Wednesday, 17 June 2026

 Richard WELCH (North-Eastern Metropolitan) (12:17): (1360) My question is for the Minister for Industrial Relations. The Premier last night in an ABC 7.30 report was asked about corruption on Big Build sites costing taxpayers at least $15 billion. While the Premier continued to dispute that number, she again failed to provide an alternative figure as to what this corruption has cost taxpayers. It has now been four months since the eminent integrity expert Geoffrey Watson SC revealed that figure. Amidst ongoing revelations about criminal activity on government projects, will you, as Minister for Industrial Relations, finally reveal how much taxpayer money has been lost to Big Build corruption?

 Jaclyn SYMES (Northern Victoria – Treasurer, Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister for Development Victoria and Precincts) (12:17): Mr Welch, there is no evidence that supports claims of a figure of $15 billion. That is why it was removed from a draft report that was leaked, and it has been said by the administrator that there was no foundation for that and that it was not properly tested. Within the last couple of weeks, we have heard from Geoffrey Watson, who obviously has been quoted and attributed as the person who has put the $15 billion figure out there, and I quote, in relation to him talking about that figure recently:

A lot of it wasn’t taken away in corruption. This is one of the things that they keep misquoting. I’m not saying that this has all gone into the hands of a few corrupt individuals. No, no, no … it went into the hands of decent hardworking people who were getting paid …

for their work. So what we have is the person who put the number of $15 billion out in the public domain saying it is not $15 billion. That money went to wages, wages that were subject to EBAs that were signed off by the Fair Work Commission. This is where the $15 billion figure comes from. Geoffrey Watson has corrected Geoffrey Watson.

In relation to any corruption that has amounted to any misappropriation of funds, that is the job of the Victorian police. If you read the reports of the charges that have been laid, the allegations that go towards those charges in relation to –

Richard Welch: On a point of order, President, we are well over 2 minutes into the answer, and the first 2-and-a-bit minutes were spent agreeing with the question that the Premier disputes the figure but went nowhere near the actual question itself, which is: what is the figure, then? If it is not $15 billion, what is it?

Harriet Shing: On the point of order, President, try as they might, those opposite do not want to listen to the answer and have interjected constantly, seeking to shore up the position that they wish were correct. Maybe if they could actually just listen, they would hear what the minister has had to say about how Geoffrey Watson is sick of being misquoted by people just like you.

The PRESIDENT: I will address the point of order. The minister was relevant to the question at the beginning of the answer. After that I do not know, because Mr Welch asked the question and all his colleagues started yelling and I could not hear. Maybe if there was a bit of cooperation, I could respond to points of order in a better fashion.

Jaclyn SYMES: Before I got interrupted, Mr Welch, I was explaining about the people who talked about $15 billion and how they have now described that. In relation to any misappropriation of funds that police are investigating, I was referring you to criminal investigations, criminal charges – some of those are attempted extortion and the like. In relation to the charges and how they play out through the courts, there may be a figure attributed to that, but I would point to David Hayward, professor of public policy and the social economy at RMIT University, saying there does not seem any reason to believe criminality was as financially significant as the redacted Watson chapters suggest. In relation to the $15 billion, wages and escalation of costs versus the criminality cost, if there is any criminality cost, it is likely to be not significant and it will come out in any court cases.

 Richard WELCH (North-Eastern Metropolitan) (12:22): This, my friends, is why we need a royal commission: because the amount of mental gymnastics required to avoid the question, to put a figure on it and in fact to minimise it – in fact it is the minimisation that is the truly shocking thing about that answer. I would ask the minister: have you even bothered to ask your department how much the CFMEU corruption scandal has cost taxpayers?

 Jaclyn SYMES (Northern Victoria – Treasurer, Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister for Development Victoria and Precincts) (12:23): Mr Welch, we continue to talk about a figure that has no evidence. It was removed from a report. In relation to explanations as to cost escalations on Big Build projects, you have Geoffrey Watson saying it was not corruption, it was wages. You have Saul Eslake saying 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. In relation to cost escalations, overruns can be largely due to increased materials and equipment costs and issues at particular projects. So in relation to the explanation for the figures that you have bandied around, there are independent people out there explaining where some of these figures may have –

Richard Welch: On a point of order, President, while I am sure Victorians appreciate the explanation of rising project costs, except for the SRL, the question was: have you asked of your department what the amount was? You have got 6 seconds left – you can still do it.

The PRESIDENT: The minister addressed the question at the start of her answer.

Jaclyn SYMES: Mr Welch, as I explained, the courts will be looking at the charges that are brought by Victoria Police, as is appropriate in relation to any criminality – (Time expired)

 Richard WELCH (North-Eastern Metropolitan) (12:25): I move:

That the minister’s answer be taken into consideration on the next day of meeting.

Motion agreed to.