Letting of Contracts at Central TAFE Public Hearing AM session

Copyright in this document is reserved to the Crown in right of the State of Western Australia. 

Reproduction of this document (or part thereof, in any format) except with the prior written consent of 

the attorney-general is prohibited. 

_____ 

CORRUPTION AND CRIME COMMISSION 

OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA 

COMMISSIONER HAMMOND 

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS 

AT PERTH ON WEDNESDAY, 4 OCTOBER 2006, AT 10.02 AM 

Counsel assisting: 

MR J.P. GORMLY, with him, MR B.E.F. TOOKER 

4/10/06 171 

(s&c)

1/2/rds 

MUSSON, STEVEN DAVID: 

THE COMMISSIONER: Good morning everyone. We are 

continuing with the witness Mr Steven Musson who is present 

in the hearing room and is still of course on oath. 

Mr Tooker? 

TOOKER, MR: 

Thank you, Commissioner. 

Mr Musson, I want to return to something that we dealt with 

yesterday and that's the $100 an hour that Arwa Saleh-Evans 

was paid as a casual employee during 2002. My first 

question is this: the GOSAC Award 1989 has a formula, does 

it not, for the payment of a casual employee?---Not at that 

level I don't - - - 

That's not my question but I want to take this in steps? 

---Yeah. 

The GOSAC Award has a formula for the payment of casual 

employees, doesn't it?---To be honest I don't quite recall 

what's in there in that regard. 

Let me tell you that the GOSAC Award sets out how an hourly 

rate is to be determined by a casual employee. Tell me if 

this strikes a resonance with you: it says that the 

fortnightly rate must be divided by 75 because there's 

75 hours in a fortnight, and then you add 20 per cent 

because they don't get leave. That's what the GOSAC Award 

determines, doesn't it?---Look, without actually having it 

in front of me, I mean, I can't answer one way or the other 

there. I mean - - - 

I don't have this on the screen to show you but this is the 

Government Officers Salaries, Allowances and Conditions 

Award 1989. Central TAFE is a signatory to the GOSAC 

Award, isn't it?---Yes. 

So the GOSAC Award governs in part the employment of staff 

at Central TAFE. Correct?---Correct. 

I will just show you this hard copy of a document and I 

will ask you to focus on clause 10, Casual Employment, to 

the back of the document?---Sorry, what did you want me to 

focus on? 

Clause 10, Casual Employment. Do you have that?---Sorry, 

I'm just finding it. 

To the very back, the last page?---Sorry. 

It has a formula for determining the hourly rate of a 

casual employee, does it not?---Yes; yes. 

It's the fortnightly salary divided by 75?---Yes. 

4/10/06 MUSSON, S.D. XN 172 

10.02 

Spark & Cannon

1/3/rds 

And then you add 20 per cent for the leave?---Yes; yes, 

that's right. That's my understanding of how - - - 

All right. There's a $100 an hour that Arwa Saleh-Evans 

got. What public sector level did that equate to?---I'm 

not sure and I'm not even sure that she got a 

hundred dollars an hour. Yeah; I thought what she was 

getting was level 8.3, you know, plus the 20 per cent 

loading and that sort of thing. So, yeah - I mean, it was 

a long time ago. I can't remember specifically what she 

was getting. 

I think you are referring to the second period of casual 

employee where she got $53.09. I'm focusing on the 

hundred dollars an hour. You didn't on that occasion do 

any calculation in accordance with the GOSAC Award to come 

to that figure of a hundred dollars, did you?---Honestly I 

can't recall; you know, I wouldn't have personally done the 

calculation anyway. I mean, it would've gone to the 

payroll area and they would've processed it I assume based 

on someone's authorisation, either myself or someone like 

Gary Fitzgerald. 

4/10/06 MUSSON, S.D. XN 173 

Spark & Cannon

2/4/glj 

But when you got that email from Gary Fitzgerald saying, "I 

intend to pay her $100 an hour" - - -?---Yeah. 

- - - did you question him about that and say, "You can't 

just pay someone a flat hundred dollars an hour to be a 

casual"?---You'd need to show me that email again. I - I 

seem to remember there was something in there about a 

hundred dollars an hour and my saying that that's probably 

not an unreasonable rate for a consultant, but I - I can't 

remember the detail of it. It was in 2002, so - - - 

All right, I need to show you this document now. These are 

the pay slips that Ms Saleh-Evans received for her work in 

2002. I just need you to interpret the back page - - -? 

---Sure. 

- - - of all these pay slips to see how much she was paid 

an hour. In the meantime, you can return that GOSAC Award 

that I have shown to you. So just look at one of the back 

pages of those pay slips and tell us how much she was 

getting paid per hour, Mr Musson?---It's got rate, a 

hundred, so I'm assuming that's a hundred dollars. 

A hundred dollars an hour?---That's what it looks like, 

yes. 

Thank you, you can return that now. I might need to return 

this to you. Does this document reveal what level of pay 

in terms of public sector levels she's being paid at, 

because I see there's a column there for classification? 

---Yeah, for casuals I'm not sure. I'd need to have a 

look. 

All right?---Certainly for permanent and contract it would. 

All right, I will return it to you?---No, I can't. I can't 

see that on there, unless it's on the front. No, not that 

I can see from my reading of it. 

So there's nothing on the document to indicate on what 

basis she's being paid a hundred dollars an hour?---No. 

Is that right?---No, no, not that - well, not that I can 

observe from reading the top pay slip, which I assume 

they're all similar. Yeah, certainly the second one looks 

similar. 

Thank you, you can return that now. So you accept that she 

was paid a hundred dollars an hour for her work in 2002? 

---Well, certainly based on that documentation that seems 

clear, yeah. 

You would have to accept that that doesn't equate to any 

calculation under the GOSAC Award does it?---No, no. 

4/10/06 MUSSON, S.D. XN 174 

10.07 

Spark & Cannon

2/5/glj 

So there has been noncompliance with the GOSAC Award on 

this occasion, hasn't there?---It would appear so, yes. 

Looking at that, is it the case that this was - the 

employment of Arwa Saleh-Evans in 2002 was a blend of 

casual employment and contractor, because a hundred dollars 

an hour flat rate, that's more like a contractor's rate, 

isn't it?---Well, I mean, she was on the pay roll so, I 

mean, she was an employee, regardless of the rate that she 

was getting. So she's not really a contractor. I mean, 

she can't be both, or she shouldn't be both anyway. 

But there's aspects of it that indicate that she's a 

contractor because of this flat rate, isn't there?---No. I 

mean, I would have thought quite clearly she's an employee. 

Whether she has been paid the right rate is another issue. 

4/10/06 MUSSON, S.D. XN 175 

Spark & Cannon

3/6/mjd 

And who determined what hours she would do? Was she told 

you have to work between 9.00 and 5.00 - - -?---No. 

- - - this day and - - -?---I've got no idea about that. 

She was reporting, I think, to Gary Fitzgerald and he's the 

one that would have negotiated that with her and I assume 

signed off on the documentation that authorised payment. 

At the end of yesterday's evidence we got to the point 

where I think you told us that in about May 2003 you 

started to take on the responsibilities of Gary 

Fitzgerald's position as the general manager of information 

and resources. You did that for about three months then an 

expression of interest went out. You were successful in 

that and then you became the acting general manager of 

information and resources. Is that correct?---Yeah, the 

first three months I was doing both my job and also a 

reasonable percentage of what he used to do and then, yeah, 

when the expression of interest came out we - I moved 

totally into the role that was left of Gary's corporate 

service responsibilities which was managing HR, finance, 

IT, facilities and he moved off onto projects and Cindy 

Corless then moved into my role of director business 

support unit. 

So when did you assume responsibility as project manager of 

the functional review?---I never had that responsibility. 

But as acting general manager of information resources 

wasn't that within your portfolio?---No. That was one of 

Gary's projects that he moved off to do. My responsibility 

was for the operational aspects of the corporate services 

function so it was running, you know, finance, HR, IT and 

facilities. Gary went off and did a number of projects and 

certainly in the early days that was one of the focuses for 

him as I understood it was to look at the functional review 

and then manage the change management process that went 

with that and that, as I understood it, stayed with Gary 

all the way through the time I was there. My 

responsibility was for making sure that implementing the 

new structure that had been an outcome of the - you know, 

the first or second phase of the functional review and 

managing the day to day corporate service functions. 

So you had to manage the outcome of phase 1 I and R 

functional - - -?---Yeah, the new structure, yeah, and the 

implementation of that. 

And is it the case that you went back to your substantive 

position in about January of 2004?---Yeah, that sounds - 

no, not 2004. I was in that role for about - I think I 

finished in about October 2004, I would have said because I 

was in it for about 18 - roughly 18 months on an ongoing 

basis. 

