Victoria’s independent integrity agencies have documented public money being used for Labor factional activity, political pressure influencing government contracts, and senior public servants becoming reluctant to challenge the wishes of ministers.
These are not merely allegations raised by political opponents. They are findings and observations published by the Victorian Ombudsman and the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission (IBAC).
In July 2022, Operation Watts exposed the misuse of publicly funded parliamentary staff for internal Labor Party activities, along with nepotism, bullying and attempts to influence government grants. In April 2023, Operation Daintree examined how political pressure compromised the procurement of a $1.2 million training contract awarded to a union-linked organisation.
In December 2023, the Victorian Ombudsman published a broader investigation into the politicisation of the public service. Although it did not substantiate allegations of widespread partisan hiring, it uncovered serious weaknesses in recruitment, administrative independence and the willingness of public servants to provide unwelcome advice.
Together, these investigations reveal something more consequential than individual political scandals. They expose vulnerabilities in the institutions intended to ensure that government decisions are made in the public interest.
After twelve years of Labor government, Victoria faces substantial debt, pressure on essential services and difficult questions about the results of major public investments. The previous five investigations in this series examined those outcomes. This final investigation examines the people, relationships and institutions behind the decisions.
Who has access to government? Who influences policy and public spending? Who challenges decisions before they are made? And what happens when independent watchdogs identify serious failures?
2014–2018: POLITICAL POWER AND PUBLIC RESOURCES
Daniel Andrews came to office in December 2014 promising a government focused on public services, infrastructure and opportunity. But the distinction between public administration and party-political interests would become a recurring subject of investigation.
In 2018, the Victorian Ombudsman published findings concerning Labor’s use of parliamentary electorate officers during the 2014 election campaign. The investigation, commonly known as the Red Shirts investigation, found that a scheme involving publicly funded electorate officers was improper and breached parliamentary rules.
The Ombudsman concluded that 21 participating MPs had breached the Members’ Guide. However, the Ombudsman did not conclude that the conduct was criminal, and subsequent assessments did not establish criminal offending.
Parliamentary staff are employed to perform public duties. When publicly funded resources are diverted into political campaigning, the distinction between serving constituents and serving a political party is compromised.
Were Victoria’s existing accountability arrangements strong enough to prevent public resources from being used for partisan advantage? The investigations that followed suggest weaknesses were not confined to one episode.
2020–2022: OPERATION WATTS EXPOSES THE FACTIONAL MACHINE
In June 2020, allegations concerning branch stacking and misuse of public resources within the Victorian Labor Party became the subject of an IBAC investigation. The Victorian Ombudsman subsequently joined the investigation. Their joint report, Operation Watts, was tabled in July 2022.
Investigators documented publicly funded electorate officers and ministerial staff undertaking internal Labor Party factional activities. They identified instances involving the hiring of unqualified people, nepotism, forged signatures, bullying and attempts to influence government grants in favour of organisations associated with political factions.
Some staff were uncomfortable with the activities they were expected to undertake but felt unable to resist. Others regarded the practices as an accepted part of the political culture.
The investigation focused primarily on the Moderate Labor faction associated with former minister Adem Somyurek. Investigators found that Somyurek played a central role in organising factional activities and misusing public resources. The report also identified broader cultural vulnerabilities within the Labor Party.
It did not establish that every faction or political party engaged in the same conduct. Nor did investigators conclude that criminal offences had been established under the applicable law. That distinction is important. But the absence of criminal findings did not make the conduct acceptable.
Investigators identified weaknesses in the legal framework that limited accountability for serious misuse of public resources. The system could identify improper conduct without necessarily providing effective consequences for those responsible.
Operation Watts made 21 recommendations intended to strengthen parliamentary integrity and accountability. The Andrews Government accepted all 21. The next question was whether acceptance would translate into meaningful reform.
2023: THE WATCHDOGS RETURN
In September 2023, IBAC and the Victorian Ombudsman published a progress report on Operation Watts. They acknowledged progress in some areas but expressed concern about the pace of important reforms.
The Government had allocated more than $8 million towards implementation and committed to stronger parliamentary integrity arrangements. Yet the agencies reported that key legislative reforms remained outstanding and that they had not been consulted on draft legislation.
An independent agency investigates. It publishes findings. The Government accepts recommendations. A public announcement follows. But acceptance is not implementation, and implementation is not necessarily proof that the underlying problem has been resolved.
Who independently verifies that reforms work, rather than merely confirming that legislation or administrative changes have been introduced? This question extends to Auditor-General findings about infrastructure, public finances, education, health services and government administration.
