Last week, Victorians found out what happened in 2016 when their state government negotiated a secret deal with the firefighters’ union.
Author
- Deborah Glass
Adjunct Professor of Law, Monash University
The Operation Richmond report , tabled by the state’s key integrity body the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission (IBAC), investigated allegations that some senior ministers and public servants made a pay deal with the United Firefighters Union behind closed doors, without the knowledge of the minister responsible.
The findings painted a sordid picture of underhand dealings, expletives requiring deletion, and “concerning conduct” by ministers and senior public servants, including former premier Daniel Andrews.
Should anyone care what happened ten years ago, especially as many of the key protagonists have long since left office?
As the former Victorian Ombudsman, I believe people should care a great deal. Four reports – IBAC’s Operation Daintree, the Ombudsman and IBAC’s Operation Watts, my investigation into the politicisation of the public service, and the most recent IBAC report – provide a compelling insight into how the Andrews government kept and retained power at the expense of both public integrity and the public purse.
What is the Operation Richmond report about?
The Operation Richmond report details how 720 firefighters handed out more than 300,000 how-to-vote cards at 109 polling locations to help Andrews secure his victory in 2014.
In return, the union expected a handsome payoff.
But negotiations for an enterprise bargaining agreement broke down amid claims of excessive union demands of dubious legality and operational interference.
Against a backdrop of threatened anti-government advertisements, Andrews secretly sent his fixers to take over bargaining.
The deal was sealed with a handshake and never disclosed to the responsible minister or the government authority conducting the negotiations. Anyone objecting to the deal was forced to resign or dismissed.
The emergency management commissioner who had written to the minister expressing concerns was compelled to withdraw the letter and replace it with a letter of support.
Safeguards designed to protect the public interest and mitigate improper influence were undermined at each step. Boards were stacked with political operatives. The union’s preferred candidate became the new fire services chief.
What did the report find?
The report speaks of “serious and concerning conduct”, “improper influence” and the politicisation of appointment processes.
Two of the most senior public servants in the state “failed to act with integrity, impartiality and courage”.
But it did not find “corrupt conduct”. This is in part because IBAC’s legislation , unlike most Australian jurisdictions, requires the high threshold of a criminal offence in order to find corruption.
This definition is plainly out of kilter with the public perception that misuses of public power and money are inherently corrupt. New premier Ben Carroll is looking at bringing forward proposed reforms to change this, which would be welcome.
For now, it’s no surprise the leader of the firefighters’ union described it as a “vindication”. But it sits oddly with his attempt less than two months previously to block its publication .
Years of claiming vindication
The claim of vindication when the IBAC does not make findings of corrupt conduct is familiar.
Former Andrews government minister and factional powerbroker Adem Somyurek claimed to be vindicated by the 2022 Watts report . It found the misuse of public funds for political purposes (including branch stacking ) and “a catalogue of unethical behaviour”.
The 2023 Daintree report exposed a union (the Health Workers Union) benefiting at public expense through improper procurement processes, an “indefensible culture” of requiring a public servant to express an opinion they did not honestly hold, and a slew of “concerning conduct and breaches of public duties”.
But Andrews’ response was dismissive. He said the report made “no findings against anyone” – a claim criticised by integrity experts.
Andrews did respond positively to the Watts report, issuing an apology .
But cynics may say this had more to do with the report exposing the misdeeds of his main factional rival and the timing of the report some months before the 2022 state election.
Too much secrecy
The themes of the IBAC reports resonate with my own report into the politicisation of the public service, completed in my previous capacity as the Victorian ombudsman.
Centralisation of power, excessive secrecy, the degrading of ministerial responsibility and the traditional public service function to provide frank and fearless advice were all features of the Andrews playbook. Too often, political expedience dominated policy considerations.
In addition to the above, there was the total secrecy in which the Suburban Rail Loop was conceived before the 2018 state election. This project is now turbocharging the state’s debt .
The latest allegations are about CFMEU corruption and waste on government building sites. These will soon be examined by a royal commission .
The telling responses
Also telling is how those who were or are in power respond to an integrity agency’s adverse findings.
Andrews dismissed the Daintree report as ” educational “.
After my criticism of the gestation of the Suburban Rail Loop – which was credited as pivotal to Labor’s victory in some key marginal seats – he made a remarkable comment. He said integrity agencies are entitled to their opinions, but:
they’re not entitled to pretend that anyone voted for them […] that they’ve somehow got a mandate that is equal to, let alone superior to, the duly elected government.
Last week Andrews responded to the Richmond report by maintaining his actions were in the public interest.
By contrast, Carroll has taken early steps to distance himself from his predecessors. He’s made pointed references to the importance of integrity in government and promised to reform the IBAC Act.
He has not dismissed the Richmond report, nor sought to diminish its exposure of bad behaviour.
These are promising signs, but it will be deeds, not words, that count.
Whichever party is elected to form government in Victoria this November, we can only hope its leaders have learned that the Andrews manual has consequences on trust in government and on the public purse. In Victoria, both are running dangerously low.