4/10/06 MUSSON, S.D. XN 176 

10.12 

Spark & Cannon

3/7/mjd 

Didn't Gary Fitzgerald come back to some role in early 

2004, January 2004?---No. No, not in corporate services 

that I can recall. I mean, I'm sure I continued on from 

about May through till about October, maybe even 

November 2004. So Gary didn't come back to his role that I 

can recall. 

Are you saying in that period when you were the acting 

general manager of I and R that Gary Fitzgerald was still 

the project manager? Is that what you're saying?---Project 

manager of - - - 

The functional review?---Yes. Yes. I was certainly 

involved in, you know, supporting that but I wasn't the 

project manger. 

Did you have some role in applying to the State Supply 

Commission for a waiver of the phase 3 contract?---What was 

phase 3? That was the academic - - - 

Academic support areas, I think?---Yeah, that's right. 

Yes, I seem to remember having some discussions with the 

procurement guys about how things were going, you know, in 

terms of the expenditure authorisation limits that we were 

able to spend on the procurement process and I'm pretty 

sure I signed a letter seeking some support from State 

Supply to either extend the arrangement or something along 

those lines because it was getting to the worrying stage 

where we were either going to go over the limit or it was 

heading that way anyway. 

4/10/06 MUSSON, S.D. XN 177 

Spark & Cannon

4/8/rds 

Why was it going to go over the limit? What happened?---I 

think as I said yesterday, the whole problem throughout 

this process from what I could see is we kept adding on 

stuff and I suspect it was probably as a result of that 

that, you know, we would be clear about what we wanted at 

the start but then as time progressed, either the managing 

director or the college executive would make some decisions 

which would then need some further investigation or some 

further work - related-type work done and that I think 

seemed to be a fairly consistent thing that happened right 

across the process. I mean, it was like my - my acting was 

supposed to go three months into the first term. It then 

went out to an expression of interest for six and then it 

ended up being nearly 18 months. So I mean, I think that 

was fairly typical of how things kept rolling on very 

quickly. I mean, some of those things were forced by 

funding arrangements. The Department of Education and 

Training I think were withdrawing a fairly significant 

amount of funding at some stage through that process and I 

think that certainly contributed to our need, you know, to 

continue to look at our structure and scrutinise what we 

did. 

From your involvement in the functional review, would you 

say that there was a lack of planning that caused all of 

these add-ons that you talk about?---I mean, with the 

benefit of hindsight one could say that. However, there 

were things that came out of left field a bit but, you 

know, it would probably be a bit unfair to say that too 

because - you know, things like the funding cuts and that, 

I don't think they were in the wind at the time we started 

the process. So like, on one hand, yes, you could say that 

but I think it also could be a bit unfair because of the 

things coming out of left field. 

I want to show you a letter now. It's CCC bar code 9360. 

It's a letter from Ms Saleh-Evans addressed to yourself. 

All right. It's a letter dated 29 May 2003. The 

letterhead is Strategic and IT Consulting Services and it's 

addressed to yourself, Steve Musson, acting general 

manager, information and resources?---Yes. 

Just have a look at the body of the letter. The heading is 

Functional Review Phase 3, Scope Variation?---Yes. 

That's a letter from Arwa Saleh-Evans to yourself 

explaining that there has been an expansion of the phase 3 

project and that she will need more money, isn't it?---Yes, 

it seems to be; yeah. 

The letter is addressed to you. Why is that? Are you sure 

you weren't the project manager?---A hundred per cent sure. 

I think what confuses things here is there was the process 

administrator which was sort of like my role; it was, you 

know, to pay the bills, get all the stuff happening and 

4/10/06 MUSSON, S.D. XN 178 

10/17 

Spark & Cannon

4/9/rds 

there was, you know, the project manager which was Gary. 

I've got no doubt about that in my mind. 

So you were the process administrator?---Well, yeah; you 

know, like it was my role to support the process through - 

you know, providing support on procurement, HR, finance, 

whatever else was needed. The direction, the scope, the 

content was clearly - well, in my view, in Gary's 

bailiwick. 

4/10/06 MUSSON, S.D. XN 179 

Spark & Cannon

5/10/mjd 

Can you tell us whose handwriting is all over that page? 

---That's not mine. I don't know. 

I think there's a second page and a third page to this 

document. That's the page I want to focus on. That 

handwriting there, is that yours?---No. 

We're looking at a page that's got some handwriting on it, 

two circles. One of the circles has "Phase 4" in it. 

You're saying that's not your handwriting?---No. No. 

All right. In any event on 29 May 2003 you had been 

advised by Ms Saleh-Evans that she needed more money for 

the phase 3 project. Correct?---It seems so from that 

letter, yes. Whether I dealt with it or not I don't 

recall. 

All right, well - - -?---I may have, yeah. 

- - - I'll try and assist you in that. I want to show you 

an email chain now. It's CCC bar code 10061. Remember 

that last letter was 29 May 2003. Here we have an email of 

30 May 2003. It's an email from Bryan Nicholson to 

yourself and the subject heading is Functional Review 

Phase 3 and it says: 

Steve, to progress with Arwa completing additional 

work and additional cost Central must submit CEO at 

State Supply Commission "SSC" a list of exceptional 

circumstances detailing in full a scope of works for 

each project, vicinity it has withe original scope of 

works and why Arwa Saleh-Evans is the only consultant 

capable of completing the work. The only other 

option is to breach our partial exemption agreement 

which at this point in time I do not recommend. 

Cheers, Bryan. 

Does that jog your memory? Did you approach Bryan 

Nicholson of the procurement unit and ask him for his 

advice about how they were going to deal with - how the 

TAFE was going to deal with Arwa's application for more 

money?---Honestly I can't remember. I do remember having 

discussions about, you know, the State Supply issues and I 

would say I probably sought some advice from Bryan or 

others in that area, yeah, because I was very reliant on 

their knowledge of the processes, you know, involved. So 

it's probably likely that it happened, yes. 

And his clear advice to you in that email is to go to the 

State Supply Commission seeking a waiver. Correct?---Yeah, 

that's - that's what it - yeah. 

All right, we will move on to another email now. It's 

CCC bar code 10037. It's an email chain so at the top we 

have Bryan Nicholson's response to you but if we focus on 

4/10/06 MUSSON, S.D. XN 180 

10.22 

Spark & Cannon

5/11/mjd 

the originating email it's an email from you Steve Musson, 

16 June 2003. Do you see that? It's American date so it's 

backwards?---Yeah. 

And you say there - and I think this email went to a lot of 

people: 

Hi there, just letting you know that we have reached 

the purchasing limit of our tender with Arwa for 

phase 3 of the functional review (looking at academic 

areas). The problem now is the program manager's 

review was not factored into Arwa's quotation as this 

issue only raised its head once she commenced to talk 

with staff in workshops et cetera. If we progress 

with the PM review without further authority we will 

breach the State Supply purchasing arrangements which 

I don't want to do. 

You then say something else about holding off and then you 

say: 

I'm seeking to get Arwa's direct appointment for 

phase 4 as she has done the first three stages. 

Do you see that?---Yeah. Yep, that's right. 

What does that mean?---I think what we were trying to do 

was to get State Supply to agree to directly appoint her 

based on the fact that it seemed, you know, fairly logical 

that she had done all the other stuff for us. I think 

that's where we were coming from there. It didn't seem 

very logical to then bring someone else in at the tail end 

after all the work that had been done. I think that's 

where we were coming from. 

4/10/06 MUSSON, S.D. XN 181 

Spark & Cannon

6/12/glj 

I'm just confused by your reference to phase 4?---Yes. 

What's that a reference to?---I must admit I - I don't 

recall what phase 4 was now, you know, so I'm not sure what 

phase 4 was. I'm pretty clear on the first three phases. 

Were you referring there to the student journey project, 

Mervyn Joseph's student journey project?---I mean, I 

could've been, yes. 

Perhaps if you just read the rest of the email, it might 

provide you with some context?---Yeah. Yeah, look, to be 

honest I can't - I can't remember whether it was the 

student journey process or not. Certainly the first three 

bits of the functional review I think I'm fairly clear on. 

Phase 4 I'm not clear on. 

Is it the position that you wanted to have Arwa Saleh-Evans 

continue with this program manager's work and you wanted 

her direct appointment for that and that's what you were 

talking about?---Well, I personally didn't want that but 

that's what the organisation wanted and I guess my role in 

all this was to try and facilitate that and make it 

legitimate. 

When you say "the organisation wanted" that - who? Who are 

you referring to?---Managing director. College executive. 

So you are talking about Brian Patterson?---Yes. 

Who at corporate executive in particular?---Whoever was on 

there at the time. I think it was Kevin Chanel, John 

Chadwick, Gary, Helen Pannowitz might have been there then, 

and myself. 