2018–2023: WHEN POLITICAL INFLUENCE REACHES GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS
Operation Daintree provides a particularly revealing example of how political influence can affect public administration.
The investigation concerned a $1.2 million contract for occupational violence and aggression training in the health sector. The proposed provider was the Health Education Federation, an organisation linked to the Health Workers Union.
The training addressed a legitimate problem. Violence against healthcare workers was a serious workplace safety issue. The question was whether the Government’s decision to award the contract followed appropriate procurement processes.
IBAC examined the involvement of ministerial staff and the response of departmental officials. The investigation found that a senior political staffer helped a union develop the proposal and that political intervention compromised the department’s procurement and contract management.
Departmental officers raised concerns about the provider’s capability and the absence of a competitive tender. Nevertheless, senior officials proceeded. The Victorian Ombudsman subsequently reported that officials believed awarding the contract reflected the wishes of the minister and government. This belief affected decision-making throughout the department.
Operation Daintree did not make findings of corrupt conduct. But it exposed serious failures of administrative independence. A government contract was compromised because public servants responded to perceived political expectations rather than consistently applying independent procurement judgement.
Unions, businesses and community organisations all have legitimate interests in government decisions. Those relationships must not override competitive processes, independent advice or proper use of public money.
2023: WHO CONTROLS THE PUBLIC SERVICE?
In December 2023, the Victorian Ombudsman published a major investigation into allegations that the public service had become politicised. It examined appointments, recruitment practices and the relationship between ministers, political advisers and senior public servants.
The Ombudsman did not find direct evidence of widespread partisan hiring designed to advance Labor Party objectives. It examined appointments involving former ministerial staff and found procedural irregularities, but did not establish that the appointments were motivated by overt party-political considerations.
However, the investigation uncovered significant administrative weaknesses, including excessive reliance on direct appointments, inadequate documentation, rushed recruitment processes and concerns about the independence of senior public servants.
The Ombudsman described a culture in which officials could become excessively responsive to ministerial preferences. Some senior public servants feared the consequences of providing advice that ministers did not want to hear. The investigation also identified the concentration of decision-making outside traditional departmental structures.
Ministers are elected to make policy decisions. Public servants are expected to provide accurate evidence, identify risks, explain alternatives and administer decisions lawfully. The relationship breaks down when officials begin anticipating political preferences instead of providing independent assessments.
A minister does not need to issue an explicit improper instruction for political pressure to affect a decision. Officials may change recommendations because they believe they already know the answer government expects.
THE PREMIER’S OFFICE AND THE CONCENTRATION OF POWER
The Premier’s Private Office featured prominently in Operation Daintree and the wider debate about the independence of Victoria’s public administration.
Political advisers help elected governments coordinate priorities, develop policy and implement election commitments. But they are not an alternative public service. They should not become an unofficial decision-making authority capable of overriding departmental expertise or procurement safeguards.
Operation Daintree raised concerns about political staffers’ influence on departmental advice and actions. The 2023 Ombudsman investigation separately identified concerns about decisions becoming concentrated outside specialist departments.
Neither investigation established that every decision made through the Premier’s office was improper. But both raised questions about the balance between political direction and administrative independence.
Major infrastructure commitments, population growth, energy targets, hospital capacity and education reforms all required specialist advice, realistic forecasts and an understanding of financial consequences.
When independent advice conflicts with political priorities, which one prevails — and is there a record of why?
UNIONS: REPRESENTATION, ACCESS AND INFLUENCE
The relationship between the Labor Party and the union movement is longstanding and openly acknowledged. Unions represent workers, negotiate employment conditions and advocate for workplace protections. Their participation in public debate is legitimate.
But a close relationship between a governing political party and organisations that also influence public-sector employment, infrastructure delivery and procurement creates potential conflicts that must be managed transparently.
Operation Daintree provides a documented example of why. The concern was not union involvement itself. It was political pressure affecting the process by which a union-linked organisation received a government contract.
Victoria’s major infrastructure program also makes the relationship between government, construction unions, contractors and taxpayers important. Industrial agreements can influence labour costs, working arrangements, productivity and project delivery. Governments must balance worker safety and fair employment conditions against their responsibility to manage public expenditure.
Which organisations were consulted before major policies were adopted? What access did union representatives have to ministers and senior officials? Were competing industry and public-interest perspectives considered? Did agreements affect project costs or delivery schedules?
THE FINANCIAL AND ORGANISATIONAL CONNECTION
The relationship between Victorian Labor and affiliated unions extends well beyond consultation and political support.
Victorian Labor confirms that affiliated unions provide financial support to the party and hold 50% of delegate positions at State Conference, a central forum for party policy and internal decision-making.
