Victoria’s anti-corruption watchdog has found that senior figures within the former Andrews government engaged in conduct it described as “serious and concerning” in their dealings with the state’s firefighters’ union leadership, though the report stopped short of making any findings of corrupt conduct against individuals. Former premier Daniel Andrews has defended the actions of those named, as the state opposition seized on the findings to renew its attacks on the government.
What the IBAC report found #
The report, tabled in state parliament on Wednesday, follows a long-running investigation by the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission into interactions between senior government figures and the leadership of the United Firefighters Union. According to the findings tabled in parliament, IBAC characterised elements of the conduct examined as “serious and concerning” but said the evidence did not meet the threshold required to establish corrupt conduct under the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission Act 2011.
IBAC’s reports are a matter of public record once tabled, and VCN is reporting on the document’s contents as presented to parliament. We have not independently verified findings beyond what is contained in the tabled report and parliamentary record.
Andrews responds #
Mr Andrews, who left the premiership in 2023, said in comments reported following the report’s release that he stood by the actions of those involved and rejected any suggestion of wrongdoing. VCN has sought further comment from Mr Andrews’ office and will update this report if a response is received.
It is understood the findings relate to a period when tensions between the government and the firefighters’ union were the subject of extensive public scrutiny, including disputes over enterprise bargaining and union influence within the sector. VCN is not asserting the truth of any claims beyond what appears in the tabled IBAC report.
Opposition seizes on findings #
The state Coalition used the report’s release to escalate its criticism of the Victorian Labor government, with a senior opposition figure labelling the administration “a gangster government” in parliament. VCN is reporting this as a political statement made in the parliamentary record; it is a characterisation by a political opponent and does not reflect any finding made by IBAC itself.
Government MPs have pushed back on the description, telling parliament the report made no findings of corrupt conduct against any individual. The exchange forms part of ongoing political debate in Victoria and readers should note that parliamentary statements, while privileged, are not equivalent to judicial or quasi-judicial findings.
Why this matters for the Big Build era #
The report lands amid sustained scrutiny of governance arrangements around Victoria’s major infrastructure and public sector projects, an area VCN’s Big Build Watch coverage follows closely. Union influence over industrial arrangements on major projects — including the West Gate Tunnel, the Metro Tunnel and the broader Big Build pipeline — has repeatedly attracted attention from regulators, including the Australian Building and Construction Commission and, at a state level, IBAC.
Firefighting services fall outside the traditional construction Big Build footprint, but the underlying questions raised by this report — about how governments engage with powerful union stakeholders, and where the line sits between legitimate industrial negotiation and improper influence — are directly relevant to how Victoria manages major public projects and public sector industrial relations more broadly.
What IBAC can and cannot do #
It is worth explaining to readers unfamiliar with the watchdog’s powers exactly what this report does and does not mean. IBAC is Victoria’s primary anti-corruption body, established to investigate and expose public sector corruption and police misconduct. It can make findings that conduct was “corrupt” under the relevant legislation, refer matters to police or prosecutors, and recommend reforms to public administration.
Critically, an IBAC finding of “serious and concerning” conduct is not the same as a finding of corrupt conduct, and is not a criminal charge, a conviction, or a finding by a court. IBAC’s own report, as tabled, is understood to explicitly state that the threshold for corrupt conduct findings was not met in this matter. No individual named in connection with the report has been charged with any criminal offence as a result of these findings, and VCN is not suggesting otherwise.
Union responds #
VCN understands the United Firefighters Union has previously disputed characterisations of its conduct in dealings with government during the period under examination. We have sought comment from the union’s leadership regarding the tabled report and will include any response received.
Readers should note that neither the union nor any individual named in connection with this matter has been found by IBAC to have engaged in corrupt conduct, and any individuals referenced in the report are entitled to respond to its findings through parliamentary and public channels.
What happens next #
Tabled IBAC reports typically trigger a period of political and public debate but do not of themselves compel further legal action unless matters are separately referred to police or prosecutorial bodies. VCN understands there is no indication at this stage that any such referral has been made in relation to this report.
The state opposition has called for further scrutiny, including potential parliamentary committee examination of the findings. Government figures have maintained that the report vindicates their conduct given the absence of a corrupt conduct finding. VCN will continue to follow developments as they unfold in parliament and, if relevant, before any regulatory or judicial body.
This matter involves ongoing political and parliamentary debate rather than criminal proceedings. Any individuals referenced are not accused of any criminal offence in connection with this report, and are entitled to the presumption that no adverse finding beyond what IBAC itself has stated should be inferred.
Readers seeking further background on IBAC’s role and powers can consult the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission website, which publishes its tabled reports in full.
