A Big Build royal commission helped Ben Carroll become premier. Will it be his downfall?

The Royal Commission into the Integrity of Major Public and Civil Infrastructure Construction Projects is Victoria’s formal public inquiry into how major government construction projects were planned, approved and managed. It matters because the inquiry is examining whether misconduct, weak oversight or criminal influence affected public infrastructure and public money.

Its work follows allegations that criminals infiltrated construction projects and that Labor advisers may have influenced major projects without enough transparency or accountability. Planning expert William McDougall said announcement came before analysis, dissent was discouraged and accountability was weakened. The government denies these claims.

The commission’s initial focus includes the CFMEU’s conduct on rail projects in Sunbury. Its public hearings begin during the election campaign, meaning findings and allegations will receive intense political attention. The Liberal Party also plans to seek a wider remit covering all trade unions and the political and financial incentives behind the Big Build.

Carroll established the royal commission to investigate allegations that criminals had infiltrated Victorian construction projects and to deliver the integrity examination his predecessor would not call. His decision mattered because the inquiry could expose failures involving Labor’s own government, predecessors and union relationships. It was a politically risky commitment, not a safe campaign promise.

Jacinta Allan had refused to establish a commission, even after admitting criminal infiltration. Her party room then turned to Carroll, someone willing to call it. When writs were issued for the election, he said he wanted to be a premier who did what he promised on integrity. His first decision as premier was formally to establish the inquiry.

That choice helped define his leadership and earned respect from former ombudsman Deborah Glass. But it also tied Carroll’s reputation to whatever the commission uncovers. If Labor loses, the commission may become his lasting legacy, whether its findings help or hurt the party.

Public hearings are especially damaging because they create a steady stream of evidence, allegations and headlines during the two-week election campaign. Labor wants to discuss other issues, but the hearings place corruption, criminal infiltration and government project management at the centre of public debate. The Coalition can use that exposure against Labor.

The timing is politically sharp because Carroll’s campaign presents him as offering a “new direction”, yet he is also defending a royal commission linked to his predecessors. Early submissions already produced damaging claims about Labor advisers, project selection and accountability. The government denies those claims, but the commission will test them publicly.

The issue also reaches beyond government decisions. The hearings will examine the CFMEU’s conduct on Sunbury rail projects, while the Electrical Trades Union has declined to fund Labor’s campaign. Polling found corruption and integrity failures were the top issues that would stop Victorians voting Labor. The party expects bad-news stories but says it will keep its plan.

The commission’s scope reaches across the way Victoria’s Big Build was conceived, assessed and delivered. It is not limited to one contract or one allegation. The inquiry concerns the integrity of major public and civil infrastructure construction projects, including whether decisions were transparent, professional advice was respected and misconduct could flourish.

Concrete examples include William McDougall’s claims that announcement came before analysis, dissent was discouraged and accountability was weakened. The commission’s initial focus also includes the CFMEU’s conduct on rail projects in Sunbury. These lines of inquiry connect project planning with union activity and alleged criminal infiltration.

The article distinguishes between the commission’s current work and a proposed expansion. The Liberals plan to seek an explicit investigation of all trade unions, plus the political and financial incentives behind the Big Build. The inquiry will therefore examine both operational conduct and the decision-making environment around Victoria’s infrastructure program.

The CFMEU is the Construction, Forestry and Maritime Employees Union. In this story, it matters because the royal commission will initially examine its conduct on rail projects in Sunbury. The union is a key political link between alleged misconduct on construction sites, Victoria’s Big Build and Labor’s broader relationship with organised labour.

The article reports that John Setka, then Victorian CFMEU boss, quit in 2024 after a Nine investigation detailed allegations of misconduct. Those allegations included claims that some of the highest-ranking bikie bosses had been placed in union delegate positions on Big Build projects. The commission will test relevant claims rather than treating them as established facts.

The issue is politically important because headlines can connect Labor to the scandal, even while the government denies wider allegations. Some unions have broken away from Labor. The Electrical Trades Union has refused to fund its campaign, and the Liberals want the inquiry expanded to investigate all trade unions.

The central allegations concern how the Big Build was planned and governed, not merely whether individual construction workers acted improperly. Planning expert William McDougall says Labor advisers may have influenced major projects without transparency or accountability. He argues that announcements came before analysis, dissent was discouraged and accountability was weakened.

McDougall says this system could select inferior projects, misallocate public funds, suppress professional advice and create conditions in which misconduct could flourish. The mechanism is straightforward: if political announcements drive decisions before independent assessment, contrary advice may be ignored and responsibility may become unclear. That can make poor choices and wrongdoing harder to detect.

These are allegations, not findings. The Victorian government denies them, and the royal commission will ultimately test the claims. Its hearings begin during the election campaign, so even unproven accusations may cause political damage. A forensic examination could still provide answers about what went wrong and why.

Transparent project selection lets the public see why one infrastructure project was chosen over another and whether its costs and benefits were properly assessed. Independent professional advice provides a check on political enthusiasm. Accountability makes decision-makers explain their choices and accept responsibility when projects fail. Together, these safeguards protect public money and public trust.

The article gives a concrete warning through William McDougall’s submission. He alleges that announcement preceded analysis, dissent was discouraged and accountability weakened. He says that combination increases the risk of inferior projects, misallocated funds, suppressed professional advice and conditions where misconduct can flourish. These are the dangers the commission will test.

The current inquiry shows why the safeguards matter politically as well as financially. Allegations about the Big Build and the CFMEU are now part of an election campaign. The commission may identify what went wrong and why. Its findings could shape responsibility for past decisions and future oversight of Victorian infrastructure.