A 2023 Centre for Public Integrity report found that between 2018 and 2022, Victorian Labor received approximately $5 million in union affiliation fees, compared with $801,000 in disclosed political donations.
Crucially, annual affiliation fees are not classified as political donations under Victorian electoral law. They are treated differently from ordinary donations and are not subject to the same donation cap.
These arrangements are lawful and reflect Labor’s historical relationship with the union movement. But they also mean that affiliated unions have an established financial and organisational role within the governing party, not merely access to it from outside.
When unions help fund a political party, participate in its internal decision-making and negotiate with its government over policies, public employment and major projects, how are potential conflicts managed — and how transparent are those relationships to taxpayers?
BUSINESS, DEVELOPERS AND THE POLITICS OF ACCESS
Unions are not the only organisations seeking to influence government. Property developers, infrastructure contractors, energy companies, consultants, industry associations and advocacy groups all have reasons to engage with ministers and public officials.
Some provide technical expertise that government needs. Others seek policy changes, funding, contracts or regulatory decisions that may directly affect their commercial interests.
Lobbying is not inherently improper. But public confidence depends on knowing who is lobbying, what they are seeking and whether decision-makers have conflicts of interest.
Victoria has political donation disclosure requirements, donation caps and regulatory arrangements intended to strengthen transparency. The Victorian Electoral Commission publishes information about disclosed donations.
Donation disclosure alone cannot establish the full extent of political influence. Influence can also occur through meetings, industry working groups, advisory committees, professional relationships and informal access.
A donation does not prove that a government decision was purchased. Equally, the absence of a donation does not establish that no influence occurred.
The most revealing evidence would be a documented sequence: an organisation seeks an outcome; gains access to decision-makers; the Government considers or changes policy; and a contract, funding decision or regulatory benefit follows. Such a sequence warrants examination, but causation must not be claimed without evidence.
POLITICAL DONATIONS: TRANSPARENCY HAS LIMITS
Victoria’s political finance laws have changed substantially over the period examined in this series. Donation caps and disclosure requirements now restrict certain forms of political funding and make information available to the public.
In 2026, further legislation was introduced after a High Court decision affected the operation of Victoria’s electoral funding laws. The Victorian Electoral Commission states that the new legislation restored much of the previous framework while making additional changes.
The existence of safeguards is important. But political finance regulation is only one part of accountability. Public funding of political parties, third-party campaigning, affiliated organisations and other permitted financial arrangements also deserve examination.
Do disclosures provide a sufficiently complete picture? Can voters easily trace relevant financial relationships? Are regulators adequately equipped to investigate potential breaches?
These questions apply to every political party. But after twelve years in government, Labor’s relationships and decisions warrant particular scrutiny because it has exercised executive authority throughout the period.
PUBLIC CONTRACTS: WHO GETS THE MONEY?
Victoria’s infrastructure program involves enormous expenditure. The Auditor-General’s report on the state’s 2025–26 financial statements identifies a $181.4 billion capital pipeline in the 2026–27 Budget, including money already invested and planned future expenditure.
The report warns that construction inflation, labour shortages, procurement risks, scope changes and contract variations can increase costs and debt.
Every major project involves decisions about planning, consultants, contractors, subcontractors, procurement methods and contract variations. Some decisions are made through competitive tenders. Others may involve different procurement arrangements justified by project circumstances.
The test is whether the chosen approach delivers value for money while managing conflicts, risk and integrity. When project costs increase, the public needs to know why.
Was the original estimate realistic? Were risks identified before contracts were awarded? Did government change the project scope? Were contractors adequately scrutinised? Did industrial arrangements or procurement decisions affect costs? Were independent warnings acted upon?
WHEN THE WATCHDOGS FIND PROBLEMS, WHAT HAPPENS NEXT?
Victoria has several institutions responsible for investigating government conduct and performance. IBAC investigates serious corruption and police misconduct within its jurisdiction. The Victorian Ombudsman investigates administrative actions and can expose improper conduct. The Victorian Auditor-General examines public-sector performance, financial management and the use of public resources. Parliamentary committees scrutinise legislation, expenditure and government administration.
But identifying a failure does not automatically correct it. An audit recommendation may be accepted without being fully implemented. A government may introduce reforms without demonstrating that they resolved the original problem. An investigation may establish serious misconduct without finding that a criminal offence occurred.
Operation Watts demonstrated how weaknesses in parliamentary rules could leave serious misconduct without effective consequences. Operation Daintree demonstrated how political pressure could compromise administrative decision-making without resulting in findings of corrupt conduct. The Ombudsman’s public-service investigation demonstrated that significant weaknesses can exist even when allegations of systematic partisan appointments are not substantiated.
