As Minister representing the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, I refer to order for the production of documents No. 576, relating to allegations of unacceptable behaviour on land transport infrastructure projects, moved by Senator McKenzie and agreed to by the Senate on 12 August 2026. A response to this order was tabled in the Senate yesterday. The government tabled seven sets of meeting notes relating to meetings held between the department and Victorian officials. These notes contain all relevant information within the scope of the request, with minor redactions made to prevent the release of information that could prejudice the investigation of a possible breach of law. Everything else redacted in those documents is outside the scope of the request.

Senior officials discuss a wide range of matters at these forums, including governance, assurance and project delivery matters across the Infrastructure Investment Program. If anything, the length of the meeting notes shows how much work this government is undertaking to deliver the infrastructure Victoria needs.

As outlined in the response, the minister has also claimed public interest immunity over other documents subject to the order. Reports received by the Commonwealth from the Victorian government regarding allegations of criminal behaviour or corruption on IIP projects contain information that may prejudice the investigation of a possible breach of the law or disclose or enable a person to ascertain the existence or identity of a confidential source for the matters referred to in the reports. Additionally, information has been provided on a confidential basis. To release these reports could prejudice the investigation of a possible breach of law and would adversely affect Commonwealth-state relations.

I move:

That the Senate take note of the explanation.

Well there you have it. I take note of a pathetic response to the order of the Australian Senate for this government to produce documents to assure federal taxpayers that their funds are not funding corruption—unlawful and illegal criminal behaviour—on public infrastructure projects in my home state of Victoria. I note the minister's advice that the documents tabled contained minor redactions. Please, if you're near the web—I'll show the people in the gallery the minor redactions. Eighteen pages are blacked out.

Senator McKenzie.

Eighteen pages blacked out is not a minor redaction, Minister. People deserve to have confidence—

Senator McKenzie, please resume your seat. Minister, on a point of order?

There are standing orders that relate to the use of props.

I did call Senator McKenzie, and she did put it down. I will bring it to her attention again, Minister. It's okay to refer to documents. However, we try to avoid using props. Senator McKenzie.

I find it difficult to believe that a document that has been tabled in this chamber is unable to be referred to. But, anyway—

You absolutely can, Senator McKenzie, and I said that. Senator Scarr, on a point of order?

Deputy President, in relation to this interpretation of props, can I ask you to take on notice—because it does raise an interesting question—that Senator McKenzie is actually referring to the documents which were tabled in accordance with the order for production of documents.

Absolutely.

She wasn't referring to anything external from the operation of this Senate. From my perspective, if one were to pick up a bill and say, 'This bill is 300 pages long,' then that's something quite legitimate to do. It's not a prop; it's a law which is being debated, just as the response to this order for production of documents is being debated. So could I ask you to take that on notice? I think it's an interesting question.

I agree, Senator Scarr. Minister Ayres?

I do think it's interesting given, Senator Scarr's determination to bring economics 101 in here from time to time. I think, if you do review what Senator McKenzie said, she invited people to approach the material in a particular kind of way. I don't want to spend much time on it, but, you know, we do try and keep some order in the joint.

My view is, and this is consistent practice, where documents are being referred to, they are absolutely allowed to be in the chamber. However, holding them up to the cameras is where they perhaps enter another zone—

I was holding them up to the gallery—

or to the gallery, for that matter. That is where they perhaps enter another zone. However, Senator Scarr, as you've requested, I will take this matter on notice, and I will refer it to the President. Senator McKenzie, you have the call.

On 12 August 2026, the Senate agreed to an order for the production of documents, including reports from the Victorian Labor government to the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government relating to allegations of criminal or unlawful behaviour on land transport infrastructure projects. They were ordered to be produced. Parties on opposite sides of the political spectrum joined together to say this minister needed to produce these documents. Yesterday, the minister failed to comply with the order of the Australian Senate.

What we know is that the incredible accusations of $15 billion of CFMEU corruption on Victoria's Big Build infrastructure projects are not a myth. The Commonwealth has put $30 billion of Commonwealth taxpayer money into Big Build projects.