Who was the driving force behind it, the functional 

review?---Brian Patterson, and to a lesser extent Gary as 

the project manager. Gary was, I suppose, the - you know, 

the arms and legs for it and Brian, you know, was the 

person that was overseeing it, he didn't have a direct 

involvement, and I guess my role was to try and make sure 

that all the arrangements that we put in place were in line 

with, you know, the requirements of the varying authorities 

that were there. 

Did any of them hold a firm view that Arwa Saleh-Evans 

should continue the project?---I think everyone did. 

By that you mean everyone on corporate executive?---Yeah, I 

think they all thought it seemed fairly logical, given that 

we'd got to that stage, that it was only a bit that needed 

to be finished off. I mean, that was the problem all the 

way through, it was one more bit to finish off. 

4/10/06 MUSSON, S.D. XN 182 

10.27 

Spark & Cannon

6/13/glj 

You were on corporate executive whilst you were acting 

general manager for I and R. Correct?---Yeah. Yeah, 

correct. 

Now, at the bottom of that email you say, "Brian, can we 

discuss the process for phase 4 urgently?" and then if we 

go to the top of the email his response is, "Steve, yes, 

Arwa's presentation for phase 4 needs to be built in to a 

letter of request to State Supply Commission asking for an 

exemption to waiver the calling of quotations based on 

exceptional circumstances," and then he outlines what they 

might be. Did you, as a result of this email, author a 

letter to State Supply Commission - - -?---Yeah, I 

seem - - - 

- - - asking for a waiver?---I seem to recall that I think 

someone else prepared it but I certainly signed it. From 

memory, anyway - if it's the letter I'm thinking of. 

All right, I will show you the letter now - it's CCC bar 

code 9358. It's a letter on Central TAFE letterhead to 

Mr Gary Stokes, chief executive officer of the State Supply 

Commission. Do you see that?---Yes. 

Then if we just flick through the letter to the end, the 

second page - keep going - third page, it's signed by you, 

Steve Musson, acting general manager information and 

resources division, 7 July 2003?---Yes. 

4/10/06 MUSSON, S.D. XN 183 

Spark & Cannon

7/14/rds 

If you didn't draft the document, who did?---Given that 

Phil Bianchi is the contact, I'm assuming that Phil 

would've done that. I wouldn't have had the detailed 

knowledge of all the stuff that's in that letter to be able 

to draft that, to be frank. It would need to be someone 

that had a fair bit of knowledge and that. So I'm assuming 

it was probably Phil or someone else but I wouldn't have 

had that knowledge. When you quickly flick through it, 

there was stuff in there that I just wouldn't have been 

able to put in there. 

Did you read the letter before signing it?---Yes; yes. 

I want to take you to some parts of it now; firstly, the 

first page, if we can go to that. It says there under the 

heading: 

Central TAFE has over the past 12 months embarked 

upon a series of functional reviews to better 

alliance organisational structure..........inclusive 

of GST and all overheads. 

My question is this: you refer there to a series of 

functional reviews. This letter seems to give the 

impression that Central TAFE has had one quotation, one 

bidding process, for the whole series of functional 

reviews. Wouldn't you agree with that?---So you're talking 

about the first paragraph. Is that what's - - - 

Yes. The first paragraph indicates they have had a series 

of functional reviews and then the second and third 

paragraphs talk about the contract being a competitive 

process and being awarded to Strategic and IT Consulting. 

It gives the impression, does it not, that the whole series 

of functional reviews went out to contract?---I suppose you 

could read it that way. That's not what the intention of 

it was I'm sure but - - - 

Were the State Supply Commission told in this letter that 

phases 1 and 2 were dealt with by casual employment and 

only phase 3 was dealt with by way of competitive tender? 

---No; no. 

Was that done deliberately?---No, not from my perspective. 

Would you agree that the first three paragraphs of that 

letter are somewhat misleading?---They're not in - it's not 

- it wasn't intentionally misleading. I guess now that you 

have pointed that out, you could read it that way but that 

certainly wasn't the intent, and my understanding was that 

the State Supply were fully aware of what was going on 

here. 

They were fully aware of her casual employment?---No, 

sorry. Well, I'm not sure whether they knew that bit but 

4/10/06 MUSSON, S.D. XN 184 

10.32 

Spark & Cannon

7/15/rds 

they were fully aware of the problems that we were 

experiencing with this contract and my understanding was 

that there were discussions between our organisation and 

State Supply about their concern about that, you know, and 

I think that's probably reflected in the letter that they 

sent back as well. 

Who was doing that communication?---My recollection is that 

that was the procurement area. I don't recall personally 

ever speaking to them but - yeah. 

I want to move on to the second page now. I want to focus 

on a paragraph that says "given." You will see it about 

two-thirds of the way down. It's says there: 

Given the current consultant has developed a high 

level of understanding and knowledge specific to this 

project, Central TAFE believe open and effective 

market testing would not provide a more 

cost-effective or timely solution. 

Was that your view?---I think it was a shared view that at 

that stage of proceedings it would've been pointless going 

to anyone else. So yes, it was my view. 

4/10/06 MUSSON, S.D. XN 185 

Spark & Cannon

8/16/mjd 

And that was shared by corporate executive. Is that 

right?---Yes, I think so. You know, we had got to that 

stage, it just seemed pointless bringing in someone else 

to, I guess, try and finalise this process. 

I want to focus now on page 3 at the top. There's a table 

there with some figures. It sets out the financial request 

that Central TAFE is making to State Supply does it not? 

---Yes. 

And it breaks down the request into two areas. You've got 

the program manager's area and then the school director's 

area and the total request is for $17,583.50. Do you 

agree?---Yes. 

Now, that figure, $17,583.50 is greater than the figure 

that Ms Arwa Saleh-Evans had estimated for the work in her 

letter of 29 May. She estimated $13,800 plus GST. 

Remember that letter of request that was sent to you? 

---Yes. Yes. 

And the request that goes to State Supply Commission is for 

a greater amount. I mean, you add the GST to $13,800 and 

you don't get to 17,500 and so on. Can you tell us why you 

in this letter asked for more money than Ms Saleh-Evans had 

asked for in her letter?---No, I can't. I mean, this 

letter was prepared for me and I didn't - I didn't 

cross-reference what had previously been asked for. In 

fact - - - 

Who should we ask? Who should we ask? Who wrote this 

letter?---As I said before, it may - you know, because the 

contact is Phil Bianchi the only clue I can get from that 

is that perhaps Phil was involved in drafting that letter 

or - - - 

THE COMMISSIONER: Could you go back to page 2 for a 

moment. Bottom of 2. 

TOOKER, MR: Just go to bottom of page 2. While we're 

doing that can you just tell us where that contact is, 

Phil Bianchi's name?---Sorry, on the last page and the last 

sentence. "Please contact Phil Bianchi if you want to 

clarify - - -" 

I've got that, thank you, yes. Commissioner? 

THE COMMISSIONER: 

Yes, fine. 

TOOKER, MR: All right, if we go back to page 3. Now, I 

want to focus on this paragraph that starts "Going forward" 

do you see that?---Yes. 

It says: 

4/10/06 MUSSON, S.D. XN 186 

10.37 

Spark & Cannon

8/17/mjd 

Going forward Central TAFE shall request the 

Department of Treasury and Finance call a tender for 

the implementation of phase 3 recommendations. 

What does that mean?---What I'm assuming it meant there was 

another body of work that was going to be required to 

implement phase 3 and we would need to go to tender for 

that because it must have been over the statutory limit. 

That's what I'm assuming it meant. 

Now, Central TAFE never went to Department of Treasury and 

Finance beyond phase 3, did it?---I don't know. 

I want you to assume because the Commission knows that the 

Department of Treasury and Finance were never involved were 

you privy to any discussions at all at corporate executive 

during that time as to why after phase 3 Central TAFE did 

not go to Department of Treasury and Finance?---I can't 

recall any discussions that we had about that but I mean 

there may have been but I certainly don't recall any. 

I want to move on now to the response that was received by 

State Supply Commission - sorry, from the State Supply 

Commission. It's CCC bar code 9357. If we go to the top 

it's a letter addressed to Mr Brian Peterson, I'm sure 

that's meant to be Patterson, the managing director of 

Central TAFE to the attention of Mr Steve Musson acting 

general manager information and resources division. The 

letter says in its second paragraph: 

Based on the information provided that college 

operations may be compromised if new issues that have 

been identified in phase 3 of the project are not 

attended to I approve your request. 

Do you remember receiving this letter?---Yeah, vaguely I 

do. I saw it, I think, yeah. 

4/10/06 MUSSON, S.D. XN 187 

Spark & Cannon

9/18/glj 

You saw it. So you remember them getting back to you and 

saying, "Yes, you can have the extra money"?---Vaguely. 

All right, if we go to the second-bottom paragraph on that 

page, the author of the letter is Gary Stokes, the chief 

executive officer of the State Supply Commission, and he 

writes: 

I am surprised that the additional work that is 

required was unforeseen when the initial contract 

scope was being developed. Central TAFE needs to 

place greater emphasis on good contract planning and 

management as I will be extremely unlikely to approve 

a request such as this in the future. 

