses is not as declaratory as others have used, including those on his side and also the Greens, which definitively makes claims that Mr Watson has made statements as absolute fact and truth. On its terms, the motion here does put the qualifiers that are appropriate, and I think that is worth noting at the top.

The revelations of illegal criminal activity on Victoria’s building and construction sites, particularly those building civil infrastructure, are alarming and disturbing and deserve the full force of the law being used to investigate them. That is exactly what this government has done in response to those allegations being made public in 2024. When these allegations were made, Victoria Police set up Operation Hawk, which merged into Taskforce Hawk. For the last 18 months it has had a laser-like focus on the task of investigating and bringing criminal proceedings – charges – against those who have committed illegal activity on our building sites. As we can see, as a result of that effort, we have more than 17 offenders who have been arrested and nearly 70 charges brought on the basis of the investigations into the corrupt activity – the illegal activity – by organised crime in particular on construction sites. That is working.

The government, alongside that, has introduced a range of measures. I went through some of them in my speech earlier today on the short-form documents motion, so I will not go through the changes we have made to strengthen laws around criminal organisations and their responsibility, but we have put in place new laws, in particular to better regulate things like labour hire and licensing. The government has acted on those claims.

What I want to just take a moment to go to in this speech – and it is really not long enough, just 10 minutes, to go through all of the issues – is that we have obviously had some explosive claims made in a leaked draft report provided to the Queensland Commission of Inquiry into the CFMEU, claims that the author describes as being a bit rough and a bit crude. The author himself acknowledges that the calculations and the claims that have been made are a bit rough and crude. There are two components. Many have sought to extrapolate from what was tendered in that draft report to some sort of concrete proof that somehow $15 billion has ended up in the pocket of organised crime. The administrator did not agree because he looked at those figures and said that they were unfounded and needed further work.

The other big element in this report that bells the cat on the unreliability of those claims is not just that the denominator is a bit dicey but the numerator itself in the equation that is used to calculate this figure is based on money that has not yet been spent. The $100 million that they claim is the total cost that is subject to this analysis includes programs of work and includes money that has not yet been spent. The very foundation of the calculation, the first set of numbers that are being used in this discussion, are ones that the author of the report himself says:

By the time it is complete –

so not now, not ‘has been spent’ but ‘by the time it is complete’ –

more than $100 billion will have been spent …

not ‘has been’ but ‘will have’.

And again, there are no timeframes around any of this. There is no detail on any of this. In the words of the author, it is a bit rough and a bit crude. As the independent administrator of the CFMEU says, that number is unfounded and needs to be further tested.

I think people engaging in this debate, whether in this chamber or outside it on social media or in front of the media, need to be really careful with their words, because those who participate and take claims and extrapolate them without all the qualifiers are misleading people. They might be doing it deliberately for their own political purposes – that is up for them to say. But there are significant qualifiers from the author himself on the figures that they are bandying about to make claims and accusations. Truth matters. People should take care in what they say.

I want to say a couple of things just in response to the quite extraordinary contribution that Mr Davis made. I know there are, quite rightly, a lot of people, including the government, who are concerned about illegal activity on our construction sites. I think we have detailed pretty comprehensively the action that this government has taken, particularly the action that Victoria Police is taking right now, to make sure that does not continue and that those who have broken the law are subject to the full force of it. The problem is that when claims that are rough and not fully tested are then relied upon by others, and those others are held up as paragons of virtue in this debate, we find it a little hard to take.

Mr Redlich, invoked by Mr Davis, did have an extended period as the head of the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission, including a lot of the time that Mr Watson’s report covers.

He will need to explain what he did during that time. What I do know is that the last time Mr Redlich appeared before this committee of this Parliament he could not recall a report from three years prior that was critical of his actions as commissioner in the mishandling of very serious claims of police-perpetrated family violence that put the lives of victim-survivors at risk. I encourage everyone to read the transcripts of evidence that were presented at those hearings and form their own judgements on what happened. But if Mr Redlich wants to come out and join this debate about matters that have occurred in the past and who knew what when, I think it is perfectly legitimate for us to recall what he could not recall when he last appeared before the Parliament.

The other points we will make –

Harriet Shing interjected.

Ryan BATCHELOR: He made a submission to the inquiry, Minister Shing, but the matters that he now talks about as being required within the remit of the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission were not included in the submission to the inquiry that he made last year. These are serious issues; they require a serious response. Victoria Police is making arrests and laying charges. Laws have been strengthened to prevent this sort of activity. We all want to see criminal activity on construction sites ended.

 David LIMBRICK (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (16:17): I also rise to speak on Mr Davis’s motion 1253 regarding the CFMEU and misconduct in the construction sector. I will start off by saying that I support this motion. There are disagreements about what number we are talking about. I actually agree with Mr Batchelor: we do not know if it is $15 billion, whether it is $1 billion, whether it is $100 million or whether it is $30 billion. We actually do not know. But whatever it is, it is a lot of money, and it is a lot of money that is being diverted to organised crime. If the figure does happen to be $15 billion, that is talking about almost 15 per cent of our state’s debt that has been diverted to crime. I do not know that that is true, but if that is true, that is outrageous. If it is half of that, whatever it is, it is a very large amount of money that needs to be looked into.

