Bold claim, big questions: a Victorian attorney general is publicly challenging an integrity expert over a staggering $15 billion alleged cost to taxpayers from CFMEU-related corruption.
Original claim arose from redacted portions of Geoffrey Watson SC’s Rotting from the Top report. Commissioned by CFMEU administrator Mark Irving KC and presented to a Queensland inquiry last week, the figure was described by Watson as a “very rough” estimate built on the judgments of highly qualified stakeholders. With Victoria’s Big Build valued at about $100 billion, Watson’s sources suggested cost overruns linked to CFMEU conduct could be in the 10–30% range, landing on a 15% figure he called not unreasonable and probably conservative. He stated, in redacted material, that leadership within the CFMEU had cost taxpayers roughly $15 billion and that a portion of that money had flowed to criminals and organized crime groups.
Watson also alleged that the Victorian government knew, or should have known, that corrupt union and underworld figures had infiltrated the Big Build but did nothing about it. The final report reportedly excised these chapters because Irving was not satisfied they were well-founded or properly tested.
Victoria’s Attorney General Sonya Kilkenny responded by labeling the claim of a $15 billion taxpayer cost as reckless and unfounded, stressing that lawyers’ credibility rests on evidence and the distinction between allegation and proof. Police Minister Anthony Carbines criticized Watson for making “lots of florid ramblings … but not a lot of evidence,” suggesting he should present any evidence to Victoria Police rather than pursue headlines.
Watson pushed back, saying the ministers’ comments crossed a line and that he had kept public commentary to a minimum while still addressing genuine issues in Victoria. He noted that neither minister had called him to discuss the matter.
Reaction from opposition figures was sharp. Shadow attorney general James Newbury expressed that the ministers are unfit for their roles and called for their removal, arguing that the government’s attack on the anti-corruption expert reflects a broader rot that allows corruption to flourish in Victoria.
Would you accept a claim of this magnitude without a full, transparent audit of the underlying evidence? How should governments balance the urgency of anti-corruption work with the need to protect legal due process and professional credibility? Share your thoughts in the comments.