Did you interpret that to mean that you were unlikely to 

get any further funding for any further work on the 

functional review?---Yes. 

Is that why Ms Arwa Saleh-Evans was employed as a casual 

from October 2003 onwards?---I don't think so. I think the 

reason was that there was some tidying up that needed to be 

done and then, as usual, that extended out beyond what the 

original scope was for that. So, no, I don't - I don't 

believe it was an attempt at all to try and move away from 

Mr Stokes had said, but, yeah, it was an attempt to 

complete - I can't recall whether they were new things or 

whether they were just things that were tacked on. I mean, 

this was the consistent theme all the way through - just, 

you know, get her to do a bit more, and I guess what the 

procurement people and the HR people were continually 

trying to tidy up was to make sure that that was done in an 

appropriate fashion. 

So why was she put on as a casual in October 2003?---Once 

again, I think you'd need to ask Gary that question. He 

was the one that was overseeing her activities. 

Why didn't you go back to the State Supply Commission and 

ask for more money at that point?---My recollection - and 

it's pretty vague - is that it wasn't seen that it was - 

that it needed to be a large amount of money; that there 

was some minor stuff that needed to be tidied up that could 

be dealt with through the casual arrangement, and that - 

that was what was put in place. Whether it was extended 

on, which was what the consistent theme was with this all 

the way through, I don't know why that happened. I wasn't 

responsible for that. 

But if it was an extension of the work that she was doing 

under the contract, you should have gone back for an 

extension of the waiver. Correct?---I'm not exactly sure 

what she was doing at the end. 

4/10/06 MUSSON, S.D. XN 188 

10.42 

Spark & Cannon

9/19/glj 

No, but as a proposition, if it was an extension of the 

work that she was doing on phase 3 and you had run out of 

money after the first waiver, you should have gone back to 

the State Supply Commission for a second waiver. Correct? 

---No, not necessarily. I mean, I guess you're talking - 

one of the problems in government is you have two separate 

processes, you have your procurement process and you have 

your payroll process and they run in isolation from each 

other, they're not ones that come together. There's the 

human resource area that manages the - you know, the 

payroll side, and there's the procurement area that manages 

procurement. They don't talk to each other; they're not 

structured to do that, so, you know, that's - that's the 

reality of it. So based on the surface of what was 

probably presented at the time, it would have seen 

reasonable to pay her casual work to do what she needed to 

do. 

4/10/06 MUSSON, S.D. XN 189 

Spark & Cannon

10/20/mjd 

I accept what you say, there are two streams if you like. 

On the one side you have procurement and that's governed by 

the supply policies of the State Supply Commission which 

require open and competitive competition and on the other 

hand you have employment and that's governed by the public 

sector standards which also require open and competitive 

merit based selection processes and because those two areas 

govern the different sides the field is covered, is it not, 

that open and competitive policies cover both sides? 

---Yeah, well the public sector standards apply to 

employment over six months. Now, the problem with Arwa's 

casual employment was that it was never supposed to go 

beyond that throughout the process. So once again that was 

something that occurred fairly regularly, that every time 

she was given something it seemed to be extended on. 

Do you accept as a proposition that casual employment 

should not be used as a tool to avoid procurement 

procedures?---As a principle, yes, but in reality they are 

two separate processes and I don't think that was even a 

consideration. It was, "Can I employ someone as a casual 

for this period of time under the GOSAC arrangements?" The 

answer is yes. So it's how the question gets asked I 

guess. 

If you do that you can defeat the State Supply Commission's 

supply policies, can't you?---That was probably never put 

as a question. 

Did you in your position as acting general manger sit over 

both the procurement cell and the HR cell at Central TAFE? 

---Yes, I did. 

So you had responsibility to govern the whole question? 

---Yes. Yes. 

Both on the procurement side and on the employment side. 

Correct?---Yes. But in a day to day sense I wasn't 

necessarily involved in advice given or, you know, actions 

taken. 

In hindsight knowing what you do now would you concede that 

it was inappropriate to employ her on a casual basis at the 

end of phase 3 in the way that Central TAFE did?---Perhaps 

with hindsight yes but I can also understand how it 

happened. I mean, it seemed like a reasonable thing to do. 

There was the capacity to do it. If someone wanted to 

interpret it that way which is obviously what's being put 

to me now then, yes, I could see that that could have 

occurred but - - - 

There are two questions here. The question of whether it 

can be done and whether it should be done, isn't it?---Yes. 

And the question of can it be done in this way, employing 

4/10/06 MUSSON, S.D. XN 190 

10.47 

Spark & Cannon

10/21/mjd 

someone on a casual basis you answered in the affirmative. 

Did you really address the question of whether it should be 

done in this way?---I guess that was never really taken 

into consideration. I mean, there was the capacity to do 

it, it didn't seem to be an unreasonable thing to do. 

Is that because of the commercial imperatives that it was 

considered important by corporate executive to have 

Arwa Saleh-Evans complete the project? Is that the 

motivation?---Well, I think so. You know, to get - we had 

come on a long journey, we were almost at the end. Is it 

reasonable to ask her to finish off some stuff on a causal 

basis? I would have thought the answer is yes. 

I want to take you to the last paragraph now. It says 

there: 

It is a condition of this approval that your agency 

develops and issues a specification, receives a 

formal offer and executes a formal contract document. 

The contract award details must be published on the 

WA government contracting information bulletin board. 

Was that done? Any of those things?---I'm not sure. I 

would have left that to the procurement people to organise. 

I think what you need to understand is the level of detail 

at that level that you get involved in you are very reliant 

on those areas - those operational areas to perform those 

tasks for you. 

4/10/06 MUSSON, S.D. XN 191 

Spark & Cannon

11/22/rds 

Did you tell the procurement officers specifically, "You 

have to attend to this. Please attend to this on my 

behalf"?---I can't recall where that letter - I'm assuming 

the letter went back to the procurement area and that that 

would've been managed through them. 

As the acting general manager you were responsible 

ultimately to make sure that happened?---Yes, that's 

correct. 

And on the evidence we have seen it didn't happen?---Yes. 

Do you have any explanation for that?---I assumed that it 

would happen. Perhaps I assumed wrongly. 

This employment of Ms Arwa Saleh-Evans at a rate of $53.09, 

who decided to do that, to employ her casually after the 

money ran out for the - - -?---I'm assuming it was Gary 

Fitzgerald because he was the one working with her on the 

things that needed to be done. 

Was there any discussion of it at corporate executive 

level?---Honestly I can't remember. 

How was the rate $53.09 - which isn't a very round figure; 

it's a very specific figure - calculated?---I'm assuming 

it's based on level 8.3 plus 20 per cent. I'm assuming 

that. I don't know. 

So on this occasion you think that the formula that I have 

showed you was applied to her employment?---Yes; yes. 

Her employment on that occasion, was that done after a 

merit-based and competitive selection process?---No. 

THE COMMISSIONER: I think we know the answer to that, 

don't we, Mr Tooker? 

TOOKER, MR: It's the case in 2003, is it not, that 

Central TAFE had signed an agency specific agreement that 

was effective from 1 January 2003? Do you remember that? 

---Yes. 

And it allowed casual employment for up to three months. 

Correct?---Yes; yes. 

Ultimately Ms Saleh-Evans was employed from 1 October 2003 

to 21 April 2004, a period of approximately seven months. 

So that amounts to noncompliance with the agency specific 

agreement. Correct?---It's noncompliance if she worked all 

the way through with no breaks and I'm not sure whether she 

had breaks for the Christmas period. If she was working 

consistently through - which I would find difficult to 

understand because we have a college close-down over the 

Christmas break - then it certainly would be noncompliance 

4/10/06 MUSSON, S.D. XN 192 

10.52 

Spark & Cannon

11/23/rds 

but if she has breaks in service, then technically anyway 

one could argue that it was complying with the agreement. 

Do you know why she was paid $53.09 and not the 

hundred dollars that she was previously paid in 2002?---I'm 

assuming because it was the level 8.3. 

Is it because this income just topped up what she was 

getting on the contracts and she didn't demand the 

hundred dollars?---I think we told her, "That's the most we 

can pay you." 

Do you know what work she was doing for that $53.09?---She 

was mainly working for Gary, doing what Gary needed to have 

completed. So he would've been a better person to ask. 

Do you know if she was working on the communication 

strategy for Gary?---That rings a bell. I think there were 

a few things she was tidying up or working on and that 

certainly rings a bell as one of the things that she was 

doing, yes. 

Did Ms Saleh-Evans have a role with the change management 

process in 2004?---When you say the change management 

process, what do you mean? 

After the functional review finished, phase 3, the report 

was signed off on?---Yes. 