I know that the government have taken action: they have strengthened up laws about association with people on building sites and labour hire regulations and things like this. But one of the things that no-one seems to be looking at are the incentives that were set up by the policy settings of the government that have incentivised this crime in the first place. It is very clear, when you look at both the reports from 2024 and the more recent reports, that the vectors for organised crime to infiltrate these sites have been enabled by government policy. I will give you some examples. The Gender Equality Act 2020 set up things that companies needed to do – they needed to have gender equality action plans and all this sort of stuff – in order to get government projects. What organised crime ended up doing was they set up labour hire firms to provide whatever was needed for these companies to meet those procurement requirements – so we had companies that would provide women to work on sites, other ones were Aboriginal labour hire companies. They would set up these companies to provide these requirements in order to qualify for government contracts. Then what was happening was these companies had apparently corrupt agreements with other agencies and were infiltrated and run by organised crime, and you ended up with ghost shifts and this sort of thing. Ultimately, the procurement policies of this state need to be drastically overhauled in my view. In fact the procurement policies should be the best company at the best price with the best reputation, regardless of all these other factors, because all that these other factors – they have not achieved the objectives that the government intended – have achieved is providing new vectors for organised crime to get involved in the construction industry, and it is totally wrong.

I think that we need to look at the utter failure of these initiatives that have been brought forward by this government and the results, because they have not resulted in what they were intended to do. We also need to look at the interfaces between this construction crime that we are seeing and other organised crime in this state. The one that I have spoken about many times is the tobacco wars. These are not separate entities; these are the same organisations that are doing it. In fact they are vertically integrating their organisations. They do not just see construction sites, apparently, as a vector for organised crime to get involved in; they see them as a new sales opportunity for illegal tobacco, for vapes, for drugs, for everything else. They see them as a vertical integration opportunity for organised crime. It is just totally out of control in this state. The government says that they are doing all these things to stop organised crime. Anyone with eyeballs in their head only has to walk down Bourke Street and see all of the illegal products being sold – totally uncontrolled by this government – to know that organised crime controls large sectors of entire industries in this state. Anyone with eyeballs can see that.

The other thing that has not been looked at a lot – there has been a little bit of reporting on this – is where this money is going. Where is this money going? Where is it being laundered? Because clearly some of these people are involved with foreign hostile state actors like the Iranian regime. We know that there are connections between the tobacco distribution networks and the terror attacks that have been carried out. This was said by the AFP, that this was controlled by the Iranian regime. This money, when it is going overseas, where is it going to? Where is it going? Because I know that the owner – I have said this many times in here – of the number one brand that seems to be sold on the black market is located in Syria. It is all exported out of UAE. What is going on here? What have we gotten ourselves into with this? It needs to stop, but simple enforcement without addressing the underlying policy decisions that this government has made, that have incentivised and created opportunities for organised crime to get involved, must stop.

The biggest thing that will stop or at least cut back organised crime is the size of government itself. The pure scale of these projects that the government is putting forward in the Big Build and the SRL means that the government simply cannot maintain control of something this big, and it creates more and more opportunity. If the government wants to control organised crime, maybe they need to think about controlling the size of their own government, because the bigger it gets, the more opportunities it gets, the more difficult it is for the government, the police and our authorities to get control of this. They have clearly lost control. Every morning we wake up to an arson attack, and they are not just tobacconists. Many people forget the fact that there have been arson attacks on construction sites and other mysterious arson attacks on many other businesses that have nothing to do with tobacco, apparently, but we do not know what is causing this. We know that there have been assassinations. These are only the crimes that are visible and that we know about; imagine what is going on that has never been reported, because a lot of people do not talk about this. A lot of people keep their mouths shut when they know what they are dealing with. As we have seen from some of these reports, people that do speak out get bashed, they get they get intimidated, they get threatened. There is a culture of making sure that people stay quiet. The government has created the opportunities here; they are the ones sloshing around all this taxpayer money into all these projects, and when you have got that much money sloshing around, you have got to wonder how good it is going to end up in the end.

The final point: we have talked about where this money is going. It has to be laundered somewhere.

There are strong indications from some reporting I have read that a lot of it is being laundered, or at least has been attempted to be laundered, through the property market. I think that a royal commission is appropriate to look at this. Maybe we will discover that property prices being high is not just a reflection of zoning, not just a reflection of immigration, but maybe a reflection of the involvement of organised crime money.

 Bev McARTHUR (Western Victoria) (16:25): I thank Mr Davis for bringing this motion to the house. I suppose it is no surprise that Labor’s response to the biggest corruption scandal in our state in recent history is to deny, deflect and pretend it is not happening. As Mr Ettershank said in question time, it sometimes feels like we are living in a parallel universe. The only explanation for the approach of those on the other side is their fundamental belief that everything they and their political associates do is justified, necessary, essential and incorruptible and so by definition any opposition to it, any criticism, is incorrect, misleading, just political stunts. We have had the whole range of responses over the last couple of days: outrage that we are even asking, ridicule that we have got it wrong, condescension that we do not understand the issues, sanctimony that they are doing the right and honourable thing for the state and we are simply slinging mud. It is pretty breathtaking. You might dispute the actual amount lost in corruption, but as Geoffrey Watson said, he had already adopted a very lowball estimate.

