Victoria's anti-corruption watchdog has tabled a report finding senior members of the former Daniel Andrews government engaged in "serious and concerning" conduct in their dealings with firefighters union boss Peter Marshall, but stopped short of finding any individual committed corrupt conduct.

The Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission (IBAC) tabled its special report on Operation Richmond in the Victorian parliament on 5 August 2026, roughly eight years after the investigation was launched in 2018. The report examined allegations of corrupt conduct during enterprise bargaining agreement (EBA) negotiations involving the United Firefighters Union (UFU), the Country Fire Authority (CFA), the Metropolitan Fire Brigade (MFB), and the Victorian government. The negotiations concerned pay deals for the CFA and MFB and their subsequent amalgamation into Fire Services Victoria (FSV) The Guardian.

IBAC's central finding was that the Victorian government struck an "undisclosed deal" with Peter Marshall, secretary of the UFU, granting him "privileged access" to responsible ministers during negotiations. The arrangement allowed Marshall to exert "extraordinary influence" over the CFA and MFB enterprise bargaining processes, to the exclusion of other key stakeholders The Guardian. The report identified conduct that included actions contrary to policy, procedure and codes of conduct, deliberate attempts to conceal and mislead, and the misuse of information.

The investigation originated from a tip-off in 2018 alleging that Marshall had "blackmailed or otherwise compromised" Daniel Andrews to alter his position on the CFA EBA. IBAC found no evidence of blackmail and did not substantiate that allegation. Both Andrews and Marshall denied the claim The Guardian.

The report's release followed a protracted legal battle. IBAC first indicated that publication of the Operation Richmond special report was delayed due to court proceedings, announced on 21 May 2026 IBAC. On 12 June 2026, IBAC issued a further statement advising that the parties who had commenced proceedings against the commission had taken an additional legal step IBAC. In June 2026, the United Firefighters Union and Peter Marshall were identified as being behind the legal push to block the report's release, which included a High Court challenge ABC News. As of early August 2026, the report was confirmed ready for release The Australian.

IBAC's description of Operation Richmond, published in April 2026, framed it as an investigation into allegations of corrupt conduct during EBA negotiations IBAC. The commission had previously tabled a separate but related report, Operation Turton, in September 2024, which investigated allegations of unauthorised access and disclosure of information by MFB employees and uncovered a problematic workplace culture within the brigade IBAC.

The distinction IBAC draws between "serious and concerning" conduct and a formal finding of corrupt conduct matters under Victoria's integrity framework. IBAC's statutory threshold for a corruption finding is high; conduct that falls short of that bar can still warrant public reporting when it reveals systemic governance failures, breaches of codes of conduct, or concerted efforts to mislead. The report's catalogue of concealed dealings, privileged union access, and misuse of information sits squarely in that category.

The broader context here is the integrity architecture surrounding Victorian labor relations and the political accountability of ministerial staff. The Andrews government's handling of the CFA dispute was politically combustible at the time, pitting volunteer firefighter interests against union negotiations and ultimately driving legislative restructuring of the state's fire services. IBAC's finding that an undisclosed side deal with a single union secretary shaped the trajectory of those reforms will fuel scrutiny of how EBA negotiations are conducted and documented when political imperatives intersect with industrial relations.

The legal campaign to suppress the report also warrants attention. The UFU's recourse to the High Court and multiple lower-court proceedings extended the investigation's effective timeline to nearly a decade, raising questions about the capacity of anti-corruption bodies to publish findings in a timely manner when subjects deploy litigation as a delay mechanism. IBAC's own public statements, issued incrementally across May and June 2026, tracked each legal maneuver, underscoring the constraints under which the commission operated.

IBAC did not substantiate the blackmail allegation that prompted the investigation. What it did find is a pattern of undisclosed influence, ministerial access granted selectively, and deliberate concealment, conducted by senior figures within a government that held office throughout the relevant period. Whether the findings translate into systemic reform of Victorian EBA processes, or remain a documented historical record, will depend on the political and institutional response that follows.