4/10/06 MUSSON, S.D. XN 193 

Spark & Cannon

12/24/mjd 

After the functional review finished, phase 3, the report 

was signed off on?---Yes. I think while she was still 

there she came to the change management committee and gave 

updates on progress or clarified any points that the 

participants on the committee might have wanted to have 

clarified. It was a diverse group of both union and 

management representatives. So I basically recall her role 

to one of almost - well, like a visitor to the meetings. 

She wasn't a decision maker or she didn't have any 

significant input other than to try and clarify, update, 

that sort of role. 

I want to show you now the final phase 3 report because you 

signed off on it, Mr Musson. It's CCC bar code 9429. You 

see that it's the functional review report, November 2003. 

If we go over the page to the middle it's called the - 

project name is Functional Review, date of issue 

21 November 2003. It's signed by Ms Arwa Saleh-Evans 

19 January 2004 as project lead. Approved by yourself, 

that's your signature there. Correct?---Yes. 

19 January 2004 and then signed off on by the managing 

director Brian Patterson 22 January 2004. It says there 

that you're the chair of the functional review steering 

committee. Is that right?---I don't recall ever being the 

chair of the functional review steering committee. I might 

have certainly filled in at times when - you know, if Gary 

was off on leave or unavailable for meetings but I don't 

recall ever being the chair. 

So why is it that you signed this document?---I'm not sure. 

The document is issued on 21 November 2003 but only signed 

off on by yourself in January 2004. Do you know what the 

delay was? The two months?---No. To be frank I don't even 

- I don't even recall the document. I mean, in my role I 

was signing stuff, you know, large volumes of transactions 

daily so I don't recall even seeing this document. I 

obviously did because I signed it but the nature of the 

function I was undertaking was a high volume, a lot of 

processes that came across my desk and I find it very 

difficult to recall the large number of documents, you 

know, that I probably saw or signed. 

Did you have a role with the student journey project or 

some involvement with it?---No. 

Did Mervyn Joseph approach you at some stage about his 

project?---Yes, he did when - I think it was when I was in 

- it was either when I was the director of business support 

unit or it may have been in that three-month period where I 

was doing both Gary's role and mine and he came to see me 

about whether he could employ Arwa as a casual and I said 

to him, "Look, based on what has previously occurred my 

advice would be that it should be a procurement process 

4/10/06 MUSSON, S.D. XN 194 

10.57 

Spark & Cannon

12/25/mjd 

that you go through." 

Why is that?---Because I was unhappy with the previous 

arrangements with the benefit of hindsight and I didn't 

want to repeat the first time around. I mean, I think, you 

know, the first time around I believe was a mistake because 

it went on too long so I said to Mervyn the best way 

forward is to make this a procurement process then there's 

no questions about Arwa or anyone else that you might get 

on board, you know, to do it. 

4/10/06 MUSSON, S.D. XN 195 

Spark & Cannon

13/26/glj 

So what did you do?---I took him in to see Bryan - I think 

it was Bryan Nicholson, I think Bryan was in the chair at 

the time - and said to Bryan, "Mervyn has come to see me 

about trying to employ Arwa as a casual. I think it would 

be better if we went through a procurement process" - I 

mean, this may not be word for word but it was along the 

lines of this - "and I'd like you to put a procurement 

process in place." I also had an arrangement with Bryan at 

that time to identify priorities for him because he was 

very snowed under, they had a - they a significant backlog 

of work in the procurement area, and I asked him to elevate 

it to be a high priority otherwise it would have gone to 

the bottom of the tray and probably take him, you know, two 

or three months to get to finalisation. So I left Mervyn 

with Bryan and, yeah, in terms of that component of it I - 

I had no other involvement. 

Did you ever speak to Joseph Rooney about the matter? 

---The - my recollection is that he sent an email to Cindy 

Corless who was doing my substantive role. 

All right, I'm not talking about that?---Okay. 

We can move on to that later, but Joseph Rooney says that 

you approached him in Phil Bianchi's office and said that 

"Mervyn has this project" and you had a discussion about it 

and he said, "Okay, I'll put the documents together, we'll 

put it out to a public tender and we'll do it that way," 

and then you said something along the lines of, "We're 

going to write the contract with shared services." Did you 

say that to him?---No. Not at all. Why would I? I mean, 

I was reliant on the procurement guys putting the process 

in place. I - there was no need for me to say that. 

Did Joseph Rooney ever approach you in person to speak to 

you about the problems he was having with this contract 

that he was writing for Mervyn Joseph?---Not that I can 

recall. 

Did you ever have discussions about the concerns that 

Joseph Rooney had with Phil Bianchi?---I'm not sure what 

you mean. Concerns? With Phil Bianchi? 

Did Phil Bianchi ever come to you, either with Joseph 

Rooney present or not, and discuss Joseph Rooney's concerns 

about Mervyn's project with you?---I don't recall them 

doing that. 

Did Phil May ever come and talk to you about the problems 

that he and Joseph Rooney were having with the project, 

Mervyn's project?---Not that I can recall. I mean, I don't 

recall them coming to me and specifically saying, "I am 

having these problems." I mean, we were having lots of 

procurement problems at that time and no-one was - that I'm 

aware of - specifically pointing out to me personally that 

4/10/06 MUSSON, S.D. XN 196 

11.02 

Spark & Cannon

13/27/glj 

there was some issues. I found out later. 

Is that via that email that was sent to Cindy Corless? 

---Yes. Yes. 

All right, I will show that to you now - it's CCC bar 

code 9393. This is an email from Joseph Rooney to Cindy 

Corless dated 22 October 2003. It's about RFQ079/2003, 

consulting services for the student journey project?---Yes. 

It's an email where Joseph Rooney outlines a number of 

concerns that he had. Did Cindy Corless forward that email 

to you?---Yes, we had a discussion about it. 

Did she forward the email to you and then you had a 

discussion? Is that the position?---Yeah, I suspect that's 

what has happened, yes, or she brought it; she'd printed it 

and brought it to me. One or the other, yeah. 

What did you do in response to the concerns raised by 

Joseph Rooney in that email?---If it's - I haven't read the 

whole email. Cindy and I had a discussion about it and we 

were - we were struggling to sort of understand what the 

issue was. So my recollection is I asked her to go back 

and talk to Joe and ask the sort of straight-out question, 

was there any sort of jiggery-pokery going on here, and I 

think she came back to me and said, "Well, Joe thinks it's 

all about perception, you know, what people will think," 

that there wasn't necessarily - in terms of our own 

policies and that, there wasn't any breach of that but it 

was the perception of what people would think. We then had 

a discussion about, "Well, given that it's past, what are 

we going to do?" and we - I mean, we had significant 

problems in the procurement area which I undertook to fix 

when I came into the role of director business support and 

Cindy and I believed that at that stage there was nothing 

we could do about the past, and this was probably fairly 

typical of things that - some of the problems that were 

occurring with procurement, and that for the future we had 

a decent plan in place so these things would not happen in 

the future. We'd recruited someone that came from State 

Supply that understood all the policies and guidelines. 

We'd added in extra staff in the procurement area, which 

had been really under-resourced, and we'd made sure the new 

person was going out and working with managers in a 

proactive way to make sure that these sort of things didn't 

occur and that if there were any problems we'd cut them off 

before they actually became, you know, the sort of problems 

that were occurring. So we both came to the conclusion 

that it's unlikely that this sort of thing would happen 

again in the future. Joe had basically told us that there 

wasn't anything that wasn't following the normal processes, 

or that was my interpretation of what Cindy had told me, 

and that that would be the way forward, that we would rely 

for the future on good systems and consulting sort of 

approaches to try and deal with some of these problems that 

4/10/06 MUSSON, S.D. XN 197 

Spark & Cannon

13/28/glj 

Joe was raising. 

4/10/06 MUSSON, S.D. XN 198 

Spark & Cannon

14/29/rds 

Are you aware that one of the unsuccessful bidders on this 

project wrote a letter of complaint?---Yes. 

I want to show you that letter now. It's CCC bar code 

9382. This is a letter dated 24 October 2003 from one of 

the consultants who bid on the student journey project. 

Just scroll down so we can see the questions. 

I just want to focus on questions 4 and 5. Question 4 is: 

And 5: 

Is it correct that TAFE has an extended history of 

contracting with Shared Services or its principal 

under other business names? If correct, how is this 

not bias or giving an unfair advantage? 

Did any previous contracts to Shared Services or its 

principal provide inside information that was not 

available to other bidders, ie not included in the 

tender document? 

Did you have some role in providing a response to that 

letter?---Yes, I did. 

In fact you wrote or authored the letter of response. 

Isn't that correct?---No. Phil drafted me a response. 