Labor act as if the figure is zero, as if the problem does not exist. We have asked them: if you do not accept $15 billion, then what is the actual figure? They will not tell us. We asked them: will you investigate it and publish the figure? They reject the idea as if it is utterly, shockingly unreasonable. And what about getting the money back? What is the government doing to reclaim this $15 billion? We have had no commitments, no enthusiasm. Frankly, they could not seem to care less. The money has been written off as if it is just the cost of doing business with the unions. The Premier likes to call the $15 billion figure untested and unfounded, so test it. Find the figure. Just flat out denying it and pointing to a two-year-old IBAC referral, which was dismissed merely weeks later, is not going to cut it. This is not 15 per cent of a million dollars – that would be bad enough. It is 15 per cent of a hundred billion dollars. You can do a lot with $15 billion. You could bid for and fail to hold the Commonwealth Games 26 times for starters.

The Premier’s position on the IBAC referral has really encapsulated the whole problem. She keeps pointing to it, but IBAC has confirmed that it rejected her 2024 referral within weeks because it fell outside its jurisdiction. Her office has acknowledged that advice of IBAC’s rejection was received through the Department of Premier and Cabinet in October 2024. She said in the press conference that she does not have the exact date for this, as if that is some kind of answer. It does not matter what the date was. What matters is that she was told – she did know. Former IBAC Commissioner Robert Redlich was fairly polite. He said if she did not know, she should. And what happened when she knew? Nothing. Months passed, no royal commission, no expanded powers, no urgent legislative reform to give IBAC the follow-the-money authority it lacks – just a letter, forced out of her. Mr Redlich described it as ‘disingenuous’ to produce that letter and say, in effect, ‘Look, I’ve done all I could.’

My colleague Mr Newbury in the other place has called the whole referral process nothing more than a scam and a hoax. It is hard to disagree. Let us be honest here: there was no attempt at accountability or transparency here. The Premier’s IBAC referral was just a talking point, a political deflection tactic when she found herself in hot water. And we know it was, because even what she said in July 2024 was completely, hopelessly, obviously false. She claims, as Labor ministers do every single time this comes up, that as soon as allegations against the CFMEU were brought to their attention they were reported.

As I showed on 23 July 2024, Premier Allan, then the minister responsible for transport infrastructure, was sent an email about the CFMEU on 28 March 2020, more than four years before. I will read it here:

Dear any one who can help,

I own a medium size business. We currently employ about 40 staff. We are obviously in severe distress at the moment due to the coronavirus, but the truth is we haven’t been doing well for some time … we have an EBA with the CFMEU, and they have been vehemently opposed to what we have had to do, regardless of the circumstances. They have now taken to entering our workplace, intimidating the remainder of the staff and ordering them to down tools, and they have been extremely intimidating to myself and my business partner … even taking videos of him and posting them on facebook. They are citing safety issues in our workplace but these are completely fabricated and proven so by Worksafe inspectors who have visited our site to review the “suspected” breaches.

Can you please make an effort to end this absolute thuggery so we can do the best we can to keep our business viable. I find it an absolute disgrace that the CFMEU want to close our business down and make 40 of their members and the rest of our staff unemployed.

On behalf of myself and my partner and all our employees,    I thank you in anticipation of your assistance.

Well, there was no assistance, I am sorry to say, because according to Labor, there is nothing to see. That is the shameful pattern. A small business owner emails in desperation – there is nothing to see. A contractor complains of intimidation – nothing to see. Costs blowout by billions – nothing to see. A former IBAC commissioner calls the Premier’s referral misconceived – nothing to see. An eminent corruption barrister gives evidence suggesting at the lowest 15 per cent of payments may be corrupt – nothing to see. This is Mr Ettershank’s parallel universe.

You do have to wonder what would count as evidence in the eyes of this government. Perhaps they need the CFMEU to send invoices to the Treasury with the heading ‘Corruption: 15 per cent’, because short of that, every concern is brushed aside as politics. That is why we need to pass Mr Davis’s motion. Labor have shown they cannot be trusted with this most basic responsibility of government. The Premier either does not care or is incapable of reforming the system she helped build. This week in this place, the Treasurer and the Minister for the Suburban Rail Loop have shown they simply reject the premise of the question. They are marking their own homework, with a little help from a generous President, and we cannot allow it to go on. The sums are too large, and our debt is too high. We are no longer rich enough to pour $15 billion down the drain. The time for an independent, public, forensic royal commission is now.

 Tom McINTOSH (Eastern Victoria) (16:33): The government has zero tolerance for any sort of illegal behaviour, and we support the independent administrator’s comments that any allegations should be referred to the Australian Federal Police, Victoria Police, the Fair Work Commission and other relevant enforcement agencies and regulators for investigation. I just want to pick up on some of Mr Limbrick’s comments in reference to procurement policies. He was trying to lasso procurement policies in with the broader debate. He went on to talk about house prices and various things. I will just touch on this briefly before I go back to the rest of the debate. It is critically important that traineeships and apprenticeships are tied into new construction projects. He particularly talked down large construction projects, but (a) we need them, and I will come to that, and (b) it is an opportunity to get new people into trades. We need trades, and we know what happens if we do not get enough people into trades: we get labour shortages, which have been outlined in aforementioned reports.

I think it is also really important that we do make efforts to get more women onto worksites that have traditionally only had men on them because it does improve the culture. With diversity, you get better outcomes. I just wanted to make that point from the top – that I would hate to see this debate used as a way of talking down training young Victorians and increasing diversity on the worksite.

