Daniel Andrews and Jacinta Allan to be called before royal commission into Victoria’s construction sector: ‘Nobody is off limits’
Former Victorian premier Daniel Andrews and his successor Jacinta Allan are to be summoned to give evidence before a royal commission examining Victoria's construction sector, with officials stating that "nobody is off limits" in the inquiry. The commission's scope and the involvement of two of the state's most senior political figures underline the seriousness with which authorities are treating alleged problems in the industry, which could have significant implications for Victorian infrastructure policy and public confidence in the sector.
Further specific details of the royal commission's terms of reference, timeline and the exact allegations under examination were not available in the source material provided. The article text supplied consisted largely of unrelated Daily Mail headlines rather than substantive reporting on the Victorian inquiry itself.
- Andrews and Allan to appear before Victoria construction royal commission.
- Officials say "nobody is off limits" in the probe.
- Full details of the inquiry's scope were not available.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Supporters of a wide-ranging inquiry argue that a construction sector plagued by cost blowouts, delays and allegations of union standover tactics or corrupt practices demands full transparency, and that political leaders who set infrastructure policy and oversaw major projects cannot reasonably be shielded from scrutiny simply because of their seniority. They contend that public confidence in a royal commission depends on its independence being real rather than nominal, meaning genuinely nobody, including a sitting premier or her popular predecessor, should be treated as off-limits if evidence points to decisions made at the top. For them, calling Andrews and Allan as witnesses is a sign the process is working as intended, not evidence of political targeting.
The case against
Others, while not opposed to scrutiny of the construction sector in principle, caution that hauling the current and former premier before a royal commission risks becoming a de facto political trial that blurs the line between genuine wrongdoing and ordinary policy decisions taken in good faith. They argue that major infrastructure programmes involve thousands of decisions made by public servants, contractors and independent bodies, and that ministers should not be presumed complicit in problems simply because projects sat within their portfolios. This view holds that commissions can be shaped, consciously or not, by political timing and public appetite for a scalp, and that fairness requires the presumption that leaders acted reasonably on the advice available to them at the time, unless specific evidence says otherwise.