The Victorian Labor government has for years attempted to wash over claims of corruption. The now premier and then deputy premier, Ben Carroll, has finally called a royal commission into the corruption. We also know the Victorian government has provided reports to Minister King of allegations of corrupt and unlawful behaviour, yet Minister King, once again, running a protection racket for the Victorian Labor government and their pals in the CFMEU, has failed to provide copies of these reports from the Victorian government. Not one such report was included in the documents tabled yesterday. Minister King has claimed public interest immunity.

What was provided by Minister King, as I said in my opening remarks, is an absolute insult to the Australian Senate. Of the 43 pages submitted in these documents, all but two pages are heavily redacted with huge black slabs, like someone's got the big texta and said, 'You shall not see this.' Eighteen pages are fully redacted—not a word on them. The remaining pages are heavily redacted, with isolated sentences taken from minutes of meetings between Commonwealth and Victorian officials. What was supplied was the attendance of six meetings between the state of Victoria and Commonwealth road projects governance group. No documents were provided as to the actions the federal government has taken to ensure federal money has not been used to fund unlawful or corrupt practices on jointly funded infrastructure projects—something I have been pursuing for years in Senate estimates, in this chamber and through the Senate more broadly.

The Albanese government has attempted to close its eyes and its ears to the corruption in Victoria, despite continuing to funnel billions of dollars to projects—the North East Link, the Suburban Rail Loop—which have been subjected to allegations of bullying, corruption and fraud. Legitimate construction businesses are denied access to these publicly funded infrastructure projects. You need to have the right people working for you to get a job in the corrupt state of Victoria.

An incident having occurred in the gallery—

Thank you. It's great to have some people from my home state in the gallery. The Suburban Rail Loop has been subject to at least 16 serious allegations of unlawful and criminal behaviour. The North East Link has been subject to 28 allegations of corruption, fraud, criminal behaviour and breaches of workplace relations laws. It is clear Catherine King is not interested in being upfront and transparent. The Albanese government is either negligent or complicit in the corruption that's occurring in the Big Build in Victoria.

The disrespect that has been shown to the Senate, that has been shown to this chamber, by the government in producing this order for production of documents and then redacting 18 pages—18 pages blacked out—is extraordinary. Labor promised Australians that it would clean up corruption in the construction industry, yet two years now after the CFMEU was placed into administration that rot remains. Indeed, potentially it has got even worse in my home state of Victoria. The shocking allegations of corruption and worse on building sites continue.

It is not unreasonable of this chamber to request an answer to the question 'what did the government know before it allocated further Commonwealth funds to these projects?' Australians continue to hear allegations of organised crime infiltrating taxpayer funded construction projects—stories of violence on worksites, of payments to underworld fixers, of a culture that this government seems remarkably incurious about and reluctant to confront. It's extraordinary that on one project alone $6 billion of Commonwealth taxpayer money has been allocated in two tranches—one in May 2022 of $2.2 billion to the Suburban Rail Loop. Since that time, the government found out that there was corruption on that worksite and then went on to allocate a further $3.8 billion. How can that be so? What did the government know and when? It is not an unreasonable question to ask.

The Prime Minister himself has said that he sought assurances from the Victorian government that there was no corruption on that worksite. If that is the case, show us the documents. What were those assurances? Were they received verbally? Were they received in writing? Who was it that was asked? Was it done formally? Was it done informally? It's not too much to ask, because this is exactly what the taxpayer would expect of an opposition—scrutiny of government decisions when they know that corruption is involved.

Just in the last week, the CFMEU administrator reported that there are hundreds of thousands of dollars in cash withdrawals from something called the Building Industry 2000 Fund that's controlled by former CFMEU boss John Setka as well as Ralph Edwards—when the administrator has said that it's unclear how that money was spent. These are very serious allegations, and they deserve serious scrutiny and a serious response from government, not indifference.

Labor claims it's done all it can; it's appointed an administrator. But clearly that's not good enough. Worse still, under Labor's scheme, some of the very people associated with the union's worst excesses only have to wait it out. They can return to the union after five years. The CFMEU administrator has acknowledged on television that John Setka could potentially return to the union under Labor's rules. That's Labor's soft touch on corruption in construction. That is all you can do. 'We've done all we can do,' apparently.

