ICAC asks former uni chief how he made 'an error of that magnitude'

Former University of Wollongong (UOW) chancellor Michael Still has told the state's corruption watchdog he "didn't connect" discussions with incoming vice-chancellor John Dewar to conflict-of-interest concerns involving consulting firm KordaMentha.

The Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) inquiry later heard a review of UOW operations carried out by KordaMentha grew into consultancy contracts worth about $3.8 million.

The ICAC spent much of today examining whether Professor Dewar's involvement in discussions about the review while still a KordaMentha partner gave the firm an unfair head start.

Mr Still repeatedly rejected that proposition, despite being taken to legal advice warning the vice-chancellor appointment process and any future consulting work should remain separate.

Counsel assisting the commission Emma Bathurst suggested that if the university's legal advisers had known Professor Dewar was providing scope material for the proposed review, they would have considered it "highly problematic".

Mr Still replied, "I don't know."

Ms Bathurst said evidence showed it was Professor Dewar who suggested a broader, university-wide diagnostic review.

Mr Still rejected that claim, saying he had proposed the idea months before Professor Dewar became involved.

The inquiry heard Professor Dewar attached a draft scope for the proposed university review to correspondence sent while his appointment and secondary employment arrangements were still being negotiated.

Ms Bathurst took Mr Still through email chains showing similarities between Professor Dewar's draft scope and the eventual "Request for Proposal" (RFP) used to seek bids for the work.

"You designed this RFP to mirror essentially what Professor Dewar had sent you in that draft scope of work,"

she said.

Mr Still accepted he had used what he described as "good" and "common" language from the document, but denied any intention to mirror Professor Dewar's proposal.

'I didn't connect them,'

The inquiry heard Professor Dewar had signed an agreement designed to separate his university role from any future KordaMentha engagement, but later remained involved in discussions about a review the firm would secure.

Commissioner Paul Lakatos twice challenged Mr Still on that arrangement, describing it as "work done by KordaMentha for money earned by KordaMentha to do that work" and later "work done by KordaMentha for fees to be earned by KordaMentha to undertake that project".

Mr Still said he had not connected those discussions with the conflict-management restrictions.

"I didn't connect them, I'm sorry,"

he said.

'A figment of Professor Dewar's imagination'

Counsel also suggested Professor Dewar and KordaMentha knew substantially more about the proposed review than Deloitte and Partners in Performance, the other firms later invited to tender.

Mr Still rejected that proposition, at one point describing part of the suggestion as "a figment of Professor Dewar's imagination".

He was pressed by Commissioner Lakatos on whether the knowledge available to KordaMentha was truly equivalent to that available to competitors.

"Not equivalent, but not far distant,"

Mr Still said.

The inquiry heard a suggestion that supporting KordaMentha's involvement formed part of an effort to secure Professor Dewar's appointment as interim vice-chancellor, a proposition Mr Still denied.

'Is that how you ran the university?'

Questioning later turned to consultancy firm Aspirall, which received engagements worth $49,600 and $74,450 for work connected to the vice-chancellor recruitment process.

The inquiry heard Mr Still introduced the firm to the university, remained involved in discussions about its work, and supported proposals that later went before the UOW council.

Mr Still maintained decisions about procurement and funding rested with university management rather than the chancellor.

Commissioner Lakatos challenged that approach, asking whether Mr Still would effectively say, "I want to do this. You work out the cost. Is that how it worked?"

"Well, simply put, yes," Mr Still replied.

The Commissioner responded that as leader of the university it was surely part of Mr Still's role to ensure projects could be afforded and sat within an appropriate budget.

He also questioned whether Mr Still's favourable assessment of Alyssa White would change if she had failed to follow university procurement and funding requirements.

Mr Still acknowledged such a failure "could have" affected his view of her.

'An error of that magnitude'

Earlier, Mr Still corrected evidence about when he first became aware of serious wrongdoing concerns involving Ms White, saying he did not learn of the matter until hearing evidence last week.

He said earlier knowledge would have "made all the difference".

Commissioner Lakatos asked how he could have made "an error of that magnitude".

"I don't know, Commissioner. It was certainly an error,"

Mr Still said

The Commissioner's final questions brought together the inquiry's key themes, including conflicts of interest, governance and leadership.

Mr Still largely rejected criticism of his conduct, but accepted that in relation to Ms White's proposed $400,000 vice-president role, "in hindsight, I could have done better".

Mr Still will continue giving evidence tomorrow, ahead of Ms White taking the stand.