Watchdog Failed to Meet 'Exemplary' Conduct Expectations on CEO Contract
The ACT Integrity Commission has been criticised for failing to adhere to procurement laws with meticulous precision when it awarded a substantial contract to its former chief executive officer. A parliamentary oversight committee has declared that the corruption watchdog did not meet expectations for exemplary conduct in this matter.
Contract Awarded Without Tender Process
In August 2022, while still employed by the commission, the outgoing CEO was granted a $150,000 contract to complete work he had initiated during his tenure. This arrangement commenced on the very same day that his successor began their role. The contract was for services typically performed by the commission's CEO or staff members.
The former chief executive terminated the contract two months ahead of schedule in December 2022, ultimately receiving $113,326.23 for services rendered. This amount was less than the originally contracted sum but has nonetheless raised significant procedural concerns.
Parliamentary Committee Findings
The Legislative Assembly committee responsible for overseeing the commission expressed clear disappointment with the procurement process. The committee found the watchdog's approach "did not meet expectations of meticulous record-keeping of procurement decision-making and compliance with legislation, regulation and policy."
In their report, the committee emphasised that the Integrity Commission must demonstrate moral and practical leadership to the ACT public sector. They stated unequivocally that the commission needs to be "exemplary, not simply 'adequate'" in applying procurement legislation, regulation, and policy.
Commissioner's Defence and Inspector's Assessment
Integrity Commissioner Michael Adams KC has consistently defended the decision to appoint the former CEO to a consulting role without conducting a tender process. Last year, he asserted that any reasonable public scrutiny would view the appointment as "not only entirely proper but a sensible response to the problem which the commission then faced."
However, the Inspector of the ACT Integrity Commission, Iain Anderson, found that the commission failed to properly consider or manage a potential conflict of interest when awarding the contract. While Anderson determined that Mr Adams did not have an actual conflict of interest or breach statutory obligations, he identified significant deficiencies in procurement documentation.
The inspector's report highlighted "an insufficient level of documentation of the reasons for the procurement decision" as a central and repeated issue. This problem was compounded by failures to adequately address conflicts of interest and potential apprehensions of bias.
Recommendations for Improved Governance
The parliamentary committee has made several recommendations to address these concerns:
- The commission should take immediate steps to ensure meticulous record-keeping of procurement decisions
- Strict compliance with legislation, regulation, and policy must be maintained
- A seven-point list of principles should be adopted to foster an effective working relationship between the commission and its inspector
Committee chair Ed Cocks of the Liberals emphasised that while tension between oversight roles is expected, cooperation rather than capture should be the goal. The principles state that when irreconcilable views emerge, officers should consult the ACT Legislative Assembly to maximise public trust in the integrity framework.
Broader Implications for Public Sector Standards
The committee stressed that maintaining public confidence requires the Integrity Commission to set and uphold the highest standards for the entire ACT public sector. They noted that meticulous compliance with procurement protocols is essential not just for procedural correctness, but for fostering and sustaining public trust in governmental institutions.
While acknowledging there was no question regarding Commissioner Adams' personal integrity, the committee maintained that the commission's processes must be beyond reproach to effectively lead by example in the territory's public administration.