Construction is critical to our economy. Mr Limbrick made comments effectively that government should not get on and build major infrastructure. We know that whether it is public transport such as the Metro Tunnel, massive road projects that have gone on around the state, hospitals like those in Frankston and Footscray, 100 schools, 100 level crossing removals – all of these are critically important to our state and they are of generational importance. But with public works large and small, Victorians should expect value for money. The companies that deliver these projects, which are incredibly complicated and big projects, take on the risk of performing that work, so they should expect a rate of return.

At the same time, we have workers in construction. Construction is a difficult and risk-prone industry. Its workforce is often out of bed long before many in our community in the morning. Job locations move around. There is not security of employment for many. And of course it is done in all conditions. Many workers in construction have a transient life that many workers do not need to experience. These conditions are not easy and, if unchecked, can be unsafe. All of this impacts on workers, families and loved ones, and those workers and families deserve to receive an income that acknowledges and appropriately rewards their efforts. Construction unions play a critical role in representing these workers and ensuring that those rights are represented.

It is important in this debate that the workers that have delivered the Metro Tunnel, the West Gate Tunnel and all those other projects I spoke about are acknowledged, and I do that now. But at the same time, we cannot have criminal activities occurring in Victorian construction, and the government has responded swiftly and comprehensively to allegations of criminal and intimidatory activity, commissioning the Wilson review in order to provide an independent assessment of how we can strengthen government bodies’ ability to respond to allegations of criminal and other unlawful conduct in the Victorian construction sector. The complaints referral service was brought in with the passage of the Wage Theft Amendment Bill 2025, which legislated to create a new complaints referral service within Workforce Inspectorate Victoria. The complaints service is up and running and provides a safe and effective forum for people to raise complaints or concerns about corruption on government sites. It also enables complaints to be made confidentially, investigated and referred to relevant enforcement bodies.

We have also passed amendments to labour hire legislation to help target criminal and unlawful conduct, particularly those bodies that operate using labour hire. In Victoria labour hire businesses must be licensed, and host businesses must only use licensed providers. There are significant penalties for using or providing unlicensed labour hire services, with penalties in excess of $630,000 for a corporation or $150,000 for an individual. So labour hire reforms have strengthened the powers of Victoria’s Labour Hire Authority to prevent those with links to criminal organisations from operating labour hire businesses.

In addition to those legislative reforms, the government has acted to implement recommendations 2 and 7 of the Wilson review. Recommendation 2 was to establish an alliance involving state and federal law enforcement and regulators and other relevant entities with a role in addressing allegations of criminal or unlawful conduct on Victorian government construction sites. The alliance is up and running, and it met several times last year to collaborate on how agencies can better share information, coordinate action and inform government of emerging issues. The Wilson review also recommended that construction policies and contracts include clauses that require principal contractors on government-funded construction sites to report criminal or other unlawful conduct. There have been updated standard form contracts developed, model construction contract clauses and other materials to support agencies to implement this recommendation as a requirement on public construction projects.

Outside of the Wilson review, the government has acted to strengthen Victoria’s unlawful association scheme with the passage of the Criminal Organisations Control Amendment Act 2024, which bans members of specified organised crime groups from entering Victorian government worksites, and it also supported the work done by the federal Labor government, which included the appointment of the administrator to the CFMEU.

I do not think it has been touched on in this debate – it might have been touched on earlier in the chamber today during question time – but we have heard independent commentary about overruns. We have had global inflation off the back of the Ukraine war that has impacted much of the Western world, or indeed much of the world, in materials and equipment costs. I think we heard earlier outside of this debate economist Saul Eslake said the engineering construction implicit price deflator, a measure of price growth used by the Australian Bureau of Statistics, showed costs in Victoria went up by 36.8 per cent between December 2014 and September 2025. This was lower than New South Wales at 37.4 per cent and the national figure of 41.7 per cent.

Operation Hawk, established in 2024 to specifically and proactively target organised crime linked to the construction industry, has focused on assessing new intelligence and evidence relating to allegations of criminal behaviour in the construction industry. It has resulted in 17 offenders being processed and charged, including approximately 70 charges laid, including for offences like fraud, threats and so on.

I have stepped through the responses that the government has made. I just want to come back to a couple of the points that we have heard thrown around the chamber of the importance of ensuring that the next generation and pipeline of workers are given the opportunity to work in construction projects and given the training they need, so that they, amongst a diverse workforce, can be the workforce that we need for future generations of Victoria.

 Sarah MANSFIELD (Western Victoria) (16:44): I rise to speak in favour of this motion today. The Allan Labor government has long been on the record that it will not support a royal commission into Big Build corruption, an inquiry that may very well uncover its own deliberate ignorance of billions of dollars of misspent public funds. The potential scale of this corruption is unprecedented in Australia. As a point of reference, consider that former Indonesian president Suharto is widely seen as the most corrupt leader in modern history, personally embezzling an estimated US$15 billion. That is getting close to the amount alleged to have been embezzled by organised crime figures on Big Build sites. These squandered funds could have instead covered the $2.4 billion in delayed Gonski funding for Victorian public schools, it could have built thousands of public homes, it could have lowered the cost of public transport and energy bills for everyone or saved thousands of lives through the soon-to-be-scrapped VicHealth – and all of that with plenty of change left over. Because while we often measure the price of corruption in dollar figures, the real cost is felt in the everyday lives of Victorians. For 18 months the Premier has pointed to her IBAC referral as proof that she has taken the necessary action on Big Build corruption. That ruse is now over thanks to IBAC’s announcement on Monday that it had informed the government that it did not have the power to investigate.

