‘Significant number of witnesses’ in secret union probe

Heated letters and emails between IBAC and United Firefighters Union lawyers drag confidential inquiry into the open.

Commissioner Robert Redlich’s correspondence represents the first explicit ­confirmation from IBAC that the inquiry known as Operation Richmond exists. Picture: AAP

Confidential letters and emails from IBAC Commissioner ­Robert Redlich and a senior legal adviser have revealed a “significant number of witnesses” have been grilled in secret hearings in an anti-corruption investigation into dealings between the ­Andrews government and the United Firefighters Union.

The correspondence, which has been seen by The Australian, provides the first account from the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission of its classified inquiry, which has been running since July 2019.

The documents, and related union documents, also reveal ­serious tensions have erupted between IBAC and UFU state secretary Peter Marshall over the marathon inquiry.

In a letter dated October 11, 2021, Mr Redlich QC writes: “Operation Richmond has been running now for over two years … during this time a significant number of witnesses have been compulsorarily (sic) examined.”

Mr Redlich’s correspondence represents the first explicit ­confirmation from IBAC that the inquiry known as Operation Richmond exists.

In his three-page letter, Mr Redlich sets out the scope of ­Operation Richmond, confirming long-held speculation it has been probing the 2016 industrial negotiations between the government and UFU in the midst of controversial changes handing the union more power over the CFA.

“I confirm that their notices do not preclude them discussing publicly any issues arising out of the subject of the investigation, namely the negotiation of the Enterprise Agreements in 2016 that covered the United Firefighters Union and the Country Fire Authority or the Metropolitan Fire Board,” he writes.

United Firefighters Union state secretary Peter Marshall. Picture: AAP

The IBAC and UFU letters and emails were exchanged between the organisations in an increasingly bitter legal stand-off over Operation Richmond. In the documents, UFU lawyers repeatedly complain to IBAC over media leaks about the inquiry.

Another IBAC letter, dated October 19, 2021, and written by Stacey Killackey, executive director (legal, assessment and review and compliance), also points to the high-profile list of witnesses called into private hearings.

“If there was an internal leak, the list of significant witnesses who have been examined, the facts that have emerged from those examinations, the nature of the issues concerning your client, the range of protracted litigation being pursued by your client to impede or halt the investigation would have found their way into the public domain,” she writes.

“That these matters have remained confidential is testament to the fact that IBAC staff have not breached their obligations.”

It’s been previously reported that Mr Marshall had been privately examined by IBAC as part of Operation Richmond.

Mr Marshall did not respond to questions on Wednesday.

IBAC declined to comment on the letters on Wednesday. “As a matter of practice, IBAC does not comment on whether it has a complaint or investigation before it,” a spokesperson said.

The IBAC letters seen by The Australian don’t name any individuals privately examined in ­Operation Richmond.

Premier Daniel Andrews has repeatedly dodged questions about whether he has been questioned as part of Operation Richmond. It has been confirmed the Premier has made private appearances in two separate anti-corruption probes, Operation Sandon and Operation Watts.

Mr Redlich’s October 11 letter reveals serious tensions between IBAC and the UFU, with the IBAC commissioner informing Mr Marshall’s lawyers he “strongly refutes” their allegations.

“IBAC again strongly refutes your claim that there is any sound reason to believe that the source of the information provided to the media has come from within IBAC,” he writes.

“These allegations do not gain strength from their repetition. I consider the issue resolved.”

Mr Redlich, in his letter, also rejected Mr Marshall’s lawyer’s claims that IBAC’s conduct was responsible for causing the UFU chief distress.

“I note that he has been engaged in protracted litigation with IBAC since 2019 about a range of matters relating to Operation Richmond,” Mr Redlich writes.

“While IBAC respects the rights of individuals to exercise their lawful rights, the ongoing litigation has been a primary and significant cause of the delays encountered by IBAC in concluding its investigation.

“Had the issues in dispute been resolved, IBAC’s confidential investigation would in all likelihood have concluded by now and the asserted distress caused by its ­continuance could have been ­alleviated.”

The next day, Mr Marshall’s lawyers responded, describing his letter as “most disappointing”.

“Your suggestion that Mr Marshall can publicly discuss the matters under investigation is quite disingenuous.

“Such questioning leaves him only with two invidious options; to lie and deny the investigation, or tell the truth and thereby breach his confidentiality notice.

“On this basis, Mr Marshall will decline your advice in this ­regard.”

Seven days later, IBAC returned fire on the UFU lawyers in a stinging letter by Ms Killackey in which she demands they cease writing directly to Mr Redlich.

“Until now, there has been no issue taken with your correspondence being addressed to the commissioner or with your requests to draw your correspondence to the commissioner’s attention,” she writes.

“However, having regard to the content of your latest letter, any further communication should be directed to me.

“As to the final paragraph of your letter, it is unhelpful to raise issues of disingenuousness as we do not accept that your client is unable to … respond publicly about any matter concerning the circumstances in which the UFU resolved its dispute with government in 2016-18.”