Proponents of the current inquiry argue that exposing these financial arrangements is a vital step toward cleaning up the construction industry. By bringing to light the payments made to figures like Mick Gatto, the commission is providing the transparency necessary to dismantle long-standing, opaque networks that have historically dictated which companies win government work. Supporters emphasize that without such aggressive, independent investigations, the influence of powerful unions and their associates would continue to distort fair competition, ultimately costing taxpayers and honest businesses dearly.
This perspective holds that the inquiry is not merely about individual actors but about systemic reform. When labour hire firms are allegedly used as fronts to bypass standard procurement rules, the entire integrity of public infrastructure spending is compromised. By forcing these details into the public record, the inquiry empowers regulators to identify the specific mechanisms of influence—such as the use of dummy directors—that have allowed these practices to flourish. This is seen as a necessary, if uncomfortable, process to restore public trust in the delivery of essential state projects.
Furthermore, advocates for this scrutiny argue that the financial distress of firms like M Group, which prioritized payments to Gatto over tax obligations and worker wages, proves that these arrangements are inherently predatory. They contend that the state has a moral and legal obligation to ensure that public funds are not being siphoned off through corrupt intermediaries. For these observers, the inquiry serves as a critical accountability mechanism that protects the public interest by challenging the status quo and demanding a higher standard of governance in the construction sector.