Two states, two processes, one question for builders: how work on subbies, traffic control and site arrangements gets scrutinised from here.
If you build for a living, the corruption story running through the sector can feel like someone else’s problem. It is about the CFMEU, about big government projects, about politics in Melbourne and Brisbane. Most builders were never anywhere near it.
That read is understandable, but it misses where this is heading. Two separate processes are now moving at once, in two states, and both point at the same practical question: how closely the way work is organised on site gets watched from here. That includes subcontractor arrangements, traffic control, and who gets to be on a project and on what terms.
What just happened in Victoria
In mid July 2026, two of the country’s largest employer groups made a joint move. The Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry and the Victorian Chamber of Commerce and Industry together called for a Royal Commission into corruption and criminal conduct in Victoria’s building and construction sector.
Their call came with a specific list of recommendations. Alongside a Royal Commission, the two bodies want enhanced investigative powers for Victoria Police, including “follow the money” and unexplained wealth powers to trace and disrupt criminal financial flows. They want greater powers for law enforcement to compel witnesses and suspects to cooperate. They want a strong national watchdog reinstated, along the lines of the former Australian Building and Construction Commission, paired with a strengthened Victorian construction code. And they want a tougher “fit and proper person” test applied to right of entry permits.
The chambers were careful in how they framed it. Their stated position is that the large majority of businesses and workers in the industry are honest and hardworking, and that the problem is a system that has allowed criminal conduct to become embedded and legitimate operators to be disadvantaged. In their framing, this is as much an economic issue as an integrity one, tied to productivity, investment and housing supply.
They are not the only voices. The Business Council of Australia has raised related concerns, pointing to reporting that alleged payments from Big Build subcontractors to underworld figures were still flowing in 2026, and warning that a federal procurement bill could create similar risks nationally. Master Builders Australia, separately, has been pressing for a dedicated industry regulator off the back of evidence in Queensland.
It is worth noting there is a genuine debate about the best mechanism. Some legal commentators argue that rather than a Royal Commission, which is a temporary inquiry, the more lasting fix would be to permanently empower Victoria’s existing anti-corruption body, IBAC, to investigate the sector. That debate is live and unresolved.
The backdrop: what has actually been documented
The Victorian calls did not appear from nowhere. They sit on top of a body of reporting and formal findings built up over the past couple of years.
The most significant is the work of barrister Geoffrey Watson SC, whose “Rotting from the Top” report examined the Victorian CFMEU. Its central finding, in plain terms, was that control over enterprise agreements and access to major public projects could be turned into a gateway for corruption, squeezing legitimate businesses out of the market and creating openings for organised crime. That is the mechanism the current calls are responding to.
For builders, the important part is not the politics of it. It is the specific claim that the pressure points were the everyday commercial arrangements of construction: agreements, subcontracting, and who gets access to work. Those are not abstractions. They are the mechanics of running jobs.
Meanwhile, in Queensland
While Victoria debates whether to hold an inquiry, Queensland already has one, and it has been working steadily.
The Commission of Inquiry into the CFMEU and Misconduct in the Construction Industry held another block of public hearings from 14 to 16 July 2026 at the Commonwealth Law Courts in Brisbane. It was the twelfth such block since the public hearings began in Brisbane in October 2025, and more are scheduled through to December.
Two threads from Queensland matter most to builders. The first is conduct: the inquiry has heard extensive evidence about intimidation and pressure connected to worksites and industry figures. The second, and arguably the more consequential for how you run a business, is structural. Earlier this month the Commission published the draft Building and Construction Code the Commission put on the table earlier this month, along with a proposal for an independent regulator to enforce it, with written responses closing on 24 July 2026.
A code and a regulator are not new concepts in Australian construction. The country ran a version federally for years before it was wound back in 2022. What is on the table in Queensland is a state-based version, aimed squarely at the conduct the inquiry has spent a year documenting. If it proceeds, it would set rules about conduct on projects and establish a body to police them.
What a code, a regulator and a Royal Commission would actually touch
Here is the part that connects the headlines to a builder’s week.