We have seen IBAC referrals used as a substitute for accountability before. It must not happen again. Without anticipating any further debate that may or may not happen this week, all of us in this place should be looking to effect recent recommendations from the Integrity and Oversight Committee to strengthen IBAC to fight all forms of corruption. If armed with expanded power, as has been recommended, IBAC could have the powers of a standing royal commission and apply these powers to root out not just systemic corruption on Big Build sites retrospectively but corruption across all levels of politics and public office. IBAC could start this investigation immediately. Unlike a royal commission, which would take time to set up, it could start that investigation immediately, and it would also be able to investigate any future incidence of corruption. There have and will be many other scandals that will no doubt need similar levels of scrutiny. What is more, a powerful standing anti-corruption commission will prevent any of these scandals from happening. That is why we need a systemic fix, and reforming IBAC is the best way to do that.

The government has contested many of the reports that we are hearing in the media. We have heard some of that from contributions today, including the estimates of public funding that have been caught up in corruption. If they are correct about this – and I, for every Victorian’s sake, hope that it is the case that these numbers are incorrect and that there has not been this scale of corruption that is been reported – if that is the case, if they can stand by those claims that it is incorrect and that the figures are wrong, then they have nothing at all to fear from a potential IBAC or royal commission investigation. We need real action on corruption, not just more symbolism and pretending, but given that the government has to date refused to make the changes to IBAC that are necessary and have long been called for, we will support this motion and call for a royal commission.

 Wendy LOVELL (Northern Victoria) (16:47): I rise to support this motion by Mr Davis. This is a really important motion because this is the largest corruption scandal in Victoria’s history. Jacinta Allan and Labor knew about corruption on their infrastructure project sites and they turned a blind eye. The Rotting from the Top report by respected integrity expert Geoffrey Watson SC found that there was no doubt that the Labor government knew about the corruption. It was equally clear that the Labor government did nothing about it.

Fifteen billion dollars of taxpayers funds have flowed to bikies and to organised crime figures. This equates to more than $5000 for every household in Victoria. It is effectively a tax on every household; a tax to give money to bikies and organised crime figures. The Premier cannot hide from this. She cannot say that she did not know. The Premier was the Minister for Transport Infrastructure during the period that this corruption took place, and she is now the Premier. The CFMEU has underpinned her factional base within the ALP for decades. There is no doubt that she knew, there is no doubt that Labor knew and there is no doubt that they purposely turned a blind eye.

As I said, every household has effectively paid a $5000 corruption tax. That $15 billion could have funded 130,000 police officers, nurses or teachers. This shocking waste explains why dozens of our police stations have closed or had their hours reduced, why ambulance response times are now 5 minutes slower than they were a decade ago and why Victoria has the lowest funded public schools in the nation. It explains why our roads are just crumbling before our eyes, and it explains why our fire services are starved of vital equipment.

It is also money that could have funded important local projects in every electorate around the state. More specifically, in my electorate it could have funded vital projects in the seat of Shepparton, where it could have funded the measly $5 million that the council is asking for for our sports stadium. In fact it could have funded the whole project of $32 million. It could have funded stage 2 of the Banmira Specialist School redevelopment. This is a school for kids with disabilities, where they are being disadvantaged because the government will not finish the redevelopment of their school. It could have funded the bypass of Shepparton, the bypass of Rutherglen or the bypass of Kilmore. But back to the Shepparton electorate, it could have funded a clinical health school at Goulburn Valley Health; it could have funded a new school crossing at the Kialla primary school, where a family was involved in an accident again the other day; and it could have funded the completion of the GV Health redevelopment.

In the seat of Yan Yean it could have duplicated Donnybrook Road. It could have built the flyover over the Hume Freeway. It could have got families home sooner and made those communities safer. It could have funded the Mernda pool. It could have funded additional police to ensure that those police stations are open 24/7, whereas the Mernda and Epping stations have been reduced to only 8 hours a day Monday to Friday and Whittlesea station is only open two days a week. And it could have funded a new police station at Wollert.

In Macedon it could have funded an upgrade of the Urquhart Street and High Street intersection in Woodend. It could have funded planning and construction work for the Hanging Rock to Daylesford rail trail. It could have redeveloped the Daylesford hospital, and anyone who has ever visited there – a hospital in the Minister for Health’s own electorate – knows how vital it is to fund that redevelopment. It could have funded the Lancefield Park redevelopment. It could have done a whole lot of things. It could have funded additional money for bushfire recovery and for flood recovery – we know that has been underfunded.

It could have funded things in the Premier’s own electorate: the most dangerous intersection in Victoria, according to the RACV, at the corner of Howard Street and the Midland Highway; the intersection at the Calder Highway and Maiden Gully Road; and Epsom Primary School, which has been asking for over a decade for an upgrade to their drop-off and pick-up point. It could have funded an education youth foyer that would have provided additional support for young people who can no longer live at home.

