News location:

Monday, November 25, 2024 | Digital Edition | Crossword & Sudoku

‘Stan’ Steel stumbles into ‘another nice mess’ 

“Here’s another nice mess you’ve gotten me into.” With apologies to Laurel and Hardy.

The CIT board is a laughing stock. They should apologise to the community and resign, every one of them because ignorance is not bliss when it comes to being a director, says IAN MEIKLE in another “Seven Days”.  

AS Hardy would say to Laurel, so Andrew Barr might to Chris Steel: “Here’s another nice mess you’ve gotten me into.”

Ian Meikle.

The dogs are barking and the Integrity Commission is very publicly circling the Canberra Institute of Technology.

And “Stan” Steel has looked impotent through the weeks since the stunning disclosure of $8.5 million over five years to ostensibly one contractor, a “complexity and systems thinker” who, in some measure, was mentoring the CIT CEO Leanne Cover and doing, well, who knows what else?

Certainly not the CIT board, who were paying him $10k a day. In a damning admission to the minister, then-chairman Craig Sloan wrote that the procurement process for contractor Patrick Hollingworth’s company Think Garden was undertaken by the CIT executive within CEO Cover’s financial delegations. 

I’ve been a CEO and I’ve been on many boards of companies large and small, and community organisations, and I am gobsmacked that the CEO of CIT could wave through nearly $5 million of whatever without any reference to the board. 

By way of example, I was CEO of a publishing subsidiary of a public company. We were turning over more than $600 million annually in four countries and my delegation was less than one per cent of hers!

Worse still, Sloan then goes on to make an admission that I believe sinks the credibility of the whole board: “The CIT board has agreed that based on the information we have at hand it is not currently in a position to provide assurance to you that this contract represents value for money.”

That’s when something unpleasant hit the governance fan, followed by this: “The CIT board was not involved in the procurement and was not briefed on the evaluation process or the value of the successful contract.”

Despite having “temporarily stood aside”, surely, that’s got to be goodbye, Leanne Cover?

Minister Steel has conceded the CIT’s reputation had been “seriously damaged” as a result of the nature of the contracts (importantly, not the contractor), but expected the board would be able to “reset” with Lundy as chair. Really?

Lundy has been on the board since June last year and was there when Hollingworth’s $4,999,990 contract ($10 short of attracting the attention of the ACT procurement board) passed through, untroubled by any board curiosity earlier this year. Inescapably, she’s in the same frame. 

I don’t agree with Steel’s “reset” nonsense. The reputation of the board is so sullied that only a reboot will fix public confidence in the CIT. 

Maybe it’s useful here to list the board members: Sloan was chair and has now been replaced (his seven years of service was up) by Labor luvvie Kate Lundy, his deputy. The other directors are Cover, Raymond Garrand, Prof Francis Shannon, Jane Madden, Tahlia-Rose Vanissum, Sam Mills (elected staff member), Paul McGlone, Ros Jackson and Louise Starr (student representative). 

I list them because I reckon these mushrooms owe it to our community to apologise and resign.

Company directors cannot claim ignorance, they are always responsible for not having asked questions when things go wrong. This is where the buck stops. 

I know the law precludes the minister from sacking the directors (oddly, he can appoint them), but why isn’t he, hands on hips, demanding their signatures? 

He surely cannot have any confidence in any of them, just as we are developing a similar feeling about him.

The painterly side of Kate Lundy.

AND while we’re on the subject of the new CIT chair (don’t do it, Kate), some years ago, at a charity art show, I bought a delicate, pretty watercolour in the belief that, painted by Australia’s first female prime minister, it would be worth, oh, gazillions. 

Senator and painter (and former builder’s labourer) Kate Lundy didn’t reach quite those heights and it was left to Julia Gillard, whose painting prowess is a mystery, to claim the history. 