Whether it is a Queensland code and regulator, or a Victorian Royal Commission and beefed-up police powers, the common thread is closer scrutiny of how work is organised on site. In practice, the areas most often named in this space are:
Subcontractor arrangements. Who is engaged, on what terms, and whether those arrangements are genuine and properly documented. Where inquiries have looked at corruption, the flow of money through subcontracting chains has been a recurring focus.
Traffic control and labour supply. These have been repeatedly flagged in reporting and evidence as areas where control over who supplies the work can be used as leverage. That does not make the trades themselves suspect. It means the arrangements around them attract attention.
Site access and project conditions. Who can be on a project, under what enterprise arrangements, and how those conditions are set. This is the territory a “fit and proper person” test and a construction code would directly govern.
For a builder or subcontractor operating legitimately, none of this is an accusation. But it does change the environment. When enforcement bodies are given more powers and more focus, the practical effect is that ordinary commercial arrangements are more likely to be looked at, and clean paperwork and clear records matter more than they used to. The builders least affected by any of this will be the ones whose arrangements were always straightforward and well documented.
Why this matters, even if you are nowhere near a big build
It would be fair to say most of the conduct under examination sits on major government and infrastructure projects, not the average residential site. That is true. But three things carry across.
First, national mechanisms do not stop at project size. A reinstated national watchdog or a procurement rule change applies across the industry, not just to the Big Build.
Second, the enterprise agreements, subcontracting norms and site practices being examined shape the wider market that residential and commercial builders operate in. This is the same underlying tension behind the site stoppages and disputes builders have been navigating for years.
Third, scrutiny tends to lift the baseline for everyone. If a code, a regulator or new police powers become part of the landscape, the standard expected of documentation and conduct rises across the board, including for smaller operators who never went near a government tender.
Where it goes next
The two processes are on different clocks.
In Queensland, the immediate date is 24 July 2026, when responses to the draft code and regulator proposal close. The inquiry itself continues sitting through the rest of the year, with its findings to follow.
In Victoria, there is no Royal Commission yet, only a growing push for one, and an unresolved argument about whether that or expanded IBAC powers is the better route. The state government has not committed to either.
For builders, the sensible posture is simply to stay informed rather than alarmed. This is a story about how the industry is governed, and the direction of travel across both states is clearly toward more oversight of how work is organised on site. Knowing that is coming, and understanding which parts of your own operation it touches, is worth more than any prediction about the politics.
Frequently asked questions
Not yet. In July 2026, the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry and the Victorian Chamber of Commerce and Industry jointly called for one, along with expanded police powers and a strengthened construction code. The Victorian government has not committed to holding a Royal Commission.
It is holding ongoing public hearings, with a block held from 14 to 16 July 2026 in Brisbane. It has also published a draft Building and Construction Code and a proposal for an independent regulator, with written responses closing on 24 July 2026.
Broadly, they would set rules about conduct on construction projects and create a body to enforce them. The practical effect is closer scrutiny of arrangements such as subcontracting, labour supply and site conditions, particularly on government-funded work.
No. Employer groups leading the calls have been explicit that the majority of businesses and workers are honest, and that the aim is to protect legitimate operators from a system that disadvantages them. The focus is on criminal conduct, not ordinary building work.
Yes. The federal administration of the union’s construction and general division remains in place. It is a separate process from both the Queensland inquiry and the Victorian Royal Commission debate.
Related Articles
- Queensland’s CFMEU Inquiry Just Put a Draft Construction Code on the Table. Builders Have Until 24 July to Respond.
- A closer look at how licensing and compliance are enforced across the industry
Listen to The Good Builder Podcast on Spotify and Apple Podcasts for more on what the corruption inquiries mean for the people who actually build.
Last updated: 20 July 2026.
This article is intended for general information purposes only and does not constitute legal, financial, or professional advice. Laws, regulations, and industry requirements vary by state and territory and change over time. Builders and trades professionals should seek independent advice relevant to their specific circumstances before making business, legal, or financial decisions.
0 Comments