Royal Commission Preparedness: Key Actions for Infrastructure Participants

Many organisations will see the Victorian Royal Commission as a construction industry issue. That would be a mistake. The opening hearing of the Royal Commission into the Integrity of Major Public and Civil Infrastructure Construction Projects in Victoria on 23 September 2026 suggests the inquiry will extend well beyond allegations of criminal conduct and workplace relations misconduct.

The Commission appears focused on a broader question: what did organisations know, when did they know it, and what did they do about it? 

Project owners, government agencies, principals, Tier 1 contractors and senior executives may all face scrutiny regarding their governance frameworks, oversight processes, risk management practices and responses to allegations of misconduct. 

What does this mean for industry participants?  

For many organisations, the greatest challenge may not be proving that misconduct occurred. 

It may be demonstrating that appropriate steps were taken to identify, escalate, investigate and respond to warning signs. 

The Commission is likely to examine: 

• What risks or warning signs were identified. 

• Whether concerns were escalated appropriately. 

• What due diligence was undertaken on labour hire providers, subcontractors and site personnel. 

• Whether allegations were investigated promptly and effectively. 

• Whether governance and compliance frameworks were capable of detecting and responding to misconduct. 

Experience from previous royal commissions demonstrates that scrutiny often extends beyond those alleged to have engaged in wrongdoing to those accused of failing to prevent, detect or respond to it. 

The Commission's powers to compel extensive document production, conduct private hearings and work alongside law enforcement agencies mean organisations should assume that historical decisions, internal communications and risk management processes may be examined in significant detail. 

Three actions organisations should take now 

1. Conduct a rapid risk and exposure assessment 

Organisations should identify projects, relationships and activities that may attract scrutiny, including: 

• Government infrastructure projects. 

• Projects involving significant union activity. 

• Labour hire arrangements. 

• High-risk subcontractors or suppliers. 

• Prior allegations relating to misconduct, intimidation, corruption or organised crime influence. 

The objective is simple: understand potential exposure before issues become the subject of regulatory scrutiny, media reporting or formal inquiry. 

2. Preserve and review key evidence 

Now is the time to ensure relevant records are secure, accessible and capable of being reviewed quickly. 

Priority materials may include: 

• Internal investigation reports. 

• Whistleblower complaints. 

• Incident reports. 

• Board and executive papers. 

• Procurement records. 

• Site access records. 

• Labour hire documentation. 

• Contractor due diligence files. 

• Compliance and audit reports. 

Many organisations underestimate how difficult it can be to reconstruct historical events years after they occurred. Early document preservation can significantly improve an organisation's ability to respond to inquiries, notices to produce and witness examinations. 

3. Test governance and escalation processes 

Boards and executives should ask themselves: 

• Would we know if serious misconduct, corruption or organised crime involvement was occurring on one of our projects? 

• How would concerns be identified and escalated? 

• Who would investigate? 

• What evidence would be available? 

• Could we demonstrate that management acted appropriately and in a timely manner? 

A targeted review of governance, compliance and escalation frameworks can identify vulnerabilities before they are exposed by a regulator, royal commission, whistleblower or the media. 

Key takeaway 

The clearest message from the opening hearing is that this Royal Commission appears focused not only on alleged wrongdoing, but also on organisational accountability. 

The organisations best positioned to withstand scrutiny will be those able to demonstrate: 

• Robust governance and oversight. 

• Effective escalation pathways. 

• Appropriate due diligence processes. 

• Timely and well-documented investigations. 

• Clear evidence of decision-making and remedial action. 

In this environment, the question is no longer simply whether misconduct occurred. It is whether an organisation can demonstrate that it recognised risks, responded appropriately and fulfilled its governance obligations when it mattered most. 

Preparing now may significantly reduce both legal and reputational risk later.