A government can escape a finding of criminal wrongdoing while still failing the standards of administration and accountability that the public is entitled to expect.
Who tracks accepted recommendations? Who verifies that corrective measures worked? What happens when implementation is delayed? How easily can Victorians see the results?
TWELVE YEARS, THREE PREMIERS AND ONE GOVERNING PARTY
Daniel Andrews led Victoria from December 2014 until September 2023. Jacinta Allan succeeded him and remained Premier until July 2026. Ben Carroll now leads the Government.
Each premiership has its own decisions, ministers and responsibilities. It would be inaccurate to attribute every action of one administration personally to its successors.
But Labor has governed continuously throughout the twelve-year period examined in this series. That continuity matters. Labor has had sustained responsibility for the institutions, administrative systems and accountability arrangements under which Victoria operates.
The question is not whether every policy has failed, nor whether every person involved in government has acted improperly. It is whether the institutions responsible for managing public money and making public decisions have remained sufficiently independent, transparent and accountable.
WHO REALLY RUNS VICTORIA?
Formally, Victorians elect a Parliament. The Government exercises executive authority under law. Ministers are responsible for their portfolios. Public servants provide impartial advice and administer public programs. Independent watchdogs scrutinise conduct and performance.
But the official investigations examined here demonstrate that the practical exercise of power can be more complicated.
Party factions have used publicly funded resources to advance internal political interests. Political advisers have exerted pressure that compromised procurement. Senior officials have sometimes become overly responsive to perceived government preferences. Recruitment and appointment practices have created legitimate concerns about transparency and independence.
None of this establishes that unions, businesses, lobbyists or political factions secretly control every government decision. It does establish that influence can reach well beyond the ballot box.
The danger is not simply that influential organisations gain access to government. It is that the safeguards intended to distinguish legitimate advocacy from improper influence may fail. When that happens, decisions can be shaped by relationships and political expectations rather than independently tested evidence.
THE FINAL ACCOUNT
Across six investigations, this series has examined the record of twelve years of Labor government in Victoria: debt and infrastructure commitments; population growth and housing; energy policy; health services; education; and the political and administrative systems through which decisions are made.
The issues differ, but one question connects them: what happens when governments make major commitments without sufficiently transparent evidence, independent scrutiny and accountability for results?
Governments have every right to pursue their elected policy agendas. They must also explain decisions, disclose relevant risks, demonstrate what public expenditure achieves and show that serious problems identified by independent watchdogs have been corrected.
Twelve years of government. Billions of dollars in public commitments. Repeated warnings from independent oversight bodies.
The ultimate responsibility rests with those elected to govern. And the ultimate judgement belongs to the people of Victoria.
PRIMARY SOURCES
Victorian Ombudsman and IBAC, Operation Watts (2022)
https://www.ombudsman.vic.gov.au/our-impact/investigation-reports/operation-watts-a-joint-investigation-into-allegations-of-serious-corrupt-conduct-involving-victorian-public-officers-including-members-of-parliament/
Victorian Ombudsman, Operation Watts Progress Report (2023)
https://www.ombudsman.vic.gov.au/our-impact/investigation-reports/operation-watts-progress-report/
Victorian Ombudsman, Alleged Politicisation of the Public Sector (2023)
https://www.ombudsman.vic.gov.au/our-impact/investigation-reports/alleged-politicisation-of-the-public-sector/
Victorian Ombudsman, Investigation of a Matter Referred from the Legislative Council (2022)
https://www.ombudsman.vic.gov.au/our-impact/investigation-reports/investigation-of-a-matter-referred-from-the-legislative-council-on-9-february-2022-part-1/
ABC News, Operation Daintree findings (2023)
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-04-19/ibac-vic-government-daniel-andrews-operation-daintree-findings/102237590
Victorian Electoral Commission, Political Donations
https://www.vec.vic.gov.au/candidates-and-parties/political-donations
Victorian Electoral Commission, Political Finance Laws 2026
https://www.vec.vic.gov.au/about-us/legislation/political-finance-laws-2026
Victorian Auditor-General, Annual Financial Report of Victoria 2025–26
https://www.audit.vic.gov.au/report/auditor-generals-report-annual-financial-report-state-victoria-2025-26
Victorian Labor, Mutual Support
https://www.viclabor.org.au/labor/mutual-support
Centre for Public Integrity, Money and Power in Victorian Elections (2023)
https://www.vic.gov.au/sites/default/files/2023-09/P1489-Money-and-power-in-Victorian-elections-%5BWeb%5D.pdf