Robert Redlich has uncovered this corruption. He has said that two things are needed: IBAC’s powers need to be broadened to enable the dollar to be followed beyond public officials to private contractors, the union and those who are dealing with major infrastructure construction, but he also said we need a royal commission – and we do need a royal commission into this scandal and into many other Labor scandals.

 John BERGER (Southern Metropolitan) (16:53): I rise to speak on this motion relating to the recent report on the behaviour of the Construction, Forestry and Maritime Employees Union. As someone who spent nearly 40 years in the trade union movement before I came to this place, this is an issue that I care deeply about. Ensuring that the trade union movement acts with integrity is critical to ensuring that it continues to be able to represent and fight for the best interests of Australian workers. Union members deserve to be represented by unions which are run cleanly and with integrity. When they are not, it is their members that suffer. This happens in much the same way that corruption in businesses takes away from the ability of businesses to serve the interests of customers and the broader community.

The long history of the union movement in this country reaches back to the colonial era, and arguably it is the most important reason why Australia is one of the best countries in the world to be a worker – from when the freemasons in this city walked off the job and began to fight for the eight-hour day for themselves and for succeeding generations; to equal pay for women, which ended a long history of pay; to the 1980s, where the union movement put the national interest first and won the social wage, most notably the creation of Medicare and other programs, in exchange for wage restraint.

Today the broader union movement continues to fight for workers rights and better pay. While the theme of today’s motion relates to the alleged illegal activities at one particular union, one of the most important functions the broader trade union movement plays these days is ensuring that private sector giants follow the law and holding them to account when they do not. I do not want to spend much time on this point because the theme of today’s motion is the CFMEU, but I do want to return more specifically to that very important issue and give it the time which it deserves. Take, for example, in recent years when the Transport Workers’ Union took Qantas to court and won, holding a corporate giant to account for its illegal behaviour when it unfairly impacted on workers. The illegal sacking and outsourcing of 1800 workers damaged people’s lives and livelihoods and led to Qantas paying the largest employer fine in Australian history.

People who had done nothing wrong, many of them having worked for Qantas for decades, were suddenly sacked for no good reason. What was even worse was that they did this in the height of the pandemic, at a time already defined by economic uncertainty and strain. This is not the sort of behaviour which we want to encourage in business. It demonstrates contempt for workers and it undermines important principles of a healthy economy, like the idea that an honest day’s work should be rewarded. The Transport Workers’ Union fight for accountability goes to demonstrate the valuable role that trade unions have in upholding the rule of law and fighting against illegal behaviour and corruption. Qantas mocked them when they first announced that it would be taking them to court. They did it, and it took them five years to get a result. They won a victory which did not just get their members compensation they deserved but also sent a warning to all employers around the country that illegal behaviour would have consequences.

As I have already said, this sort of illegal behaviour from organisations, whether a union or a business, also hurts the organisations they are supposed to be serving. Sacking 1800 experienced staff and replacing them with outsourced workers has led to worse service for Qantas customers. In this country we follow the principle that nobody, however wealthy, however powerful, however well connected, is above the law. This cannot be said for every country out there, and it goes to show why having a strong union movement is so important. To tar the entire union movement with the same brush following the revelations about the CFMEU would be to misrepresent the state of affairs entirely and would be an insult to the millions of workers who make up the union movement.

The Watson report touches on the idea, speaking specifically of the CFMEU members, stating:

There are over 30,000 members of the Victorian CFMEU and 99% of them are honest men and women working hard in a difficult and sometimes dangerous workplace. This report is not about them …

This is why the Allan Labor government’s strong response to this issue has been so important. We came out and said, very clearly, ‘Nobody is above the law’ and that there must be zero tolerance for any illegal behaviour. This was the correct response and it was a response which is cleaning up the construction sector. The Victorian government supported the federal government’s decision to place the union in administration. It sent a clear message to the community, to businesses and to any other actors in this space that the government has a zero-tolerance policy towards corruption.

Watson’s report emphasises that the administration has been successful in restoring integrity to the union, stating:

The Administration has been in place for eighteen months and it is clear that the process of reform is having a positive effect.

In responding to Greg Wilson’s independent review, we have established the Construction Complaints Referral Service, so that individuals have a safe and secure way to report unlawful and unacceptable behaviour. This is important because workers, contractors and anybody involved in the construction project must be able to report illegal behaviour without threats of violence, coercion or retribution. We have expanded the Labour Hire Authority’s powers by giving more powers to the fit and proper person test to account for people’s past convictions, insolvencies, close associations with unfit or improper individuals and membership of criminal organisations. Some parts of the construction sector need to use or choose to use labour hire services, and it is important that they are able to know that these services are doing honest business and that the workers they provide are there to do honest work. They have also updated policies for state government construction contracts to demand more accountability from contractors in ensuring that no criminal activity takes place on their worksites.

These steps, recommended to the government by an independent review, represent an approach to dealing with this problem which is based on treating the issue with the seriousness it deserves. It follows the record of this government of tackling organised crime in Victoria, from the Criminal Organisations Control Amendment Act 2024 to investigate unexplained wealth changes, reforms to unlawful association schemes and the new serious crime prevention orders. The Allan Labor government has taken a firm focus on weeding out criminal activity, and that extends to our efforts to combat issues in the construction industry. Strengthening the integrity of our construction union will benefit all Victorians, ensuring that the sector will meet the standards expected of it by the community in the years to come.