That's why I introduced a bill just last sitting week to ensure that the CFMEU administrator has the powers he needs to ensure that the union cannot simply recycle the worst of its offenders. And if Labor is genuinely serious about stamping out corruption and criminality in the construction industry, it should support tougher laws. It should support proper parliamentary scrutiny. And—you guessed it—it should comply with orders of the Senate, because that's what we're here to do.

Senator McKenzie's order required the government to produce very basic reports that it received from the Victorian government on allegations of criminal and unlawful behaviour. The Senate agreed to that order a month ago. Labor's disrespecting of the Senate the way the government has done is demonstrative of its commitment to stamping out corruption on construction sites. You've had plenty of time to conduct the consultations. You knew exactly what the Senate has required, and you have ignored it or, even worse, undermined it. Minister King has claimed public interest immunity over these documents. What an insult to the Senate. There are 73 pages, and only two have given us any information at all. Secrecy forms part of a broader pattern. But what is Labor hiding? What does the government have to hide here? Who are you protecting?

Labor has refused to support Senator Kovacic's proposal for a Senate inquiry into corruption in the construction industry. It's refused to refer my bill to an inquiry. The Prime Minister says he's received assurances, but what assurances are they? This is what we need to know. What do the reports say? It is not too much to ask. The people in the gallery want to understand what their taxpayer money has gone to pay for.

I wasn't going to speak in this debate, and I heard the contributions made by the minister defending the government's decision not to release information that was required by an order of this Senate. I've heard Senator McKenzie's contribution and I've seen Senator McKenzie in Senate estimates asking, in a determined way, questions on behalf of the people of Victoria and on behalf of the people of Australia with respect to corruption issues on construction sites in Victoria as part of Victoria's so-called Big Build projects, which would be better called Victoria's 'big corruption projects'. I've listened carefully to Senator Hume's contribution as well. Senator Hume has been a fierce warrior in terms of requiring accountability from the administrator of the CFMEU construction division.

So I'm moved to make this contribution. And I want to make this point: the Senate is not seeking these documents for ourselves; we are seeking these documents for the Australian people. We are seeking these documents for you, because we want to shine a bright light on the circumstances in which the federal Labor government—your government—is providing billions of dollars of funding, your money, to Victorian infrastructure projects, and there is evidence after evidence after evidence that these projects are infected by corruption, driven in large part by the CFMEU construction division. Billions of Australian taxpayer dollars are going into these infrastructure projects.

We want to know what the Labor government is doing to protect taxpayer funds so they are not going into projects that are riddled with corruption in Victoria under the Victorian Labor government. What is the Labor federal government doing? Now we have a situation where the minister has described the redactions made to the documents as 'minor redactions', and yet you heard my colleague Senator Mckenzie say there are 18 pages that are entirely blacked out. That's what 'redacted' means. It's covered in black ink. The printers around this parliament have run out of ink because of the quantity of redactions. It's absolutely outrageous.

Then the minister from the other place says that the minister's making a public interest claim. That's not a public interest claim; it's a Labor interest claim. It's not a claim being made in the public interest. It's being made in the interest of the Victorian Labor government because they don't want the truth to come out with respect to the extent to which these Victorian Labor construction jobs are riddled with corruption and are being funded by Australian taxpayer dollars.

In my home state of Queensland, nearly every single major infrastructure project over the last 15 years has had the CFMEU tax. The budget has blown out by 30 per cent. Everything from Ronald McDonald House, which provides accommodation for parents and children seeking medical treatment, through to barracks being built at Defence establishments, highway projects and schools—every single infrastructure project—has blown its budget by 30 per cent because the CFMEU corruption, every single one. That's our money. That's your money, which should be spent on schools and hospitals and services.

As the Labor government goes to above $1 trillion of debt, think of what those funds could have been used for. The Senate has sought this information to clarify what the federal Labor government is doing to protect Australian taxpayer dollars from the corruption riddled Victorian Labor government's Big Build projects. That's the information we're seeking, and that is the information that the Labor government is denying to the Senate and denying to the Australian people through the Senate.

We will keep raising these issues. We will keep determinedly seeking this information, because it's in the interests of the Australian people that we do so and because it's your taxpayer dollars, your funds, going into supporting these projects. You deserve better. You deserve better than 18 pages of redacted information and no answers given whatsoever with respect to the response of the Labor government.

Question agreed to.