Thursday, 2 November 2023

Government procurement policy

Bev McARTHUR (Western Victoria) (17:44): (577) My adjournment matter this evening is for the Minister for Environment and concerns a rather confusing set of answers that the different levels of Parks Victoria bureaucracy and officialdom have provided to me and to a constituent of mine. In quick summary, the Victorian Auditor-General’s Office (VAGO) report entitled Managing Conflicts of Interest in Procurement was highly critical of Parks Victoria’s procurement, noting Parks repeatedly broke its own procurement rules in employing, without due tendering process, a single expert. Contracts were deliberately split. A consultant with a strong personal relationship to Parks Victoria staff was chosen, exemptions sought after the consultant had begun work and the claim made that no other expert was qualified to make the assessments.

When I questioned Parks CEO Matthew Jackson at the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee he relied upon the fact that VAGO did not show any ‘self-interest’ in the contract award. That is irrelevant. The question was not about financial corruption, it was about the conclusions reached and the groupthink which dominates Parks’ approach to rock climbers in the Grampians. Mr Jackson also stated the report required no peer review because it:

… has none of the findings or recommendations … to do with prior or future decisions other than identifying tangible assets within the Grampians …

He confirmed this in writing, saying that all reports:

… did not make any recommendations for management purposes.

So although much about the contract awards and resulting work could still be questioned, at least that point seems very clear indeed. Oddly, however, when my constituent FOIed the tenders, the paid commission was revealed. It was to identify threats, impacts and management recommendations for each place. So if this did not happen, was the contract properly fulfilled? Was the contractor paid for works which were not fulfilled? The mystery was elevated to the chair of the board of Parks, who to give him credit duly investigated the matter and was clear and timely in his conclusions. The chair wrote on 21 March this year that:

Mr Jackson’s statement to Public Accounts and Estimates Committee was correct in fact, and … he did not mislead either the Parliament or the community.

Confusingly, however, that was not the end of the matter. In May a director from the Department of Energy, Environment and Climate Action denied the contractor had failed to fulfil the contract and wrote:

The investigator determined that management recommendations were provided to Parks Victoria.

This is pretty categorical. My question for the minister is: what on earth is going on? It is a simple question. Did the commissioned reports contain management records or did they not? Someone is wrong here. Who is it?