Matthew Pollock, Executive Director Master Builders NSW

For more than a decade, Australia's construction industry has paid a heavy price for a culture of unlawful conduct, intimidation and corruption associated with elements of the CFMEU.

The cost has not simply been borne by builders and contractors—it has been borne by every Australian taxpayer. The productivity losses attributed to restrictive workplace practices and unlawful industrial behaviour have been enormous. The economic cost runs into the hundreds of billions of dollars—money that could otherwise have funded nation-building projects, accelerated housing delivery, or reduced the cost of vital infrastructure.

At a time when governments are struggling to deliver schools, hospitals, roads and housing on budget, Australians deserve answers about why projects continue to cost more than they should. Recent revelations emerging from inquiries in Queensland, coupled with ongoing allegations and investigations in Victoria, have exposed disturbing claims of corruption, criminal influence, violence and intimidation within parts of the construction union movement.

Even more troubling are reports that industry participants have suffered death threats, severe mental health impacts and, in some cases, suicide attempts as a result of sustained intimidation. These human costs are every bit as serious as the financial ones.

The Queensland inquiry has demonstrated what can be uncovered when investigators are given the authority to compel evidence and test allegations thoroughly. Yet it is increasingly clear that the problems are not confined to a single state. New allegations continue to emerge, raising serious questions about the extent of misconduct across the industry nationally.

While the appointment of an administrator to the CFMEU was a necessary first step, it is not a complete solution. It has removed some of the union’s most notorious officials and brought a measure of stability to an organisation facing serious allegations.  However, the administrator lacks the broad investigative powers available to a Royal Commission. Nor does the administration process have a mandate to fully examine how criminal activity, corruption, bullying and intimidation were permitted to flourish over such a long period.

That is why Australia needs a Federal Royal Commission.  The inquiry must examine the period spanning the infamous Setka, Ravbar and Greenfield years, when many of the behaviours now under scrutiny became embedded across parts of the industry. It must investigate how unlawful conduct was allowed to persist, whether criminal elements penetrated legitimate industrial organisations, how intimidation became normalised, and why existing regulatory frameworks failed to intervene effectively. Most importantly, it must follow the evidence wherever it leads.

Australia ultimately needs a strong, independent construction industry regulator with the powers and resources necessary to uphold the rule of law and ensure compliance across the sector. But before we determine what that regulator should look like, we must first understand precisely what went wrong. A Royal Commission can identify the structural weaknesses that enable misconduct to occur. It can assess whether existing regulators had adequate powers, whether warning signs were overlooked, and whether governance arrangements across the industry met community expectations.

Those findings should then inform the design of a modern regulator capable of preventing similar conduct in the future. Australia has adopted this approach before. The Banking Royal Commission was established because ‘a rolling series of scandals’ revealed institutional misconduct, inadequate oversight and regulatory failure. Its focus extended beyond individual wrongdoing to the systems, incentives and governance failures that allowed misconduct to occur.

The scandals in the construction industry have been rolling for over two years and resulted in the criminal convictions of some of the union's top brass.  We must know what was the nature and extent of misconduct? How widespread was it? Why did existing safeguards and regulators fail? Did governance arrangements protect workers, businesses and the broader community? And what reforms are necessary to restore integrity to the sector?

These are questions that cannot be answered through piecemeal state-based inquiries or administrative processes. They require the national reach, compulsory powers and independence of a Federal Royal Commission.

Australians deserve confidence that the industry responsible for building the nation operates according to the rule of law. Workers deserve to be free from intimidation. Businesses deserve to compete on merit. Taxpayers deserve assurance that public funds are not being inflated by unlawful conduct or systemic corruption.

A properly designed industry regulator can help deliver those outcomes. But before the regulator is built, the full truth must be uncovered. A Federal Royal Commission is the only mechanism capable of uncovering the root causes of misconduct and providing the blueprint for a stronger, more accountable construction industry. Until that work is done, meaningful reform will remain incomplete.