Actually his first response was - I think it was Phil. His 

first response didn't actually address the questions that 

were being asked or his first draft, so I sent it back to 

him asking him to redraft it, trying to address the 

questions in a more specific way. So I may well have 

signed the response. I think I was happy with what he had 

given in the end but yeah, I do recall actually saying to 

Phil, you know, like, "We need to really try and address 

this guy's concerns," and the first draft didn't really do 

that. So yes, I certainly played a role in it. I may well 

have signed the letter. I can't recall now whether I did 

or not. 

4/10/06 MUSSON, S.D. XN 199 

11.07 

Spark & Cannon

15/30/mjd 

All right, I'll show you the letter. Before we get there 

though I want to compare it to these questions. So (4) is 

quite specifically asking whether there is an extended 

history between Shared Services and TAFE and (5) is asking 

whether they were provided any inside information. Now, if 

we go to the response which is CCC bar code 9367 this is a 

letter on Central TAFE letterhead in response to that 

letter of complaint and on the second page if we go to that 

we can see that it's dated 19 November 2003 and it's signed 

by you. Correct?---Yes, that's right. 

All right, if we focus on the answers to questions (4) and 

(5). (4) says this: 

Central TAFE's contracts are publicly advertised to 

maximise the number of potential respondents to its 

request for quotation tender. Each bid response is 

evaluated in isolation from any other contract 

previously awarded and the relatively small size of 

the consultancy community in Perth area tends to 

limit the number of responses that are received. It 

is not uncommon for Central TAFE to use the services 

of the same individuals or firms more than once. 

Now, that doesn't really answer the question does it?---I 

can't remember what the question was now. 

Was there an extended history between Central TAFE and 

Shared Services?---I think it does. You know - - - 

Where's the answer to that question? Whether there's an 

extended history between Shared Services and Central TAFE? 

---I think the last sentence says it's not uncommon for 

Central TAFE to use the services of the same individuals or 

firms more than once. 

That's just a general statement, isn't it?---Well, I mean I 

guess it's how you interpret it. Perhaps - - - 

It's vague and it's meant to be vague, isn't it?---Well, 

not really because I guess I was - - - 

THE COMMISSIONER: Mr Tooker, Mr Musson, this could go on 

till tea time. At the end of the day the Commission will 

decide whether that's an appropriate answer to 

question (4). Let's not debate it. 

TOOKER, MR: 

In question (5) your response is: 

All potential respondents were given the same 

information when the RFQ was published. Previous 

contracts with Central TAFE would not necessarily 

have given any competitive advantage. 

That's simply not true, is it?---I'm not sure why you would 

4/10/06 MUSSON, S.D. XN 200 

11.12 

Spark & Cannon

15/31/mjd 

say that. 

Well, if you had worked on the functional review phase 1, 2 

and 3 it would have given that bidder a competitive 

advantage. Correct?---Well, they were all discrete 

exercises in their own right so they were all separate sort 

of exercises. 

You've already told us that the fact that she had done 1, 

2, and 3 meant that there was a commercial imperative to 

keep her on the project so her previous work would have 

assisted her in gaining a competitive advantage for the 

student journey project. Correct?---Well, I think it says 

there it would not necessarily have given any competitive 

advantage. I mean it may or may not have but it says there 

"not necessarily." 

Just finally, Mr Musson, are you aware of any relationship 

between Arwa Saleh-Evans and any employees of Central 

TAFE?---No. 

That completes the examination, Commissioner. 


from his summons? 

All right. Can Mr Musson be released 

TOOKER, MR: 

Yes, Commissioner. 

THE COMMISSIONER: All right. Thank you, Mr Musson, 

you're released from your summons and you're now free to 

go. 

(THE WITNESS WITHDREW) 


break. 

I think we shall have a 10-minute 

TOOKER, MR: 

Yes. 

____________________ 

4/10/06 MUSSON, S.D. XN 201 

Spark & Cannon

16/32/rds 


Mr Gormly? 

GORMLY, MR: 

Commissioner. 


The next witness? 

GORMLY, MR: 

We have Mr Bryan Nicholson, Commissioner. 


Mr Bryan Nicholson. All right. 

NICHOLSON, BRYAN JOHN called: 

THE COMMISSIONER: Mr Nicholson, before you give evidence 

this morning it's necessary for you to either take the oath 

or an affirmation. What would you prefer to do?---I'll 

take the oath. Thank you, sir. 

All right. If you would. 

NICHOLSON, BRYAN JOHN sworn: 

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you, Mr Nicholson. Please sit 

down. I must now tell you of your rights and obligations 

under the Corruption and Crime Commission Act of 2003 which 

I will call the act. The act provides that if you fail to 

produce any document as required by the summons or if you 

fail to answer any question relevant to the investigation 

that I require you to answer, you may be in contempt of the 

Commission. You are not excused from the requirement to 

answer the question on the ground that the answer might 

incriminate you or tend to incriminate you or render you 

liable to a penalty. You may accept that when Mr Gormly 

asks you a question he is doing so on my behalf and you 

must answer. If I take the view the question is 

inappropriate in any way, I will intervene. In the absence 

of the intervention, however, you must proceed to answer 

the question. I may ask you some questions myself but for 

the most part the examination will be carried out by 

Mr Gormly. The legislation; that is, the act, provides 

protection in the following way: a statement made by you 

in answer to a question that I require you to answer is not 

admissible in evidence against you in any criminal 

proceedings or proceedings for the imposition of a penalty 

except contempt proceedings, proceedings for an offence 

against the act or disciplinary proceedings. You must give 

truthful evidence in this examination. You have promised 

to do so in submitting to the oath. If you fail; that is, 

if you give evidence which is false or misleading in any 

material way, you would commit an offence under the act 

attracting significant penalties. In proceedings brought 

against you for that offence your evidence here that is 

relevant will be admissible against you. Mr Gormly, do you 

have any observations on those remarks? 

GORMLY, MR: 

I don't, Commissioner. 

4/10/06 NICHOLSON, B.J. XN 202 

11.27 

Spark & Cannon

16/33/rds 


commence. 

All right. If you would proceed to 

GORMLY, MR: 

Thank you. 

Mr Nicholson, in 2002 and 2003 you were employed at Central 

TAFE in what capacity?---As their procurement coordinator. 

When did you start there?---Approximately August 2002. 

Are you still there or not?---No. I've moved on since 

then. 

I think you are now with the Department of Treasury and 

Finance but still positioned in the Department of Education 

and Training. Is that correct?---That's correct. 

So how does your current job work, just very briefly? 

---With the rebadging of the procurement group in 

government, I was lucky enough to be included in that 

rebadging over to the Department of Treasury and Finance 

and now I form part of a 22-person unit that looks after 

procurement for the education and training cluster which 

encompasses all colleges - - - 

So you are still in procurement?---Yes. 

You are still in essentially education but you are employed 

by the Department of Treasury and Finance?---Our main 

clients are Training and Education but I work for the 

Department of Treasury and Finance. 

I'm just going to ask you if you wouldn't mind just pulling 

your chair forward a bit. There's a microphone there. I'm 

just having trouble hearing you. All right. Mr Nicholson, 

I just want to confine the questions that I'm going to ask 

you to one specific area. Do you understand?---Yes. 

It relates to the evaluation process that occurred for 

phase 3 of the functional review at Central TAFE. Do you 

understand that?---Yes. 


Spark & Cannon

17/34/glj 

Firstly, at that particular time, which I think was in 

effect late December 2002 and extending into 2003, who were 

you reporting to?---My immediate line supervisor was Phil 

Bianchi. 

All right. You had been appointed to the evaluation 

committee for the purposes of determining who would be 

awarded the bid for phase 3 of the functional review. 

Correct?---Not entirely. 

All right, what is the correct position--My appointment to 

that panel would have been to ensure that the processes 

were followed and to give a general overview of that 

particular report. 

How many people are expected to be on an evaluation panel? 

---Two, three, four. 

Isn't it three or more? It's three or more, isn't it? 

---Generally, but - - - 

Mr Nicholson - - -?---Yes. 

- - - let's not have a problem this early in the stage? 

---Okay. 

Isn't it the case that there were three people appointed to 

the evaluation committee - - -?---Yes. 

- - - for phase 3?---Yes. 

Right. You were one of them, were you not?---Yes. 

The other two were Mr Fitzgerald and Mr - - -?---Steve 

Musson? You'd have to refresh my memory. 

All right. Now, Mr Nicholson, did you not just the other 

day come in to this Commission so that you were involved in 

an interview, recorded interview, covering these events? 

---Yes, correct. 

This was one of the topics that came up for discussion, 

wasn't it?---Correct. 

You have given a detailed account - - -?---Yes. 

- - - of what occurred during that process?---Correct. 

I'm going to ask you questions about the same thing. Do 

you understand?---Yes. 

All right. Now, who were the three people appointed to the 

evaluation panel?---If my memory serves me correct, 

Mr Fitzgerald, Mr Musson and myself. 