Our watercolourist cruised through seven Senate elections, representing the ACT for more than 19 years and holding various ministerial positions including the Minister for Multicultural Affairs, the Minister Assisting for the Digital Economy, Minister for Sport and the Minister Assisting for Industry and Innovation.

These days, the 54-year-old is a professional director and has her work and her reputation cut out if she perseveres with the CIT.                         

Her board positions beyond the CIT are: director, NRMA; acting chair of Cyber Security Cooperative Research Centre; director, Electro Optic Systems Holdings Pty Limited and director, National Youth Science Forum.

Alas, not a mention of her painting prowess. Whatever palette of creative smarts she thinks she can bring to the CIT, I still like her delightful art.

Ian Meikle is the editor of “CityNews” and can be heard on the “CityNews Sunday Roast” news and interview program, 2CC, 9am-noon. 

 

 

Who can be trusted?

In a world of spin and confusion, there’s never been a more important time to support independent journalism in Canberra.

If you trust our work online and want to enforce the power of independent voices, I invite you to make a small contribution.

Every dollar of support is invested back into our journalism to help keep citynews.com.au strong and free.

Become a supporter

Thank you,

Ian Meikle, editor

Ian Meikle

Ian Meikle

Share this

3 Responses to ‘Stan’ Steel stumbles into ‘another nice mess’ 

Palmerston's Lament says: 27 June 2022 at 10:47 am

If any politician adhered to the Westminster Principles of Ministerial responsibility, then Steel would have done the honourable thing by now. The doctrine of individual ministerial responsibility is central to the Westminster parliamentary system. In general terms, the doctrine states that ministers are individually responsible to the Parliament for actions taken under their authority.

But, taking a step back, the whole Barr administration reeks of Sir Joh in the lead up to the Fitzgerald Inquiry. Some good investigative journalism, and/or some hard hitting interviews with Barr himself, may be enough to catalyse change. It is worth remembering, it was only in Joh’s absence, that things happened … perhaps that is why Barr never leaves?

It is also worth factoring in the teal movement is made up of disaffected Labor and Green voters. I suspect there are many out there looking for an alternative and, despite the obvious Gerrymander of Hare Clark, the recent Senate results show that quotas for good Independents are possible with effort and financial support.

Reply
Florey Reader says: 29 June 2022 at 10:38 pm

Without a doubt the entire CIT Board and Executive must be stood down and an Administrator appointed to manage the CIT until an independent review is completed. Minister Steel is responsible for the appointment of the Board members, and ensuring that they provided appropriate governance. The Minister thus is directly accountable to the Assembly for the performance of the Board. Clearly, the Board has not provided appropriate governance. The Minister would do well to resign as a Government Minister for all the portfolios for which he is accountable.

I would say that equating the Barr led Government to the government of the former Queensland Premier as hyperbole.

And, for reference the “teal movement” were born of disaffected citizens of electorates that were considered safely blue ribbon Liberal. The results of the recent Federal election for the ACT Senators saw some independents obtain a significant primary vote at the cost of the ACT Liberals, the Greens increased their primary vote, and for the first time Labor did not manage to get enough primary votes to get a quota and had to rely on Green preferences.

It should be noted that the last time the Canberra Liberals obtained a quota on first preference votes was in 2010 when the candidate was Gary Humphries who was then shafted by Zed Seselja before the 2013 election.

It beggers belief that anyone would call the ACT electoral system gerrymandered. But I guess this is like the previously mentioned hyperbole that compared the ACT government to a historical Queensland government – in reality the Morrison led government would be a closer example. And with a Federal Integrity Commission we may discover that it may have surpassed even Joh’s achievements.

Reply
Bruce says: 27 June 2022 at 3:05 pm

Yeah what a shocker for CIT. can’t believe the money could ever be justified to mentor a CEO (which i realise is common) but you would think $50k should cover an executive’s coach.

Reply

Leave a Reply

Related Posts

Follow us on Instagram @canberracitynews