Department of Infrastructure chief executive Andrew Kirkman knew about serious corruption issues at the department’s Katherine office, including tender manipulation, failure to disclose conflicts of interest and other improper procurement practices since at least 2019, but does not appear to have taken any action, according to a new ICAC “review” that confirmed misconduct in the department.

The recently released ICAC review – which followed an internal secret 474-page report produced in 2019 that Mr Kirkman refused to publicly release – found staff weren’t declaring conflicts of interest and that managers did not check, that “gifts” had been secretly given to staff who made decisions on tenders, that confidential information about tender bids was being shared, and that companies were quoting “well below anticipated costs” and later getting contracts varied.

Commissioner Michael Riches stated the review was “not the same as an investigation”, which focussed on the Katherine office’s practices, policies and procedures rather than on individuals who committed wrongdoing.

It is unclear why Mr Riches would complete a “review” and not a proper investigation into the credible allegations of misconduct, which were included in “a number of reports of alleged impropriety” he said his office received before commencing the review.

Instead of holding anyone accountable for their actions, Mr Riches decided to offer 18 “recommendations” to DIPL relating to the misconduct in its Katherine office.

Among Mr Riches’ findings were three instances “of what appeared to be tier splitting to circumvent tier 2 procurement requirements”, but instead of investigating further, he wrote that “it is critical that procurements are not manipulated” and that “such conduct … is a significant red flag for impropriety”.

He also found three instances where a staffer who had disclosed a conflict of interest with a construction company was given an exemption from their manager to directly engage that company and “award work”.

In another instance, he wrote that the review identified “a number of contract variations” that could not be explained, after previously stating this could be done to award a contract at a lower bid and then varied to pay the company more money later.

Instead of investigating those variations further, he wrote that “ongoing review and assessment of contract variations … will assist the department to identify trends, issues and weaknesses in processes and training”.

The ICAC also found six instances where tender panel members did not independently assess tender responses and that on one occasion, “purported independent assessment documents were largely identical between all panel members”.

Despite finding that this “tend[s] to undermine the very purpose of the panel process”, he only made a recommendation that the chief executive “remind staff” to independently assess tenders before discussing them.

No accountability, just recommendations

The recommendations included that Mr Kirkman, as chief executive, force staff to disclose conflicts of interest annually, that he “circulate” a memo to staff “reminding” them that responses to government tenders are not to be provided to selection panel members, that he “reinforce to staff” that they cannot continue to split invoices or tiers for tenders, that staff be told to “independently assess” a tender before discussing them with other panel members and that Mr Kirkman remind staff that “there is no excuse for acting” beyond their delegated powers.

It was not explained why the ICAC would have to tell a major departmental CEO to undertake these measures and why the CEO would not have done so on his own years ago.

Mr Riches also recommended that the department as a whole update its conflicts of interests and procurement declarations, that conflicts be managed before the tender responses are circulated, that DIPL establish a system to monitor compliance with disclosures of interests, that all gifts be declared whether received or offered and a register of gifts be established, that contract variations be audited, and that reasons for shortlisting tenderers be made public.

Despite all of this, nobody was held accountable for the misconduct that Mr Riches’ “review” uncovered.

Mr Kirkman, who is currently acting chief executive in the Department of Chief Minister and Cabinet, refused to answer the NT Independent’s questions, including if he felt looking the other way on corruption in his department was just the cost of doing business in the Territory and why he had not taken action to clean up the Katherine office when he first became aware of the issues in 2019 at the latest.

At Estimates hearings in June 2022, Mr Kirkman told the committee he had no knowledge of a 474-page report from 2019 that his department ordered to investigate the same issues raised in the ICAC review.

After claiming no knowledge for more than 10 minutes, he later changed his story to say he could “recall one matter where we had an individual investigation done”. However, then-infrastructure minister Eva Lawler shut down the questioning by contradicting Mr Kirkman’s newfound recollection and stating that the department did not hire a third party to investigate the issues at the Katherine office.

They did. The report was completed by CPM Reviews and given to Mr Kirkman in 2019, that reportedly contained all of the corruption issues that Mr Riches discovered.

DIPL refused the NT Independent’s Freedom of Information application in 2020 for the CPM report, stating that releasing the information to the public may “erode trust within the agency”.

Instead of holding anyone accountable for misconduct, Mr Riches concluded his review by stating that “it is important for all government agencies to take stock of the important lessons to be learned from internal auditing processes”.

Mr Kirkman referred questions to an unnamed DIPL spokeswoman who said the review – which was not an investigation – made “no findings of fraud against individuals or the department” and that the “ICAC commissioner welcomed DIPL’s proactive release and management of the report and findings”.

The department claimed it released the review on its website in November, but made no public statement about it at any time.

The spokeswoman added that DIPL had “accepted and is implementing” the 18 recommendations.