The release of Victoria’s long-awaited Operation Richmond report has reignited fierce debate over political accountability, government transparency and the influence of powerful unions inside state politics.

Hours after Victoria’s Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission (IBAC) publicly released its findings, 3AW Drive host Jacqui Felgate delivered a blistering on-air reaction, questioning whether elected ministers or powerful external interests were truly directing decisions inside the Victorian Government.

“Who runs this state?” Felgate asked listeners.

She argued that if Victoria’s anti-corruption watchdog possessed stronger enforcement powers, politicians responsible for the conduct described in the report would likely have faced far more serious consequences.

“If we had an IBAC with powers to properly punish this type of behaviour, these politicians would be gone,” she said.

The comments followed publication of the final Operation Richmond report, the culmination of an investigation that has taken years to complete after multiple legal challenges delayed its release.

IBAC examined the Victorian Government’s dealings with the United Firefighters Union (UFU) during the bitter industrial dispute surrounding the 2016 enterprise bargaining agreement and the eventual creation of Fire Rescue Victoria.

Although the watchdog ultimately stopped short of making formal findings of corrupt conduct, it concluded that senior public officials—including former Premier Daniel Andrews, ministers and senior bureaucrats—engaged in conduct it described as “serious and concerning“.

According to the report, senior government figures participated in confidential negotiations that bypassed established government processes, excluded the responsible minister and relevant agencies, and significantly weakened normal accountability mechanisms.

IBAC found these actions were inconsistent with accepted government procedures, ministerial standards and public sector codes of conduct, even though they did not satisfy Victoria’s relatively narrow legal definition of corruption.

One of the central criticisms made by the watchdog concerned the extraordinary level of influence exercised by UFU secretary Peter Marshall during negotiations over firefighter workplace agreements.

The report concluded that the manner in which negotiations were conducted created circumstances in which the union leader was able to exercise an unusually high degree of influence over government decision-making.

Investigators also found that key negotiations occurred without the knowledge or involvement of then Emergency Services Minister Jane Garrett, whose opposition to the proposed agreement ultimately led to her resignation from cabinet in 2016.

IBAC was particularly critical of governance failures that allowed important decisions affecting public administration to be negotiated outside established ministerial processes.

However, despite its extensive criticism, the watchdog emphasised that the evidence did not meet the statutory threshold required for findings of corrupt conduct under Victorian legislation.

That distinction has become one of the report’s most politically contentious aspects.

Critics argue that behaviour can be unethical, improper or contrary to accepted standards without necessarily satisfying the legal definition of corruption, while supporters of the former government have pointed to the absence of corruption findings as an important outcome.

Felgate’s criticism centred precisely on that gap.

She argued the report exposed systemic problems in how government business had been conducted during the Andrews era.

“This shows you how business is done in Victoria,” she said.

“It shows you the relationship between unions and the Andrews-Allan government.”

Her remarks quickly became one of the strongest media reactions following publication of the report and reflected broader concerns already being raised across the Victorian political landscape.

The Opposition has seized upon the findings as evidence of a breakdown in ministerial accountability, arguing the report demonstrates an unhealthy relationship between government and powerful union interests.

Government figures, meanwhile, have highlighted that IBAC expressly declined to make findings of corruption against Daniel Andrews or other key participants.

The investigation itself stretches back to allegations arising from negotiations between the Victorian Government and the United Firefighters Union nearly a decade ago.

Those negotiations occurred during a highly contentious dispute over firefighter pay and conditions, with disagreements eventually contributing to major structural reforms that merged the Metropolitan Fire Brigade and the Country Fire Authority’s career firefighters into Fire Rescue Victoria.

IBAC’s inquiry examined whether inappropriate influence, misconduct or corrupt conduct had occurred during those negotiations.

Investigators reviewed extensive documentary evidence, interviewed numerous witnesses and considered intercepted communications as part of the lengthy investigation.

The final report paints a picture of secret meetings, confidential communications and decision-making processes that operated outside normal government channels.

IBAC concluded these practices significantly reduced transparency and weakened mechanisms designed to ensure ministers remain accountable for major public decisions.

Despite those findings, the watchdog also acknowledged that Victoria’s corruption laws impose a relatively high legal threshold before conduct can officially be classified as corrupt.

That legal framework has itself become a major point of debate following publication of Operation Richmond.

Several political figures and integrity advocates have argued the report demonstrates why Victoria should broaden the statutory definition of corrupt conduct and strengthen the powers available to IBAC.

Premier Ben Carroll has indicated the government will consider the report’s recommendations, including proposed reforms aimed at strengthening governance and integrity arrangements across the public sector.

Former Premier Daniel Andrews has defended his actions, noting that IBAC did not make findings of corruption against him.

Likewise, Peter Marshall has rejected suggestions of wrongdoing and has criticised aspects of the investigation and its conclusions.

Regardless of where political opinions fall, Operation Richmond is likely to remain one of Victoria’s most closely scrutinised integrity investigations.

Its findings have reopened broader questions about ministerial responsibility, transparency, the role of unions in government policymaking and whether Victoria’s anti-corruption laws are equipped to deal with conduct that falls short of criminal corruption but nevertheless undermines public confidence.

For many observers, including Jacqui Felgate, the report raises an uncomfortable question that extends well beyond one investigation.

If senior officials can engage in conduct described by IBAC as “serious and concerning” without findings of corruption or significant legal consequences, the debate now shifts to whether Victoria’s integrity framework itself requires reform.

That discussion is expected to continue as political leaders respond to IBAC’s recommendations and voters assess what the findings mean for accountability in the lead-up to the state’s next election.