Week after week after week there's a new drama
In the months before a state election, Victorian Premier Jacinta Allan finds herself navigating a convergence of integrity failures, legislative controversy, and ministerial embarrassment that has quietly fractured confidence within her own party. The crises — delayed anti-corruption reforms, electoral laws negotiated outside traditional bipartisan norms, and a minister's troubling character references — are individually survivable but collectively corrosive. What troubles Labor's internal observers most is not any single misstep but the rhythm of them: a government that appears perpetually reactive, unable to seize the initiative before damage compounds. And yet the party remains bound to her, not by conviction, but by the absence of anyone else.
- Three separate crises in five days have pushed Labor MPs from quiet unease into private conversations about whether Allan's leadership can survive to November.
- Anti-corruption reforms announced this week arrived six months too late — after a parliamentary inquiry, two years of damaging headlines, and an estimated $15 billion in alleged union corruption costs to taxpayers.
- Electoral donation laws passed under crossbench deals rather than bipartisan negotiation have drawn accusations of self-interest, opened the door to legal challenges, and left independent candidates holding donations they may now have to return.
- A newly appointed minister's history of writing character references for men convicted or accused of assault and domestic violence has become a question-time liability, with many in caucus believing Allan's response — accepting a promise to stop — fell short.
- Poor polling, rising One Nation support, and a cost-of-living budget that failed to reset the narrative have reignited leadership speculation, but no unifying alternative candidate exists to make a challenge viable.
Jacinta Allan endured one of the most punishing weeks of her premiership, with three distinct crises arriving in five days — each manageable in isolation, but together enough to reopen quiet conversations inside Labor about whether her leadership can hold until the November election.
The first crisis was one of timing. Allan announced new powers for the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission, expanding its reach over private contractors and broadening the definition of corrupt conduct. The reforms were welcome in principle, but they came six months after a parliamentary inquiry recommended them — and nearly two years after union corruption allegations first exploded into public view, bringing with them a catalogue of misconduct that a separate inquiry suggested may have cost Victorian taxpayers up to $15 billion. One Labor MP, speaking anonymously, said the delay had cost the party dearly: earlier action, they argued, could have stopped the bleeding before it became a wound. If Labor loses in November, the reforms may never pass at all — the opposition has promised to introduce similar powers but has not committed to the broader conduct definition.
The second crisis was structural. After the High Court struck down Victoria's electoral donation caps in April, the government needed new laws quickly. Bipartisan negotiation — the traditional approach — broke down with the Liberal opposition, so Labor struck a deal with the Greens and crossbench instead. The resulting legislation imposes a $7,500 cap per donor over four years, restores disclosure requirements, and increases public funding. It passed after a marathon sitting, but the opposition accused the government of rewriting the rules in its own favour. Legal challenges are already being prepared by an independent who successfully challenged the original laws, and the Coalition is considering its own action. Independent candidates who received large donations during the unregulated gap now face a difficult choice about whether to return the money.
The third crisis was ministerial. Newly appointed minister Luba Grigorovitch had written 33 character references over the years, and several have become serious liabilities — including references for men accused or convicted of assaulting women, a supporter of a former Iranian supreme leader, and a man fined for selling counterfeit goods. The opposition pressed hard in question time and demanded her removal. Allan's response — accepting Grigorovitch's commitment to write no further references — satisfied few inside caucus, where some drew an unfavourable comparison to a Liberal candidate who lost his endorsement for writing a reference for a sex offender.
What unites the anxiety inside Labor is not any single failure but the accumulation of them. A cost-of-living budget last month was meant to be a circuit breaker; it wasn't. Polling remains poor, Allan's personal ratings are weak, and One Nation is gaining ground. MPs who fear for their own seats are again asking whether she can lead the party into November. The answer, for now, is that she probably will — not because confidence has been restored, but because there is no one waiting in the wings capable of uniting Labor's factions. The clock, as one MP noted, is still running.
Jacinta Allan had a brutal week. In the span of five days, Victoria's premier faced three separate crises—each one manageable on its own, but together they've set off quiet alarm bells inside her own party. Some Labor MPs are now asking, in private conversations, whether it's even worth trying to save her leadership, or whether the damage has already run too deep.
