Corruption Cover-Up or Necessary Redaction? A heated clash over a censored report has exposed deep tensions in the fight against union corruption. Renowned corruption-busting lawyer Geoffrey Watson SC found himself at odds with CFMEU administrator Mark Irving over the removal of politically sensitive material from a report detailing corruption within the union’s Victorian branch. While Watson expressed frustration, he ultimately backed Irving to remain in his role, sparking a debate that goes beyond the report itself.
In a revealing phone call detailed during Queensland’s royal commission-style inquiry into the CFMEU and construction industry misconduct, Watson and Irving clashed over redactions to the report. The original version, which included damning sections on government inaction and an estimate that the CFMEU cost Victorian taxpayers at least $15 billion, was altered just hours after the redactions were first reported by The Age. But here's where it gets controversial: Watson argued that the cuts were unjustified, labeling them as “speculative”—a term he ironically applied to everyday certainties like the sun rising. Yet, he complied to maintain statutory immunity, leaving many to wonder: Was this a necessary safeguard or a missed opportunity for full transparency?
The inquiry, launched by the Queensland government following exposés by The Sydney Morning Herald and 60 Minutes, resumed its public hearings this week. Last year’s sessions featured Watson’s testimony on violence in the union’s Queensland branch and insights from Irving and other labor leaders. However, Wednesday’s focus was squarely on Watson’s Victorian report, which outlined “eight factors that wrecked the CFMEU,” including lawlessness, government inaction, and the influence of figures like Mick Gatto and ousted union leaders John Setka and Joe Myles.
And this is the part most people miss: Watson’s report wasn’t just about Victoria. He warned that the issues—from ad hoc corruption to bribery—could easily spread to Queensland if lessons aren’t learned. Counsel assisting, Mark Costello KC, echoed this concern, emphasizing the need for systemic change.
Despite his anger, Watson defended Irving, calling him “honest and decent” and dismissing federal opposition calls for his removal. Irving, in turn, praised Watson’s work, promising to refer the report to law enforcement agencies. Yet, the Victorian government remains tight-lipped, refusing to comment until the report is publicly released. Opposition leader Jess Wilson, however, demanded accountability from Premier Jacinta Allan.
Watson’s broader reflections reveal a nuanced approach to reporting. While he stood by his decision to exclude certain details—like violence at Queensland’s Oaky Creek coal mine—he acknowledged the technical reasons behind these omissions. He also drew a stark contrast between Queensland’s issues and Victoria’s “crime organization” under Setka, praising Queensland’s current leadership.
Here’s the burning question: Is the censorship of such reports a necessary evil to protect legal processes, or does it undermine the public’s right to know? Watson’s stance, while pragmatic, leaves room for debate. As the inquiry continues, one thing is clear: The fight against corruption is as much about transparency as it is about accountability. What do you think? Is Irving’s role secure, or should he step down? And how far should reports like Watson’s go in exposing systemic issues? Let us know in the comments below.
Sign up for our Morning Edition newsletter to stay informed on the day’s most pressing stories and insights.