11.32 

Spark & Cannon

17/35/glj 

Now, did you sign a confidentiality and conflict of 

interest form before you took part in that process?---Yes. 

Did you complete an evaluation of the various bids that 

were made for phase 3?---Yes, I would have. 

That's a required part of taking part in an evaluation 

panel, isn't it?---Yes. Correct. 

Yes, and once you had done that you then had to take a part 

in evaluating the various bids by reading them and 

assessing them and completing an evaluation form. 

Correct?---Yes, correct. 

The normal procedure that was in place at TAFE and 

generally in public sector procurement was that after 

assessing the bids, panel members would then meet, discuss 

and come to I think what you have described as a consensus 

about - - -?---Correct. 

- - - who should succeed. Is that right?---Yes, correct. 

There's usually a chairman to the panel?---Yes. 

And in this case the chairman was Mr Gary Fitzgerald. 

Correct?---Yes. 

Was the third member of the panel Mr Chanel, or Chanel?---I 

don't recall. 

Now, I want to suggest to you that you are wrong in 

thinking that it was Mr Musson?---Okay. 

Might it be the case that you are incorrect in your 

recollection that it was Mr Musson?---Yes, quite possible. 

I sat on many panels as non-vote - as a non-voting member, 

purely there to ensure the procurement process was 

conducted open and effectively. I signed off on a lot of 

reports over that two-year period so, yes, my memory 

mightn't be exactly spot on. 

I'm just asking you about this one now?---Yes. 

Did that panel ever meet?---To form a consensus? I don't 

recall. I certainly wasn't included. 

Well, if the panel met and you were a member of the panel, 

then you would have been at the meeting. Is that correct? 

---Yes, that's correct. 

Did you ever attend any - - -?---No. 

- - - such meeting?---No. 


Spark & Cannon

17/36/glj 

All right, so it's not really a question of your 

recollection, is it? You are able to say that you did not 

attend a meeting of the evaluation panel for phase 3. 

Correct?---Correct. 


Spark & Cannon

18/37/mjd 

There's no doubt in your mind about that, is there?---No. 

No. Now, when and how did you learn that Ms Saleh-Evans 

had succeeded in being awarded the phase 3 contract?---I 

would have been made aware of that through the presentation 

of the recommendation report to our office requesting that 

we - - - 

Right, now I want to ask you a question now and be very 

careful about the answer for a reason I'll explain. I'm 

going to ask you when you assessed the various bids - and I 

think there were not many of them. Is that right?---Yes. 

When you assessed them - I'm going to ask whether you had 

come to a conclusion about those bids but it's most 

important that you not identify whatever person it was that 

came to mind as being the best bid. You understand? 

Right, now the question is did you read and assess the bids 

and come to a conclusion about which was the best bid? 

Just yes or no to that?---Yes. 

Right. Was the person that came to your mind as the 

successful - as the person who should be the successful 

bidder, the bid by Ms Saleh-Evans?---No. 

You had some other party in mind. Is that correct?---Yes. 

Were some of the bids over $50,000?---I believe so. 

Were there other bids under $50,000 apart from 

Ms Saleh-Evans?---I don't recall. 

Did you have a meeting by way of a telephone conversation - 

I'll withdraw that. Did you have a telephone conversation 

with Mr Gary Fitzgerald by way of a discussion about the 

various bids that had come in for phase 3?---Quite 

possibly. General process would have been that I would 

have notified the - - - 

I just want to know firstly whether you did have a 

discussion. You're saying quite possibly. Is that right? 

---Well, it's how many years ago was it? I can't recall. 

Right?---If I was doing my job correctly yes I would have. 

Right. At the college at the time was there a capacity for 

speaker phone meetings? Well, you know, for multi-party 

meetings, more than two people on the line?---I don't know. 

Did you ever take part in a three-way conversation with 

Mr Fitzgerald about the bids for phase 3?---I don't recall 

it. 

Do you recall a conversation with Mr Fitzgerald in which 

you expressed the view that two of the bids could be 


11.37 

Spark & Cannon

18/38/mjd 

excluded because they were over $50,000 or not?---It's 

quite possible. 

Well, was that - if that happened would that have been 

following correct procedure for the assessment?---Yes. 

It would have?---I would have assumed that I would have 

sent an email covering that off and then maybe followed it 

with a phone call or a phone call followed by an email for 

a situation like that. 

Yes. Now - - -?---That's sorts of issues don't - - - 

Sorry?---In the position that I was in you don't let those 

sorts of situations slip by. They have to be addressed and 

you have to notify the project managers on what's 

appropriate. 

All right. Now, isn't it the case that bids should not be 

excluded from consideration just because they're under or 

over a particular sum of money?---No, they shouldn't. They 

should be evaluated but they would be struck out on 

exceeding the threshold of the college's exemption limit. 

Right. So what you mean is that if a bid comes in that is 

over $50,000 and it's the correct bid you can't exclude the 

bid but you have to undertake another process in case the 

correct contract would in fact cost $50,000 or more? Is 

that right?---Yes. 


Spark & Cannon

19/39/rds 

I think I understand. Could we have on the screen CCC9361? 

If you just have a look at this - no, sorry, that's not it. 

I'm so sorry, it's 9362, my apologies, CCC9362. Just have 

a look at this email, Mr Nicholson. It's sent by you to 

Mr Fitzgerald sometime prior to the evaluation committee 

and it's American date 2 December 2004. Do you see that? 

---Yes. 

And it's an email that was sent late in the afternoon 

concerning functional phase 3. Go to the second paragraph. 

You have said there to Mr Fitzgerald that you had a concern 

that he would put into the requirements for the quote - or 

that he would in some way limit contracts to under $50,000. 

Do you see that?---Mm'hm. 

You have given him some advice there, that that's not what 

should occur because it can compromise the quality of the 

service provided to government?---That's correct. 

That's correct advice, isn't it?---Yes. 

Any manager reading that advice would be able to rely on 

the statement you have made there. Correct?---Correct. 

It's the case, isn't it, that what you were, in effect, 

telling him is that you can't limit bids by a sum of money. 

You have got to describe the service you want and see what 

cost it will be in accordance with whatever the market 

would prescribe?---That's correct, yes. 

Mr Fitzgerald - I want you to know unless perhaps you were 

here yesterday and heard it - has said that there were only 

three bids and two of them were over $50,000 so you could 

exclude them and that left Ms Saleh-Evans' bid. Is that 

what happened?---I don't recall to be honest. 

It's certainly not what you told us the other day, is it? 

---Yeah. I don't recall that either to be honest with you. 

You have taken a minute to think about that?---Yeah. 

Mr Nicholson, I will just deal with this shortly if I 

could. If we accept as correct the statement that you have 

made in this email - - -?---Yes. 

- - - it would not have been appropriate to choose 

Ms Saleh-Evans' - - -?---No, it wouldn't. 

- - - bid by excluding two bids over $50,000, would it? 

---That's correct. 

No procurement officer in your position should have done 

that, should they?---No, they shouldn't have. 


11.42 

Spark & Cannon

19/40/rds 

I'm going to ask you, Mr Nicholson, is that what happened 

in the procurement evaluation process when you had a 

discussion with - if and when you had a discussion with 

Mr Fitzgerald?---It's more than likely that I've advised 

him what he shouldn't do as to what happened. I don't 

recall. 

Pardon?---I don't recall what - how this transpired. I 

mean, my advice was always the appropriate and correct 

advice but as to what happened, I wasn't in control of 

that. As a level 5 you get told what to do by your senior 

staff. 

As I understand it from the first answers you gave us 

10 minutes ago, you had in mind that there was someone who 

should be awarded this bid who was not Ms Saleh-Evans. 

Correct?---If we're talking about - - - 

I don't want you to name any names. Do you understand? 

---No, I'm not going to - - - 

I'm just asking you what was on your - - -?---I'm trying to 

sort out in my mind which project and which - - - 

It's pretty clear which project we are talking about, 

Mr Nicholson, can I suggest to you? We are talking 

about - - -?---It's number 3. 

- - - phase 3, the only one of the functional review of 

which you were an evaluation panel member. That's the one 

we are talking about. Did you or did you not have in mind 

who it was that should receive that bid before you entered 

into any discussions with Mr Fitzgerald?---Yes, I did. 

It was not Ms Saleh-Evans, was it?---No. 

It was someone else?---Correct. 

However, Ms Saleh-Evans has been awarded the contract and 

it wasn't the result of the meeting between the three 

members of the panel, was it?---No, it wasn't; no. 

So who made that decision?---I guess the other two people 

on that panel. 


Spark & Cannon

20/41/glj 

But you think that they got together without you and made 

the decision. Is that right?---Quite possibly. 

Did you make any comment about that, that the process had 

failed because you hadn't been consulted - in a meeting? 

---I was not in a position to make those comments. 

