Bold claim: a political firestorm is swallowing Victoria, and the stakes are climbing as ministers go on the attack against a corruption investigator. But here’s the twist you might miss: the fight isn’t just about one man’s testimony—it’s about how far a government will go to defend itself against serious allegations.
Premier Jacinta Allan has publicly aligned with her ministers in targeting Geoffrey Watson, SC, the corruption investigator, and she defended calling him a “headline chaser” as well as questioning his professional integrity. She made these remarks at a tense press conference outside Parliament on Thursday, even threatening to stop answering questions unless a reporter retracts a remark labeling her as “disinterested” in the CFMEU corruption scandal.
Meanwhile, the Premier remains resistant to mounting calls for a royal commission, despite Greens and crossbench support for a Coalition motion urging an inquiry. Internal Labor circles are increasingly anxious about the political damage the scandal is causing, with ministers turning to personal attacks rather than focusing on the facts.
On Wednesday, Victoria’s Labor ministers escalated their assault, accusing Watson of chasing sensational headlines and dismissing his claims that the government turned a blind eye to CFMEU corruption and related organized crime on infrastructure projects as “florid ramblings.” The party-linked report excerpts, including investigations into CFMEU corruption, have suggested that billions of taxpayer dollars could be at risk. Watson later gave similar testimony at a Queensland inquiry into the same matter.
Police Minister Anthony Carbines stood firm, reiterating his critique that Watson is a “headline chaser” and describing his evidence as “florid ramblings.” Attorney-General Sonya Kilkenny intensified the critique, warning against unfounded claims of a potential $15 billion cost to taxpayers from corruption linked to the Big Build, and stressing that lawyers must rely on evidence.
Outside Parliament on Thursday, Carbines sharpened his language, calling Watson “thin-skinned” and dismissing Watson’s suggestion that Carbines’ politics resemble Trumpist rhetoric as “snobbish.” “I don’t even know what that means,” he replied, adding that if there is solid evidence, it should be presented openly. He argued that Watson’s remarks reflect a partisan impulse when scrutiny of their work is questioned.
Allan, while not endorsing the idea of undermining Watson, claimed she disagreed with the characterization and argued that repeating unfounded claims is reckless. She also stated that Kilkenny’s remarks did not directly target Watson, and that the attorney-general’s statements apply to all lawyers, given that the federal administrator described certain claims as unfounded.
Several anonymous Labor MPs acknowledged the scandal’s broader political impact and the growing view that the government must act to neutralize the issue. While there was disagreement over the $15 billion figure, there was consensus that the claim had penetrated voters’ minds and damaged the party’s standing. Some MPs expressed support for granting the state’s anti-corruption watchdog powers to track taxpayer dollars down the supply chain, a reform Greens and the Coalition have proposed as part of an Upper House bill.
Other MPs defended the premier’s stance, arguing Victoria Police, the Fair Work Commission, and other authorities are best positioned to investigate corruption concerns. Allan insisted no MP had raised royal commission discussions with her and rejected anonymous gossip, reiterating her stance that previous royal commissions had failed and that such inquiries are often politically motivated when opposition parties seek wage clawbacks.
During the press conference, Allan threatened to walk out after a reporter suggested that people fear approaching the police, insisting she was not disinterested in the issue. The reporter refused to retract the comment, and Allan pressed on with the briefing.
Would you side with the view that a royal commission is necessary to restore public trust, or do you think established investigative bodies are sufficient? Do you believe ministers should publicly challenge investigators, or should they let the evidence speak for itself even if it sparks controversy? Share your thoughts in the comments."