It is also worth us taking a look at what our government has been doing to strengthen IBAC and fight corruption. One thing that is important is giving IBAC stronger powers and record funding. That is exactly what the Allan Labor government has done. Stronger powers and record funding mean IBAC is more able to serve its mandate of uncovering, investigating and fighting corruption. Not only will this give IBAC budget independence and ensure it has the confidence to continue to be fearless in its efforts against corruption but the 2025–26 state budget delivered $65.6 million for IBAC so that we can keep IBAC strong and keep it working effectively in the best interests of the Victorian public. IBAC has an important role to play in keeping public life clean and ensuring that politics continues to be about public service. IBAC ensures that the public can have confidence in the work that we do in Parliament.

Actual cases of corruption damage the public’s confidence in government, but sometimes even just perceived corruption can have a similar effect. This is one of the reasons why having a strong institution such as IBAC which is trusted by the public to root out corruption is so important. The public expects that where there is wrongdoing there will be accountability and consequences. On this side of the chamber we believe whether corruption and illegal behaviour takes place in a union or a business or in a government, it should never be excused. We take a zero-tolerance approach to illegal behaviour as the first principle of our response to these issues. The measures we have taken are working. They are ensuring that we will have a construction sector which is fit for the future and can maintain public confidence.

The Allan Labor government has been decisive in responding to the public allegations levelled at the CFMEU and has taken the necessary steps to ensure the continued administration of the union to best deliver outcomes for members while rooting out corruption. Criminal conduct has no place in business and no place in our union movement, and the Allan Labor government has stuck to its principles with decisiveness and transparency, ensuring the best outcome for all Victorians.

 Rikkie-Lee TYRRELL (Northern Victoria) (17:02): I rise to support motion 1253 in Mr Davis’s name. This house is being asked to note the findings of the Rotting from the Top report by Mr Geoffrey Watson SC tendered to Queensland’s Commission of Inquiry into the CFMEU and Misconduct in the Construction Industry. Mr Watson is not a political figure. He is a respected senior counsel with deep experience in exposing corruption. His conclusions deserve to be taken seriously.

The report makes deeply troubling observations about practices within the construction industry. Even more concerning is that commentary relating to Victoria was redacted from the publicly released version of the report, despite indications that up to 15 per cent of payments on Victorian Big Build sites may have been corrupt payments. If even a fraction of that figure is accurate, we are not talking about small sums; we are talking about billions of dollars of Victorian taxpayers money potentially siphoned away from schools, hospitals, roads and essential services.

The Victorian government’s Big Build is the largest infrastructure program in our state’s history. It commands enormous public investment and carries enormous public trust. With that scale comes a heightened responsibility for transparency and accountability. When credible allegations of systemic corruption arise, the appropriate response is not silence, not redaction and not dismissal – it is scrutiny. A royal commission is not a political stunt. It is the most powerful, independent investigative mechanism available to this state. It has the powers to compel witnesses, require documents and get to the truth. If there is nothing to hide, then there should be nothing to fear from a full and transparent inquiry.

This motion does not pre-empt findings; it simply calls for sunlight, because sunlight is the best disinfectant. For the sake of integrity in public administration, for the protection of taxpayers money and for the reputation of Victoria’s construction industry, I urge the house to support this motion and call for a royal commission into corruption on Victorian government Big Build sites.

 Evan MULHOLLAND (Northern Metropolitan) (17:05): I rise to speak on Mr Davis’s motion, which calls on the Allan Labor government to institute a royal commission into corruption on the Victorian government’s Big Build. The Rotting from the Top report, all 136 pages, made for very interesting reading. It was made public for the first time through an inquiry into union corruption up in Queensland, which was established by the LNP government. I remember hearing debates in this chamber before about the value of royal commissions and hearing those on the other side saying they do not achieve anything. Well, the royal commission in Queensland has uncovered a whole lot of things, including actual allegations of corruption that go deep into the CFMEU. We have had Mr Watson in his report indicate that a conservative estimate of $15 billion has been siphoned to the criminal underworld, to bikies and to gangsters off Victorian construction sites. This is taxpayer money. That equates to 130,000 nurses, 130,000 police officers – 130,000 coppers. That is what we are dealing with.

As the member for Laverton agrees, everyone is talking about the $15 billion – the $15 billion that has been rorted from taxpayers, the $15 billion that could have funded so much around our communities. At a time when we are dealing with enormous financial issues in this state, this Premier has allowed $15 billion at least to be siphoned off to bikies and the criminal underworld. And we had the theatre of Jacinta Allan, the Premier, parading around her IBAC letter and saying, ‘Look, I responded’, without telling anyone that no less than six months after she sent off that letter to IBAC she received a response. She received a response from our Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission saying that they could not investigate because they did not have the powers and also ‘Can you give us those powers?’ What did Jacinta Allan do? Absolutely nothing. This is a pattern of behaviour from your Premier that only a few of you are still willing to defend.

