Victorian Premier Ben Carroll has announced the terms of reference for the royal commission into criminality and corruption on Victoria's Big Build .
Author
- Yee-Fui Ng
Associate Professor, Faculty of Law, Monash University
Carroll claimed the terms of reference are "the broadest, most extensive, wide-ranging powers", and that "nothing is off limits".
The royal commission will be chaired by former South Australian judge Chris Kourakis. It will have a budget of $50 million.
The royal commission will start its operations before the November election and will report by August next year.
So, why do we need a royal commission? And are the terms of reference adequate?
Why is a royal commission needed?
Royal commissions are ad hoc public inquiries with significant coercive powers to compel documents and witnesses and force answers even if self-incriminatory.
Royal commissions have been called in Australia for both the investigation of scandals (such as Robodebt and Aboriginal deaths in custody ) and broader policy issues (such as health and disability ).
Royal commissions are expensive. So why is one needed now?
The Big Build allegations of criminality and corruption are significant.
An independent investigation has shown organised crime and outlaw motorcycle gangs penetrated major government building projects through the Construction, Forestry and Maritime Employees Union (CFMEU), driving up costs through extortion, fixed procurement deals and "ghost shifts" - labour hire companies charging for shifts that were never worked.
As Carroll stated :
There was grift, there was thuggery, there was misogyny, and there was violence on taxpayer-funded construction sites.
We don't know at this stage how much the Victorian government knew about, or was complicit in, the Big Build corruption.
The full extent of corruption and government involvement will only be uncovered by an independent inquiry with coercive powers.
Police can arrest those who have committed crimes but will not be able to uncover government involvement in this saga. This is because their remit is confined to criminality and not "grey" corruption (unethical behaviour that breaches integrity but doesn't meet the strict legal definition of criminal conduct), such as conflicts of interest, "jobs for mates" or pressure to award contracts that don't offer value for money.
In this context, a royal commission, although expensive, is an appropriate way to deal with the issue in a public forum. An independent commissioner with coercive powers is required, given the level of criminality of some likely witnesses.
Are the terms of reference adequate?
The terms of reference Carroll announced are broad and generally adequate.
The commission will investigate the extent of corruption, and criminal conduct or serious misconduct on Big Build projects by the CFMEU, construction companies, subcontractors and labour hire companies.
It will also investigate the adequacy of oversight and governance of the Big Build by ministers and government agencies. The commission will also consider the actions of construction companies and Victorian government authorities, including Victoria Police.
The terms of reference also include digging deeper into the root of corruption by examining the causes, preconditions and impact of corruption, criminal conduct and serious misconduct on Big Build projects.
The commission will also issue recommendations to tackle future corruption and whether Victoria can recoup misappropriated funds lost to Big Build wrongdoing.
As royal commissions can only make recommendations and not prosecute people, a special prosecutor will be appointed to pursue those who are suspected of wrongdoing in the court.
The opposition wanted more
Opposition leader Jess Wilson's proposed terms of reference had a deeper focus on the monetary aspect.
This included the true extent of the cost to Victorian taxpayers of misconduct on Victorian major projects, and the flow of taxpayer funds to organised criminals, outlaw motorcycle gangs and political parties, arising from CFMEU misconduct.
The government's terms of reference do not explicitly target the cost blowout from the Big Build corruption allegations, although it does mention recouping misappropriated funds.
Wilson's proposal also focused more directly on the government's culpability, including what former Premier Jacinta Allan and Labor ministers knew and when.
Similar to the government's terms of reference, Wilson's proposal also included recommendations to prevent similar misconduct occurring in the future.
There is a key weakness
Overall, Carroll's terms of reference are sufficiently broad. All the relevant actors will be investigated and potentially called before the royal commission, from ministers to government agencies, to the CFMEU and labour hire firms.
The royal commission will dig into the causes of corruption and generate recommendations to stop such issues recurring in the future.
The one weakness is, it doesn't explicitly target the extent of the cost blowout from the Big Build corruption allegations.
In sum, the royal commission will provide the necessary ventilation of how organised crime found its way onto the Big Build sites, determine who is responsible and make recommendations to hopefully prevent this from happening again.
As Carroll said : "Victorians deserve the truth."
Yee-Fui Ng has received funding from the New South Wales Independent Commission Against Corruption, and was an ANZSOG Academic Fellow funded to research on a project on anti-corruption commissions.
