Questioning the focus on individual figures over systemic reform

Critics of the current inquiry process suggest that focusing heavily on individuals like Mick Gatto may distract from deeper, systemic issues within the construction industry and government oversight. While the allegations of payments and tax avoidance are serious, some observers argue that these problems are symptoms of a broader failure in the regulatory environment. They contend that if the government had maintained robust oversight bodies, such as the former Australian Building and Construction Commission, the conditions that allow for such alleged influence might have been mitigated. There is a concern that the inquiry risks becoming a political tool rather than a genuine path toward reform, potentially scapegoating specific actors while failing to address the underlying policy gaps that allow companies with poor tax records to secure government contracts in the first place. This perspective warns that without comprehensive structural changes to structural changes to how the industry is regulated and how contracts are awarded, the cycle of controversy will likely continue regardless of the outcome of this specific investigation. The focus, they argue, should remain on the government's responsibility to manage public projects with higher standards of due diligence.