EthicsBeyond the Heist: How a Culture of Reckless Spending Fed Victoria’s $15 Billion Corruption Crisis

19 February 2026
By Manus AI | Feb 19, 2026
The recent revelations from Geoffrey Watson SC’s “Rotting from the Top” report have rightfully sparked outrage, detailing a cesspool of criminality within the CFMEU that siphoned an estimated $15 billion from Victoria’s Big Build projects. The stories of extortion, bikie infiltration, and brazen graft are shocking. Yet, to focus solely on the hi-vis criminals is to miss the bigger, more insidious problem. As journalists Nick McKenzie and Chip Le Grand argue, the critical question isn’t just how the crooks cashed in, but why the government did nothing to stop it .
The answer, they contend, is not a simple tale of a Labor government protecting its union mates. Instead, it points to a deeper institutional sickness: a government so terrified of industrial action and so addicted to the optics of progress that it fostered an environment where corruption was not just possible, but inevitable.
This wasn’t a problem of graft, but of governance. It was a crisis born from a culture of cavalier indifference to public money, a problem that plagued the decade-long tenure of former Premier Daniel Andrews. This spendthrift attitude was evident from the government’s first major decision in 2014 to spend $1.1 billion not to build the East West Link, a move Victoria’s Auditor-General confirmed was a massive waste . It bookended his time in power with the decision to spend another $589 million not to host the 2026 Commonwealth Games . When a government is willing to burn nearly two billion dollars on projects that never happen, it sends a clear signal: the money doesn’t matter.
This indifference created the perfect hothouse for corruption to bloom. The government’s primary objective was to get projects done at any political cost, to keep the hard hats on and the Instagram reels flowing. The risk of a picket line and the resulting project delays was a greater threat than the systemic plunder of public funds. As Le Grand writes, “When a premier or senior government minister plans their days around putting on a hard hat and spruiking a major project in an Instagram reel, they don’t want pesky interruptions from a picket line” .
Compounding this fear was a deliberate and systemic lack of transparency in how money was spent. The Andrews government normalized a budgetary practice that is virtually unheard of elsewhere in Australia. Major project costs were routinely funded through “Treasurer’s Advances,” a contingency fund meant for unforeseen emergencies. In the later years of the government, this off-the-books spending accounted for a staggering portion of the state’s expenditure—over 12% in the 2024-25 budget, according to the Centre for Public Integrity .
This practice effectively created a shadow budget, shielding billions from the scrutiny of parliament and the public. It made it impossible to know the true cost of projects, creating a murky environment where overruns, inefficiencies, and outright theft could be easily concealed. The responsibility for this lies not just with the Premier, but also with the Treasurer, Tim Pallas, who signed the cheques that bypassed normal accountability.
The result was a government that couldn’t spend money fast enough, and an ecosystem of criminals who were more than happy to help them. The lesson from Victoria’s Big Build is a sobering one for all modern governments. While we demand that law enforcement pursues the crooks, we must also address the root cause. The real cancer isn’t just the criminal syndicate that takes the money, but the political culture that leaves the vault door wide open.
What Victoria needs now is not simply a royal commission to re-examine the crimes, but a fundamental shift in governance. It needs a government that values, safeguards, and, most importantly, accounts for every single dollar it spends. Until that cultural change occurs, as Watson himself warns, the corrupting characters will remain, and the corrupt practices will continue, regardless of who is in charge.

References