Procurement irregularities and vague contracts scrutinised in ICAC’s Operation Landan

Public hearings held by the Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) under Operation Landan have continued to examine procurement practices within NSW education infrastructure, focusing on contracts issued without proper scoping, blurred relationships between public officials and consultants, and questions around cost capitalisation. (image credit: School Infrastructure NSW.)

Much of the focus has centred on former senior executive Anthony Manning, who was questioned over his engagement of consultants without clear deliverables and without formal conflict of interest declarations. A two-page contract for “communications support services” was among several documents examined. When asked whether the description was adequate, Manning conceded: “That doesn’t tell you anything specific, no”.

Commissioner Paul Lakatos was more direct, stating: “This appears to be the contractual document, that is to say, the one with legal force, and if that’s correct then describing services as communication support services protects nobody”.

The inquiry also explored whether longstanding relationships between Manning and certain consultants influenced procurement decisions. In one exchange, he was asked whether he considered that a consultant, Ms Jones, may have cultivated a relationship with him to secure further engagements. “It wasn’t something that I think I consciously thought about, no,” he said.

Manning said he trusted Ms Jones based on her referral from Bob Lees, then Chair of Health Infrastructure. “I trusted her because my introduction to her was through Bob Lees,” he said.

In another exchange, text messages were shown between Manning and another contractor, Ms Bondareva. One read: “If ever you think you can get away with more I know you will try and I will appreciate it.” Manning denied any particular closeness, stating, “I don’t think I was particularly close to her”.

ICAC also examined a broader pattern of vague procurement documentation. One contract, valued at $110,000, lacked any clear attachment or scope. Manning was asked whether it would have been better, from a transparency perspective, to provide more detail. He responded: “Yes, if there isn’t a document attached to this, yes”.

Separately, the Commission probed financial practices relating to the capitalisation of contingent labour costs. Manning acknowledged that guidance from a department official made clear only costs “directly related to construction/delivery assets” should be capitalised. “There is a ruling around what can and can’t be capitalised,” he admitted.

The hearings have also canvassed potential misjudgements around transparency. While Manning claimed his intentions were guided by trust and expediency, Commissioner Lakatos repeatedly questioned whether reliance on informal relationships had substituted for proper process.

The hearing continues. 

Find ICAC’s Operation Landan proceedings HERE