Firefighters’ union boss unmasked over bid to suppress corruption report

Firefighters’ union boss Peter Marshall can be named as the person seeking to suppress a report by the state’s corruption watchdog, after the Court of Appeal knocked back a push to keep his identity secret.

Marshall was one of two applicants pushing to prevent the publication of the Operation Richmond report by the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission, a case which is still before the court.

Operation Richmond centred on the contentious dealings between the United Firefighters Union under Marshall and the Andrews government in 2016. The investigation began in 2019 and was largely complete by 2022, but has been tied up in legal wrangling since then.

Both Marshall and former premier Daniel Andrews were privately questioned about their conduct by the corruption watchdog.

IBAC was poised to publish its final report into Operation Richmond last month before the latest legal challenge was launched.

That case will be heard later this month in a closed court, but in setting a date for the trial, Supreme Court judge Clare Harris ruled against keeping pseudonyms in place to protect the identities of the two people who brought the case.

The Court of Appeal this week heard a side application seeking to maintain these pseudonyms until the legal matter was concluded.

But the court denied this application on Friday, allowing Marshall’s identity to be revealed for the first time since the case was lodged.

The other party seeking to challenge the publication of IBAC’s report can be revealed as the UFU itself. The identities were confirmed by IBAC and the Supreme Court.

When Marshall was asked at Labor’s state conference last month by a Network Ten reporter if he was the plaintiff taking IBAC to court, he flatly denied his involvement.

“No, I’m not the plaintiff,” he said at the time. “No, I’m not.”

In a statement on Friday, Marshall said he respected the court’s decision but could not say anything further.

“We have been restricted at law from commenting on Operation Richmond. Examinations were in private, confidentiality notices were issued,” he said.

“The law still prohibits us from commenting on what is in the report and what it may say about us or anyone else.

“Yet, while we have not been able to talk about these things, there has been a consistent and sustained flow of information to the media.

“We will make a further statement, when we can. In the meantime, we will be making no further comment.”

Marshall said he and the union challenged the release of the Operation Richmond report because he alleged it was “unlawful for various reasons”.

“IBAC has undertaken not to publish the report until the proceeding is heard and determined. It will be heard on 24-25 June 2026. For legal reasons, I cannot comment on that proceeding,” he said.

Paul Holdenson, KC, representing Marshall and the union, argued in court on Thursday that the publication of his clients’ names would invite speculation about the contents of the report even as the document remained confidential.

He said there was no ability to undo this speculation once their names were public, and restrictions remained limiting what could be said about the report.

“They can’t say anything,” he said. “My clients’ hands are tied.”

Holdenson had also sought to argue the case in closed court but this was denied, forcing the lawyers to make their arguments on Thursday without mentioning names and by referencing page numbers in court documents, rather than saying those details out loud.

Thomsons partner Justin Quill, a lawyer representing The Age and other media groups, told the court on Thursday the pseudonyms were unnecessary.

He said speculation about the identity of the people behind the court case would continue while they remained anonymous.

Quill also argued there was nothing preventing the mystery applicants from contesting the findings of the report even if their identities were known.

“There’s nothing stopping them saying ‘and we reiterate we’ve done nothing wrong’,” he said.

“That would mean far less speculation than would exist [if his name was kept secret].”

Quill said there was significant public interest in the main case, which will determine whether a report written by IBAC can be provided to the parliament.

“It’s hard to imagine anything that’s more in the public interest,” he said.

“Who is bringing the case in my submissions attaches very much to that public interest.”

Glen Ayres, for IBAC, said there was no mistake in Justice Harris’s initial decision and that there was nothing special about the case that invited the use of pseudonyms more than other court proceedings.

An IBAC spokesperson confirmed on Friday that Marshall and the UFU were the parties to the court proceedings. They said the refusal of a pseudonym order was in the public interest and important for transparency.

“We remain committed to the release of the special report, pending the resolution of court proceedings,” the spokesperson said.

Get alerts on breaking news as it happens. Sign up for our Breaking News Alert.