Royal commission hints at original sin of Big Build

The Kourakis royal commission has started at the top. At its first public hearing, convened just one month after receiving its letters patent, it published in full cabinet-in-confidence documents that show Jacinta Allan knew more than three years ago there was big trouble on the Big Build.

This was a ballsy opening from an inquiry intent on sending a message that it is not mucking about. Government ministers, senior bureaucrats, contractors, union bosses and the crooks who grew fat off publicly funded major projects have been put on notice that the royal commission is determined to clean up Victoria’s answer to the Augean stables.

Just as importantly, Commissioner Chris Kourakis has signalled his willingness to stand back and interrogate some bigger, long-overdue questions about how we got here.

In laying down ethical markers early in his inquiry, Kourakis reminded us of some basic principles of how major projects paid for with public money should be commissioned, designed, managed and safeguarded.

The first of these is that governments, before committing billions of taxpayer dollars to build anything, must with due diligence and care choose the right projects for the right reasons.

“Governments must select and design infrastructure projects around the socioeconomic needs of the Victorian public, and not party political interests,” the commissioner said.

Is this how the government conceived of the Suburban Rail Loop, supersized its wildly popular level crossing removal program, or settled on the route for the future airport rail link? If the royal commission is not satisfied, the original sin of Labor’s $150 billion infrastructure program will be laid bare – pork barrelling on a previously unimagined scale.

Another principle articulated by Kourakis is that once a project is committed to, responsibility lies with the elected government and its public agencies to competently manage contracts and minimise risks.

When things go wrong – such as bikies and recently paroled criminals worming their way onto building sites – it is up to senior bureaucrats to promptly raise the alarm with responsible ministers, who in turn need to show the leadership required to stop the rot.

It is here that the documents obtained by the royal commission relating to Allan’s knowledge of and response to evidence of criminal activity on Big Build sites in June 2023 inform a fascinating case study.

The cabinet-in-confidence documents detail concerns held by the Major Transport Infrastructure Authority, a government agency responsible for big rail and road projects, about organised crime figures turning up at Big Build sites and potentially standing over contractors.

Putting aside the question of whether the former premier was truthful to The Age two months ago when we questioned her about one of these briefing notes, an issue for the royal commission is what she did at the time.

She wrote the next day to then-police chief Shane Patton to pass on the intel.