Construction, Forestry and Maritime Employees Union

Wallace criticised the Labor Party for accepting donations from the CFMEU despite knowing about corruption allegations for years. Wallace cited personal experience in the building industry to illustrate the prevalence of bullying and kickbacks. Wallace argued that the government had failed to address the issue until media exposure forced their hand, and he condemned the retention of union funds as blood money.

Clutterham rejected claims that the government ignored union corruption, stating that integrity within unions is essential for protecting workers' rights. Clutterham explained that multi-employer bargaining was designed to improve wages and conditions, not facilitate misconduct. Clutterham highlighted the administration of the CFMEU construction division as a measured step to restore accountability and governance, rather than an abandonment of unionism.

Webster described the Watson report as horrifying, citing an estimated cost of $15 billion to taxpayers due to corruption and organised crime involvement. Webster linked the issue to the broader cost-of-living crisis and Victoria's rising debt, arguing that the government had been complicit by standing with the CFMEU for too long. Webster emphasised the exploitation of women on building sites and demanded answers from the government regarding their knowledge and actions.

French argued that the government did not turn a blind eye to corruption, pointing to the establishment of the National Anti-Corruption Commission and the criminalisation of wage theft. French contrasted this with the previous government's resistance to anti-corruption measures and weak enforcement frameworks. French stated that unions are lawful institutions subject to strict reporting obligations and that misconduct should be sanctioned consistently across all sectors.

Small accused the government of covering up corruption by abolishing the Australian Building and Construction Commission and refusing to release the full Watson report. Small calculated that the $15 billion in alleged losses equated to $124 million per removed union official, questioning the effectiveness of the government's actions. Small called for the release of the unredacted report and highlighted the continued acceptance of CFMEU donations by the Labor Party.

Ambihaipahar defended the union movement's role in securing workers' rights, citing legislation such as Baby Priya's bill and penalty rate protections. Ambihaipahar quoted Geoffrey Watson SC praising the administrator, Mark Irving, as honest and decent, countering calls for his resignation. Ambihaipahar argued that the opposition conflated the misconduct of the CFMEU with the broader union movement and ignored corporate underpayment issues.

Aldred described the situation in Victoria as rotten, citing high levels of perceived corruption among state MPs and local councillors. Aldred argued that the government's inaction allowed organised crime figures to influence workplace agreements, costing public funds that could have been used for hospitals and schools. Aldred called for the full release of the Watson report to expose the extent of the corruption and its impact on small businesses.

Urquhart expressed confidence in the administrator, Mark Irving, and cited Geoffrey Watson SC's support for his work. Urquhart detailed the removal of 270 union officers and 12 paid officials, noting that every individual named in the Watson report had been removed. Urquhart emphasised that the government's actions were pro-worker and aimed at restoring integrity, contrasting this with the previous government's failure to remove corrupt leaders.