In brief: On 5 August 2026, Victoria's Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission (IBAC) tabled its Operation Richmond special report. It did not find corrupt conduct and recommended no criminal charges — but it found “serious and concerning conduct” by senior public officers, including ministers and MPs, during the firefighter enterprise bargaining negotiations of 2016–2019 and the creation of Fire Rescue Victoria. The report matters because it shows how conduct that never crosses into criminality can still corrode integrity — and it carries lessons for any board or executive team, not just government.

What is IBAC's Operation Richmond?

Operation Richmond was an IBAC investigation that began in 2018, after complaints alleged corrupt conduct in the negotiation of the Country Fire Authority (CFA) enterprise bargaining agreement (EBA) — including an allegation that United Firefighters Union (UFU) Secretary Peter Marshall had blackmailed then-Premier Daniel Andrews. IBAC later widened the scope to cover the Metropolitan Fire Brigade (MFB) EBA and the 2019 establishment of Fire Rescue Victoria (FRV). IBAC found no evidence of blackmail. What it found instead was a pattern of conduct that fell well short of the standard the public expects.

What did Operation Richmond find?

IBAC found that in 2016 a “back-room” deal with Mr Marshall was authorised by the then-Premier and negotiated by then-Special Minister of State Gavin Jennings, with assistance from a then-Deputy Secretary of the Department of Premier and Cabinet — to the exclusion of key stakeholders, including the CFA itself and the then-Emergency Services Minister. IBAC found this ran contrary to government policy, procedure, convention and the relevant codes of conduct.

According to the report, the arrangement left government exposed: Mr Marshall was able to extract concessions, gain privileged access to ministers, and exert extraordinary influence under the threat of industrial action and public exposure of the undisclosed deal. Among the specific concerns IBAC identified:

  • The CFA board was dismissed after it declined to endorse an EBA it did not know was built on the undisclosed union deal; replacement members were then appointed outside proper process because they were seen as amenable to the government's position.
  • Sensitive or confidential information was passed to Mr Marshall, including by a board member and by a senior public servant.
  • Inappropriate stakeholder management gave Mr Marshall privileged access, including as he sought to influence the selection of the FRV Commissioner.
  • Government did not take visible or effective action to address Mr Marshall's conduct, which IBAC said exposed individuals to harm and fostered perceptions of favouritism.

Why did IBAC find “no corrupt conduct” but still criticise it?

This is the part that surprises people, and it is the most important thing to understand about the report. Under the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission Act 2011, “corrupt conduct” must amount to a criminal offence. IBAC did not find that threshold was met, and did not recommend charges. But the absence of a crime is not a clean bill of health. IBAC found conduct that politicised public appointments, undermined the accountability frameworks that protect the integrity of government, and increased the risk of corruption taking hold. IBAC Commissioner Victoria Elliott said Victorians expect officials to act honestly “without fear or influence” — and Operation Richmond found conduct that did not meet that expectation. The gap between “not criminal” and “seriously improper” is exactly where integrity risk lives.

What are IBAC's three recommendations?

IBAC made three recommendations aimed at the risks it identified:

  1. A statement of values for ministers, introduced through legislation, alongside a published and regularly reviewed Ministerial Code of Conduct.
  2. A Ministerial Handbook offering practical guidance on government policy and the operation of the Westminster conventions.
  3. Updated ministerial training covering how to navigate relationships with interest groups and lobbyists.

IBAC has said it will follow up with stakeholders to monitor what action is taken.

What are the implications?

For government and the Victorian public sector, the report is a marker. IBAC has signalled it will track implementation, the recommendations point toward codified, enforceable standards for ministerial conduct, and the findings feed a long-running public debate about transparency in dealings between government and powerful industrial stakeholders. It is worth noting the report has also been the subject of legal proceedings brought by the UFU and Mr Marshall in relation to its publication.

For boards, executives and organisations more broadly, the lessons travel well beyond politics:

  • Side deals and excluded decision-makers are a red flag. The moment a material agreement is negotiated around the people who are supposed to be in the room — a board, a responsible executive, a proper approval chain — integrity risk rises sharply.
  • Undisclosed conflicts and concealment compound. What begins as an off-book arrangement creates leverage, then pressure to conceal, then further improper decisions. Concealment rarely stays contained.
  • Governance controls only work if they are respected. Dismissing a board that asks the wrong question, or appointing people because they will not, hollows out the very controls meant to protect the organisation.
  • Information handling matters. Confidential information reaching an external party with its own agenda is a classic corruption-risk vector — and an information-security failure.
  • Managing powerful external stakeholders is a discipline. Privileged access, without transparency and clear boundaries, is how improper influence starts.

None of this required a criminal act to cause real damage. That is the point, and it is why organisations that take integrity seriously test their own decisions against the standard before a regulator or an investigator does.

Frequently asked questions

What is IBAC's Operation Richmond about?

It is an IBAC investigation into the negotiation of the CFA and MFB enterprise bargaining agreements between 2016 and 2019 and the 2019 establishment of Fire Rescue Victoria, examining allegations of corrupt conduct involving senior public officers and the United Firefighters Union.

Did IBAC find corruption or recommend charges?

No. IBAC did not find corrupt conduct as defined in its Act, and did not recommend criminal charges. It did find “serious and concerning conduct” that increased the risk of corruption.

When was the Operation Richmond report released?

It was tabled in the Victorian Parliament on 5 August 2026.

What did IBAC recommend?

Three reforms: a legislated statement of values and a published Ministerial Code of Conduct; a Ministerial Handbook on policy and the Westminster conventions; and updated ministerial training on dealing with interest groups and lobbyists.

What happens next?

IBAC has said it will follow up with stakeholders to monitor action on its recommendations. The report has also been the subject of legal proceedings relating to its publication.

This article is general commentary on a public report, not legal advice, and reflects IBAC's findings as stated in its published materials. If your organisation is weighing an integrity or governance question — or wants an independent view before a decision is tested externally — start a confidential conversation.