Remember the time that the Premier with the Treasurer went out and announced a new taskforce, Operation Hawk, only for it to be found out later that day, I believe, that Operation Hawk was established by the police and had been running for months. This is a pattern of behaviour from this Premier. You would think with 20 taxpayer-funded media advisers this Premier would actually have the political smarts to get things right. IBAC responded to the Premier, ‘Please give us more powers.’ What did the Premier do? She sat on her hands. Of course the Premier does not want IBAC to have more powers. We saw the disgraceful way in which members of this house and the government attacked former commissioners of IBAC, like Mr Robert Redlich. We have seen the way they have attacked people like Geoffrey Watson – absolutely shameful. It is absolutely shameful to be attacking integrity officers. We see Ms Kilkenny and Mr Carbines make outrageous comments, and Ms Shing today as well. I mean, the only thing lower than attacking pre-eminent Victorians in the way that this government has done is the Premier’s approval rating. That is the only thing that is lower than attacking pre-eminent Victorians and respected integrity experts and legal experts in our state.

This government has got desperate because it has run out of time and it has run out of money. As members in their caucus said, they are defending the indefensible. You have only got a few left that are willing to defend the Premier, according to media reports – Ms Symes, Ms Shing, Mr Dimopoulos, Ms D’Ambrosio and that is about it. There are none left willing to defend the actions of this Premier, who has allowed this CFMEU activity to absolutely flourish. Only the Liberals and Nationals will give IBAC follow-the-money powers – the powers that they have asked for – to get to the bottom of this. Only the Liberals and Nationals will establish a royal commission to get to the bottom of this situation, as they are doing in Queensland. We have seen year after year – since the Premier, for a decade, has been responsible for this area – the Premier enabling the CFMEU.

There was a time when the CFMEU just dealt with the people projects – housing, hospitals – and the AWU dealt with civil. That all changed under Jacinta Allan. Why did that change? That changed because of factional alignment. We saw time after time Jacinta Allan enabling the CFMEU, allowing them into workplaces, allowing them onto the Big Build and kicking off the AWU. We even saw examples, shockingly, with the failed Commonwealth Games – do not forget she was minister for that too. She stuffed up two things, and that side made her Premier. But on the failed Commonwealth Games athletes village, she actually wrote the CFMEU into contracts, saying, ‘You must use the CFMEU.’ Continuously, time after time, Jacinta Allan has been the minister responsible. She even referred matters to the Australian Building and Construction Commission after it had already been defunded by the federal government. She referred matters constantly to the federal government, to the ABCC, even when she knew they did not have the powers to investigate. She continually responded to allegations by saying industrial relations are a matter for the federal government, and it was only when she was exposed by 60 Minutes and the Age that she discovered she could take action – I wonder why. She did not like the answers that she was getting. Time after time we know that she was warned about CFMEU activity on government construction sites but failed to act.

We have seen some pretty awful instances, particularly of women being attacked on construction sites; people smoking ice in front of women; holding women hostage; paying for strippers; paying for sex workers with taxpayer money; bikies and gangsters fighting for control of the Hurstbridge site, which was an absolute racket and rorted probably in the millions of dollars; and people using taxpayer-funded cars for criminal hits. This is the kind of thing that goes on at our construction sites. As I was talking about today, it is already going on at Suburban Rail Loop sites. For those contractors who complain about not giving in to bribes – the government says we should escalate it, but if you complain about it, you get kicked off site because you are not playing ball with this racket that the government is providing a protection racket for. The only way we can get to the bottom of this is to establish a fair dinkum royal commission, as outlined in Mr Davis’s motion. It is the only way we can get to the bottom of the systemic corruption that has seeped into our construction sites, that has siphoned $15 billion and that this government has covered up.

 David DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan) (17:14): I want to thank all of those who have made a contribution today, particularly those on the non-government side of the chamber, where in each case, every case, they have spoken in favour of the motion and against the corruption that is behind the Big Build sites, as has been exposed by Mr Watson SC and others. It is clear that the corruption is there. It is clear that something has got to be done about it. I say we should listen to Robert Redlich and the others who have called for royal commissions. A royal commission is necessary here. It is necessary to be built on top of additional IBAC powers. Mr Redlich made the case very clearly this week in the public media about the need for both expanded IBAC powers and expanded IBAC funding and for a royal commission to deal with the depth and complexity of what has occurred here.

The fact is, whether it is $15 billion, whether it is $30 billion, whatever the exact number is, it is a huge amount of public money that has been squandered corruptly and could have funded schools, hospitals or a reduction in our debt. So whatever worthy project in your electorate that you wanted to fund or see funded, that has very likely been compromised by the enormous amount of money squandered corruptly on these Big Build sites by the arrangements put in place by Jacinta Allan as Minister for Transport and Infrastructure. She cannot step away from this. She cannot avoid responsibility.

The truth is that I think the community has had enough. The community wants a full royal commission. That is why we have brought this motion to the chamber today. I want to thank Mr Watson SC for the work that he has done. The idea that government members today in this chamber would attack Mr Watson or attack Robert Redlich – a person of exemplary integrity, a great Supreme Court judge, a Court of Appeal judge, but also somebody who did enormously good work when he was at IBAC. He continues to serve the public by blowing the whistle on many of this government’s failings, and he does that in the public interest. I say let us listen to what he said, let us make sure that a royal commission is put into place that will deal with the issues of corruption on these Big Build sites. It is so much money. We cannot waste time. We cannot stand back at this point. We actually need to get an outcome for the community, and this corruption has got to stop.

Council divided on motion: