Andrew McKellar interview along with Sally Curtain on 3AW about CFMEU
Transcript: 15 July, 2026
Heidi Murphy:
We are delighted to have Sally Curtain, the chief executive of the Victorian Chamber of Commerce and Industry. And today she's brought a guest with her, the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry CEO, Andrew McKellar. Sally, Andrew, welcome.
Andrew McKellar:
Hi, Heidi. Great to be with you.
Heidi Murphy:
Sally, Andrew, you want a Royal Commission. Is that why you're here?
Sally Curtain:
Yeah. I mean, that's our big story today and it's something that the Australian Chamber has been calling for some time. We believe there's great concern across the Victorian community, but particularly the Victorian business community regarding the perceptions of corruption. And essentially until they're solved, can there be business confidence in Victoria moving forward?
Heidi Murphy:
Can there be right now? Do you reckon there is?
Sally Curtain:
I think that the way to solve this is a Royal Commission, hence why we've called for it, but that's not the extent of what we're calling for. We're actually saying we need greater follow the money powers for police and greater resources, greater powers for IBAC and greater resources. We want to reinstate the Australian Building Construction Commission and those sorts of codes. So it's a comprehensive response that's needed. We talked about this earlier and if the federal government isn't going to do it, the Victorian government absolutely must and we need leadership.
Heidi Murphy:
Is it possible to have a federal Royal Commission, Andrew?
Andrew McKellar:
Yes. It's possible and we've called on the federal government to do that. There are other things that the federal government can do and they've appointed an administrator. That's only been partly successful and we've seen the administrator that was originally appointed resign recently, a new one's been appointed. So we think there's been mixed results from that. But as Sally was saying, there really needs to be a sequence of steps here. A Royal Commission is an important part of that. And unfortunately what we're seeing as we look at this problem nationally is Victoria has become the epicentre of corruption in this case. That's why you need to have a Royal Commission here. You've got to shine a light on this. You've got to find a way to call evidence, to be able to bring witnesses out, ultimately to take action against the corruption that has been occurring affecting building and construction in this sector, costing taxpayers billions of dollars.
Heidi Murphy:
As Sally well knows, as I well know, as the audience well knows, Labor in the state will not do it. The government will not do it. As an outsider to the state, Andrew, how do you view that? Does that make sense to you, the complete recalcitrance to even examine the prospect?
Andrew McKellar:
Well, it's very puzzling. And I mean here as an outsider looking in, you'd say this needs leadership. And clearly Victoria is very much at the centre of this. You need to restore public confidence that you cannot tolerate corruption. And from a business point of view, that's the way we approach it. So whether it's in the trade union, whether it's in business, whether it's in government, we don't support corruption wherever it exists. You've got to stand up to it. That's the only way forward. Now, we've seen in Queensland where they have initiated a Royal Commission that is bringing out evidence. Some of it relates to Victoria and all the more reason why we should be doing that sort of inquiry down here.
Heidi Murphy:
Sally, could we do the same sort of inquiry, a commission of inquiry? Is it the same a Royal Commission?
Andrew McKellar:
It's the same as a Royal Commission effectively.
Heidi Murphy:
You've had some involvement in setting these up.
Sally Curtain:
Yeah. Look, my history back in the day, back in 2010, I was engaged within the Department of Justice to establish the Independent Broad-Based Anti-Corruption Commission. IBAC, as we all know it today. And it was very curious at that time. There was a lot of opposition and quite a bit of debate to say, do we even need it here in Victoria? We don't have a corruption problem. That happens over the border. And unfortunately, here we are 15 years on or so, and it's the topic of conversation every day. There's a new report every day about alleged corruption. And my point is whether there's corruption to the tune of $15 billion or $15, frankly, you need to understand how it is ocurring, why it is occurring, and you need to rip it out at its roots and you need to prevent it from happening again. That's the only way business investors, Victorians can have confidence and trust in institutions, public institutions and private institutions.
Heidi Murphy:
Are we in real danger? And this is for either of you. Are we in danger of becoming a place where people don't come to invest because you can't trust where the dollars are going? I know you might feel like we're already there, but are we going to become that? Is that how we are viewed already? I think Andrew, you could sort of give the outsider.
Andrew McKellar:
Well, from an outsider perspective, I think the risk is you're at that point. As we sit around, we have a network of chambers of commerce in every state and territory in Australia. We sit around in those meetings. And I think for a lot of Sally's colleagues, they're asking why is it the way it is in Victoria? And it's not just issues like the CFMEU corruption concerns are equally things like work from home legislation, which I think others find very puzzling. Yes. Some of them are thinking that it will bring a lot of business to their states. But look, I think these are issues which go to the core of is Victoria a competitive economy? Where does it sit in relation to the other states? Is it attractive to business? Are you going to create jobs here? Are you going to be addressed the financial viability of the state for the future?
