The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission’s (ACCC) plan to use artificial intelligence to detect bid-rigging on major government projects, including infrastructure for the Brisbane 2032 Olympics, may sound reassuring. High-tech oversight feels modern, decisive and tough on misconduct. But it misses the real problem.
The ACCC says it wants to scan tender data for patterns that look “too cozy” or moving “in lockstep”. While the construction industry may appear tightly knit, it’s far from cozy. If anything, it’s a cutthroat race to the bottom.
The problem isn’t too little competition on price – it’s too much.
For decades, government procurement has been dominated by who is the cheapest? This obsession with cost drives underbidding, encourages risk-taking and forces contractors to fight tooth and nail when those risks materialise. The lowest price at the front end rarely equals best value when the project is completed.
And this matters to everyone.
When governments focus solely on upfront cost, taxpayers pay the price. Projects can be delayed, budgets blown out and infrastructure delivered below standard. True value for money, especially for government projects, is about more than dollars; it’s about timely delivery, enduring quality and long-term benefits for the community.
If you are in the market for a parachute, you don’t buy the cheapest – so why should major infrastructure be any different.
The stakes are even higher for Brisbane 2032. There simply isn’t time or capacity for traditional procurement processes that tie up hundreds of people across multiple companies for months, all competing to price a design that is often barely 20 per cent complete. That approach wastes time, inflates costs and increases risk – precisely what an immovable Olympic deadline cannot afford.
A better approach for the Olympics, and other major infrastructure, would be to select the right contractor early based on capability, experience and value they bring – not just price. Then work collaboratively to refine the design, manage risks and develop a transparent, independently verified budget. Performance can be tied to clear indicators that reward delivery, quality and productivity, not just cost cutting. This is how you build faster, smarter and fairer and how you leave a legacy beyond the closing ceremony.
The ACCC makes the case that there were instances of bid rigging at the last Olympics in Tokyo, but the context is very different. The Japanese construction market is roughly four times the size of Australia’s, yet we have almost the same number of contractors. Government-funded construction represents around 34 per cent of the market in Japan, compared with only 10 per cent here. Japanese contractors also enjoy profit margins of about 6 per cent – almost double what Australian firms make. Put simply, the industry in Australia is far more competitive.
Where the ACCC should focus is not hypothetical algorithm-detected collusion between contractors, but long-standing, highly visible anti-competitive behaviour that has distorted the market for years.
Union conduct, particularly by the CFMEU, has played a significant role in restricting competition across parts of the construction sector. Freedom of association has too often existed in name only. Secondary boycotts, pressure campaigns and the misuse of enterprise agreements have been used to block companies from entering projects, dictate which subcontractors can be engaged, and threaten disruption if directions are not followed.
These practices reduce choice, inflate costs and suppress productivity – all ultimately paid for by taxpayers. Yet they have attracted remarkably little regulatory scrutiny compared to corporate behaviour. When a single union can effectively control access to labour on major projects, competition is constrained at its source.
If governments are unwilling to reinstate a specialist construction regulator like the Australian Building and Construction Commission, then the least they can do is ensure the ACCC has both the mandate and the appetite to tackle anti-competitive conduct by all market participants, including unions.
Competition itself is not bad per se. But competition purely on price is.
Government, as the industry’s largest client, has the power to change this. By adopting procurement models that reward innovation, productivity and long-term value – and by being transparent about how projects are awarded – the race to the bottom can be turned into a race to the top. And in that environment, AI will be used to improve efficiency rather than to detect fraud and parachutes, cheap or otherwise, will no longer be required as projects outcomes improve.
Opinion piece by Jon Davies, CEO, Australian Constructors Association, published in The Australian, 9 January 2026, p.20