The first problem landed on Monday. Allan announced that her government would grant the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission new powers to investigate how private contractors spend public money, and would broaden the definition of corrupt conduct to make investigations easier to launch. It sounds like progress. It isn't, according to several of her own MPs. Ibac has been asking for these powers for a decade. The union corruption allegations that triggered the need for them emerged nearly two years ago, and since then the headlines have been relentless—bikies, drugs, strippers on construction sites, the whole sordid catalogue. A parliamentary inquiry released a report suggesting union corruption could have cost Victorian taxpayers up to $15 billion. And Allan's response came six months after that inquiry recommended exactly these reforms. One Labor MP, speaking anonymously, put it bluntly: she should have acted months ago. "It could have cauterised an issue that was causing us to bleed votes," the MP said. If Labor wins the November election, the reforms won't become law until late 2027. If the opposition wins, they've promised to introduce the powers in December—though they haven't committed to the broader definition of corrupt conduct.
The second test came from electoral donation laws, or rather from the absence of them. In April, the High Court struck down a section of the Electoral Act that had capped donations at $4,970 over four years. Suddenly there were no limits, no disclosure requirements, nothing. Electoral law is traditionally negotiated across party lines precisely to avoid the appearance that one side is rewriting the rules for itself. But Allan said Labor had no choice. Negotiations with Liberal leader Jess Wilson and shadow attorney general James Newbury stalled, so Labor cut a deal with the Greens and crossbench MPs instead. The new law imposes a $7,500 cap per donor over four years, reintroduces disclosure, and increases public funding. It passed on Friday morning after a marathon debate. But the opposition tore into it. David Southwick, the deputy Liberal leader, accused the government of trying to "steal an election." The Coalition claimed Labor would continue to benefit from union affiliation fees and increased administrative funding—though union fees can't legally be used for campaigning, and the Coalition also benefits from the administrative funding increase. The damage is already spreading. Paul Hopper, an independent candidate who successfully challenged the original donation laws, has engaged lawyers to challenge the new ones. The Coalition is considering legal action too. Climate 200 founder Simon Holmes à Court argues the caps will hurt challengers more than major parties. Independent candidates Sophie Torney and Shima Ibuki, who received substantial donations during the period when no laws existed, now face a choice: return the money or break the law.
The third test involved Luba Grigorovitch, a newly appointed minister. She had written 33 character references over the years, and some of them have become liabilities. She wrote one for a taxi driver who assaulted female passengers. Two others went to men accused of domestic violence. She wrote one for a supporter of former Iranian supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Another went to a man fined for selling counterfeit clothing. The opposition has hammered her in question time, tried to connect her to former construction union leader John Setka, and demanded she be removed from cabinet. Allan's response was to accept Grigorovitch's promise that she would never write another character reference. Some Labor MPs think that's insufficient. When a Liberal candidate wrote a character reference for a sex offender, he lost his endorsement. They wanted stronger action. But Allan held firm.
What troubles Labor MPs most is the pattern. "Week after week after week there's a new drama," one said. Another noted that Allan had promised last month's cost-of-living budget would be a "circuit breaker," a moment that would reset the narrative. It hasn't worked. The polling is poor. Allan's personal ratings are weak. One Nation is rising. Some MPs, genuinely fearful of losing their seats, are again wondering aloud whether she can lead them into November. The problem is structural: there's no obvious alternative. No one who could unite the party's left and right factions. "It's not too late," one MP said, but the clock is running.
Citas Notables
It could have cauterised an issue that was causing us to bleed votes— Unnamed Labor MP, on Allan's delayed response to anti-corruption reforms
This leaves my campaign bankrupt, while the major parties are filling their election war chests with taxpayers' money— Independent candidate Shima Ibuki, on the impact of new donation law caps
La Conversación del Hearth Otra perspectiva de la historia
Why does the timing of these three crises matter so much? They're separate issues.
Because they're not separate in how voters experience them. It's not "integrity reform" and "donation laws" and "character references." It's a government that looks like it's lurching from one problem to the next, always reacting, never getting ahead.
But Allan did act on the anti-corruption powers. She granted them.
Two years too late. Ibac asked for them a decade ago. The damage—the union corruption, the $15 billion question mark—that's been bleeding the party for months. Acting now looks like damage control, not leadership.
What about the donation law deal with the Greens? That seems pragmatic.
It is pragmatic. But it also looks like Labor couldn't negotiate with the opposition, so they cut a side deal. The opposition gets to call it rigged, and they're not entirely wrong to frame it that way, even if the substance is defensible.
So it's all about optics?
No. It's about momentum. When you're losing, every decision looks worse than it is. When you're winning, the same decisions look shrewd. Allan's not winning right now.
Is she actually in danger of losing her job?
Probably not before the election. But there's real anxiety in the caucus. If the polling gets worse, if there's another scandal, the conversation changes fast. The problem is there's no one waiting in the wings.
What would need to happen for her to turn this around?
She'd need a week—just one week—where nothing goes wrong. Where the government controls the narrative instead of reacting to it. She hasn't had that in months.