I think those are all questions that we see.
Heidi Murphy:
One of the issues with a Royal Commission is that they can tend to take a long time and they can tend to come up with pages and pages, books and books of findings and of recommendations. Is that a danger here? If we did ever get to a Royal Commission.
Sally Curtain:
I think the importance for Victorians is the truth-finding element of a Royal Commission. So actually getting to the bottom of it. And part of its function and purpose is to expose the corruption. So that's part of it. Ultimately, if there are criminal charges and those sorts of things, well, that follows, which would be the same for IBAC. So the importance I think for Victorians is getting to the bottom of this, what actually has been occurring and why and the truth. And from there we can rebuild trust and confidence, I think.
Andrew McKellar:
Well, on that, Heidi, I think I'd just reinforce one of the earlier points that Sally made as well, and that is a Royal Commission is important. It does shine a light on those issues, but it also is just one part of a broader response. So appointing the administrator, having that regulator as well, what we used to have in the ABCC, we don't have that anymore. We have the Fair Work Ombudsman now with less powers and less resources. So that's another issue. Equally, you've got to make changes. In the federal legislation, we need a stronger standard in terms of who is deemed to be a fit and proper person to have access as a delegate, to get onto work sites, to be coming into those sorts of places. And look, finally, if all of those things don't work, deregistration has to be on the table. That's the ultimate sanction.
Heidi Murphy:
Is it on the table?
Andrew McKellar:
Well, nobody's saying it's on the table. In fact, whether it's federal government, whether it's state government, whether it's the ACTU, they're all saying they don't want that as an option. We think that is something which should be on the table. If you can't make this work through other means, then that's an ultimate sanction.
Heidi Murphy:
- Do you think there should be a Royal Commission? Is the argument firm enough, clear enough from Sally, from Andrew, from the opposition, from any one of a number of people just Labour in piece? An absolute outright no to it. Everybody else seems to see the case for it. 133693, what is your view of it? The government's answer, Sally, are the premier's answer, and I've heard it so many times, I could be saying it to you in my sleep. Harriet Shing, the minister out today, repeats it again. We've had a Royal Commission before and it didn't into the construction sector and it was a war on wages. It never got to the bottom of anything. It never stopped the corruption that we have seen since. We always say, well, that was a decade ago and that was long before the big build and it's not like for like, but that is the argument they stick to.
We had a Royal Commission into building.
Sally Curtain:
I don't think that helps us with our current perception and confidence of the sector now. So it's pressing and urgent and is needed immediately. If we want to attract investment in Victoria, business needs to know they're going to be on an even playing field and a fair playing field. So again, I would say it's urgent and if not overdue, we need to doing it be Immediately.
Heidi Murphy:
And we'll get you both to put the headphones on. We've got a couple of calls here for you. Andrew, what did you want to say to us?
Caller:
Thanks, Heidi and guests. My question is if the Premier was implicated by a Royal Comission for Corruption, would the existing ministers potentially be also implicated? The Governor General, Harriet Shing, the Treasurer, and so on.
Heidi Murphy:
So if the premier is implicated by extension, are members of her team?
Caller:
Yes.
Heidi Murphy:
And where do we go from there?
Sally Curtain:
I mean, that's a very specific hypothetical scenario, but the Royal Commission would have methods and processes to deal with those specific circumstances. So if it's about something that an individual did, then it would only, I presume, apply to them. However, if it's something that's systemic, they would expose that and shine a light on that. So it might indicate that something that an individual did might have broader implications and therefore you could deal with it that way.
Heidi Murphy:
They are often seen as political witch hunts, Royal Commissions, rightly or wrongly. The opposition has said they'll have one. If they get to form government after November of this year, we'll have a Royal Commission. We'll be well and truly into it by this time next year if they form government. Is it a political witch hunt or is it necessary?
Andrew McKellar:
I think it's necessary and I think we've seen we have a Royal Commission going on at the moment into the impact of antisemitism. It's not a political witch hunt. This is a serious matter just as that is. You need to have somebody there who has that credibility, that judicial experience able to really pull this out, shine a light on it, really get to the bottom of it, call witnesses. And then that evidence can be taken away and processed by the police, whether it's the Victoria Police, the federal police working together to get prosecutions to take action to address those fundamental issues. So I think really it becomes a political issue if politicians don't take action, if they don't own up to it, if they don't show leadership. I think that's the problem.
Heidi Murphy:
Alright. Paul, what did you want to say?
Caller:
I think that it's so broad scale with what's going on that the people on your panel there will understand you just follow the money. And wherever it looks like there's too much wealth being created in a short space of time, particularly those that are attached to a lot of these government projects, it as sure as eggs are eggs that there's something not right going on. And I don't think it's a political witch hunt. I think that the government should not be involved in any of this sort of stuff at all.
Sally Curtain:
Spot on, Paul. And what I would say is one of the things we're calling for is for Victoria Police to get those follow the money powers. We don't have to wait for a Royal Commission for that. We could do that now. And the same for IBAC and greater resources for both of them.
Heidi Murphy:
Agreed. All right, we will take a break back with more from Andrew McKellar, the CEO of the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, and Sally Curtin, the CEO of the Victorian Chamber of Commerce and Industry. We'll talk a bit work from home and a few other things. I want to know if you guys think we should have daylight saving time permanently as standard. We'll come back to that.
23 minutes past four. If you need workplace advice or support to navigate change, the Victorian Chamber offers trusted business advice. Search Victorian Chamber and join today. I have with me Sally Curtin, the chief executive of the Victorian Chamber of Commerce and Industry and special guest Andrew McKellar, Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industries CEO. Working from home welcome to the state of mandated, almost mandated working from home, Andrew. Sally, I'd like to play both of you some audio of the Premier this week. It's a message for you guys.
Jacinta Allan:
Quite frankly, I don't understand why the Victorian Chamber who's meant to represent businesses would want to oppose something that has been found to be good for the economy.
Heidi Murphy:
Why are you opposing the working from home mandate? It's good for the economy.
Sally Curtain:
I guess back to the point, we represent our members and they feel very strongly about this. And I think the issue is at the heart of it. We are mandating the right to work from home. We don't have any challenge with work from home. We've got the highest work from home rates in the world. Employers and employees have solved this. All of the benefits of working from home have been realised. So there's not new savings to come through this legislation. It's essentially just making a right. And we have no idea the long-term impacts of doing this because it's essentially, it could be for you and your employer, you do it on a Wednesday and a Friday, and then a few weeks later it changes because it works for both of you. Here, this is mandating it and setting it all in concrete. It will reduce business' ability to respond to customers, to innovate.
I mean, there's so many negatives associated with this. I'm probably talking about it till I'm blue on the face.
Heidi Murphy:
I mean, it's an issue that will be campaigned on by Labour heading up to this election. The plan is to have it through parliament in the next couple of sitting weeks taking effect by September one. You've asked them to push that back till next year. Any response to that yet?
Sally Curtain:
Yeah, we sent a letter to all MPs. We think it's a really important consideration, particularly usually when legislation of this nature would be introduced, there'd be a regulatory impact statement or a legislative impact statement that causes the government who's introducing legislation to say, "What are the costs and the pros and cons and the long-term impacts of this? " For whatever reason, the government haven't done that in this instance. And so we feel it's important that MPs consider very carefully what they're introducing that will have a long tail and impact on this state. So MPs have come back to us. They want more information. They want to understand about our 10-point plan that we pull together with the Property Council, HIA, AIG, and many of the employer peaks. And we're all united in saying, "If you're not going to scrap it, at least fix it and make it workable."
Heidi Murphy:
Andrew, are any other states looking at something like this?
Andrew McKellar:
No. I certainly don't think so. I think again, looking at it from an outsider perspective, it's a rushed job. It will end up being botched, I think, and it'll be lead in the saddlebags for the Victorian economy. As Sally said, work from home is something that can practically be done in a common sense way between employers and employees. And under federal legislation, there's a right to request it and it can be contemplated, but it doesn't apply to everyone. So I think here for the Victorian government to try and push through a mandatory so - called right really is just tying the Victorian economy and business up in more red tape that it doesn't have to. Why they're doing it, it's not clear. But really this is one of those things where it should be left to common sense and then we'll get the benefits of it.
This won't deliver benefits.
Heidi Murphy:
Speaking of things that are not so common sense, daylight savings, should it be a standard time across the country, daylight savings? It changes forward and back. They're looking over in the US, there's a debate about where the daylight savings should just be the default time. What do you think?
Andrew McKellar:
So you mean just keep daylight saving going all year round?
Heidi Murphy:
All year round. I'm not advocating for it, but I'm a Queenslander. What do you think?
Andrew McKellar:
Look, I mean, I grew up with daylight savings, so I like daylight saving in the summer. I'm not so keen, I forget which way it is, when we go from daylight saving back to the normal time and we lose an hour. I'm not such a big fan of losing an hour. But look, I think here the biggest issue from a business point of view is when we have daylight saving, we have four time zones. So we have Queensland operating on its own time zone somewhere between South Australia and Western Australia. That adds complexity from a national business point of view. I think we should have one agreed approach. That's not possible. I don't know that we should have it all year round.
Heidi Murphy:
It impacts productivity, you're saying?
Andrew McKellar:
I'm not sure that it has a big impact on productivity, but I think having different time zones doesn't help.
Sally Curtain:
Yeah, it certainly adds cost to changes. So business always wants certainty and every change is time and cost really