Why not?---As a level 5 you don't challenge senior staff or 

executive groups. 

All right, I understand what you are saying. Are you 

saying that even though you were appointed to the panel, 

your capacity to express a view and to take part in the 

actions of the panel was negatived by your role? Is that 

right?---My views, if they weren't the views of others, 

would not be considered, and in most instances they weren't 

at that college. 

But you are a procurement officer with special knowledge of 

the procurement process. Is that right?---Yes, correct. 

And you know how an evaluation panel should work. 

Correct?---Yes. 

If you had there two other persons who were more senior 

than you, that would not and should not stop you from 

expressing your view and advising the panel members if the 

process looked as though it was going to go astray. Is 

that right?---That's correct. 

Your view should have been listened to, shouldn't it? 

---Yes, it should. 

And it should have been heard?---Yes. 

You were a member of the panel so it should have been the 

case that you took part in the workings of the panel. 

Correct?---That's correct. 

And that didn't happen, did it?---No. 

Did you say anything about that to anyone?---I may have 

made comment to co-workers but not to the two gentlemen 

concerned. 

All right, well, it looks as though this panel evaluation 

process failed. Would you agree with that?---Yes, I would. 

Now, I just want to go to another area altogether if I may, 

Mr Nicholson. You have actually had quite a long 

background in procurement. Is that right?---That's 

correct. 

You have developed some expertise in the field over a long 

period?---Correct. 


11.47 

Spark & Cannon

20/42/glj 

I think you also had the benefit of being with a government 

department that had developed procurement procedures to a 

fairly high level?---Correct. 

I think was that the Department of Justice?---Yes, that's 

right. 

They were quite advanced in their procedures and in their 

development of forms and systems for procurement?---Very 

much so. 

That was before you came to Central TAFE?---Yes, that's 

correct. 

Without using elaborate language and just keeping it short, 

can you tell us what was the difference between what you 

saw at Department of Justice, where procurement was at a 

fairly high level, and what you observed at Central TAFE 

when you first arrived? Was there a difference firstly? 

---It was polarised: opposite ends of the scale. 

So if Department of Justice was good, and I think you 

thought it was good - is that right?---Yes. 

What about Central TAFE's procurement procedures?---One 

word: appalling. 

Now, around about what date was it that you were making 

that assessment? What time?---August. 

August of?---02. 

02, right. Now, I think one of the reasons that you were 

brought in was to try and improve the procurement 

procedures. Is that correct?---That's correct. 

Not just you but others as well. Is that so?---The 

position that I applied for would have had a number of 

duties that had to be maintained on a daily basis, weekly 

basis, whatever. It wasn't just to fix up, it was to do 

the work at the coalface and other - and other duties. The 

problem is there was no-one at the college who had a real 

clear understanding of what was required and the extent of 

what was required, and it took a lot of campaigning by 

myself to get policies, procedures, up-to-date forms, 

templates in place et cetera, et cetera. 

Were those changes embraced? Embraced willingly?---Weren't 

embraced willingly. I - I was labelled as a procurement 

Nazi by the college in general because of the stance that I 

took on ensuring that processes were followed. 

Did the process improve over time or not?---It did. By the 

time I left we'd had a review of our branch, which I pushed 

pretty much on my own; had a independent consultant come in 

and look at the branch structure. We put in place more 


Spark & Cannon

20/43/glj 

staff and it was starting to head in the right direction. 

Who was that consultant?---That was Mr Graham Mahoney. 

That's all the questions I have, Commissioner, thank you. 


discharged? 

All right. Can Mr Nicholson be 

GORMLY, MR: 


THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you very much, Mr Nicholson. You 

are discharged from your summons and you are free to go. 



Spark & Cannon

21/44/mjd 


Mr Tooker, your next witness is? 

TOOKER, MR: 

Joseph Rooney. 


Mr Joseph Rooney. 

ROONEY, JOSEPH CONNELL called: 

THE COMMISSIONER: Mr Rooney, before your examination 

commences I must ask you to either take an oath or an 

affirmation. What would you prefer to do?---The oath, sir. 

All right. 

ROONEY, JOSEPH CONNELL sworn: 

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you, now please sit down, 

Mr Rooney. I must now tell you of your rights and 

obligations under the Corruption and Crime Commission Act. 

That provides that if you fail to produce any document as 

required by the summons or if you fail to answer any 

question relevant to the investigation that I require you 

to answer you may be in contempt of the Commission. You 

are not excused from the requirement to answer the question 

on the ground that the answer might incriminate you or tend 

to incriminate you or make you liable to a penalty. You 

may accept that when Mr Tooker asks you a question he is 

doing so on my behalf and you must answer. If I take the 

view the question is inappropriate I will intervene but in 

the absence of that intervention, however, you must proceed 

to answer the question. I may ask you some questions 

myself in the course of the examination but for the most 

part it will be carried out by Mr Tooker. However, the 

legislation provides protection in the following way: a 

statement made by you in answer to a question that I 

require you to answer is not admissible in evidence against 

you in any criminal proceedings or proceedings for the 

imposition of a penalty except contempt proceedings, 

proceedings for an offence against the act or disciplinary 

proceedings. You must give truthful evidence in this 

examination. If you fail in that respect you will commit 

an offence under the act attracting penalties which may be 

significant. In proceedings brought against you for that 

offence your evidence here that is relevant will be 

admissible against you. You have no observations, 

Mr Tooker? 

TOOKER, MR: 

No, Commissioner. 


examination. 

If you would now commence the 

TOOKER, MR: 

Certainly. 

Mr Rooney, I understand that at one point you did work for 

4/10/06 ROONEY, J.C. XN 214 

11.52 

Spark & Cannon

21/45/mjd 

Central TAFE. Is that correct?---Yes, sir, I did. 

When was that?---I believe that was July of 2003 to end of 

June 2004. 

What was your position at Central TAFE for that year? 

---Contracts officer. 

Were you permanent or not?---No, sir, I was a contractor. 

As a contracts officer, was it your role to do up the 

contracts in the procurement area of Central TAFE?---Yes, 

sir, I assisted the project managers, program managers to 

write their scope of work. I helped put together the 

tenders that were published and when we received bids I sat 

on the evaluation panels and assisted the other members. 

My job was to advise them of the commercial 

responsibilities and things they had to deal with. They 

actually took care of the technical aspect of the 

evaluation. 

How long had you been working in the procurement area as at 

July to June 2004?---Prior to that? 

Yes?---I've spent approximately 30 years in the contracts 

area. State of California and then as a contractor for 

various government agencies and private corporations since 

I arrived in Australia in December of 1996. 

How long in WA?---All of it in WA. 

96 onwards?---10 years. 

All right?---Yes. 

Who was your immediate supervisor at Central TAFE?---My 

immediate line supervisor was Phil Bianchi but frequently I 

reported to Bryan Nicholson for day-to-day operational 

needs. 

All right, was he the procurement coordinator? Was that 

his - - -?---I don't really remember what Phil's title was. 

Truthfully I don't pay attention to titles. 

Okay. Anyway, Phil Bianchi was your immediate line 

supervisor?---Yes, sir. 

Just answer this question yes or no and we will move on. 

Were you the procurement officer who worked on the student 

journey project?---Yes, sir. 

How is it that you got involved?---I don't remember the 

exact date but I was called in to Phil Bianchi's office. 

he asked me to come in, he said Steve Musson had a contract 

he wanted me to work on. Steve was there with me and Phil 

and Bryan was at his desk as well. Steve said something to 

4/10/06 ROONEY, J.C. XN 215 

Spark & Cannon

21/46/mjd 

the effect that Mervyn Joseph wanted to go to phase 4 of 

the functional review and he wanted me to take over writing 

the tender and the contract for Shared Services. My 

response was, you know, we're looking at close to $50,000, 

we're going to have to publish it and she can take her 

chances like everybody else. 

4/10/06 ROONEY, J.C. XN 216 

Spark & Cannon

22/47/rds 

How did you know it was going to be about 50,000?---They 

already told me. 

Who told you?---They said the budget for this was about 

50,000 but we had to keep it under 50. If we'd gone over 

50 we had to go to the State Supply Commission and they 

would take it out of our hands and run it themselves. 

Who told you that?---That's State Supply Commission policy. 

I know that's the policy?---We had an exemption on 

contracts up to 50,000. Anything over 50,000 the State 

Supply Commission took care of the procurement process for 

us. 

I understand that. My question is who told you that you 

had to keep it under 50,000?---Steve Musson. 

Was that at that meeting that you are talking about, that 

first meeting - - -?---Yes, it was. 

- - - at Phil Bianchi's office?---Yes, it was. I needed to 

have parameters so I could start work on the project 

and - - - 

What parameters did he give you?---He told me that it would 

be a follow-on from phase 3 of the functional review to 

handle some of the recommendations; Mervyn Joseph would be 

the project manager; the budget had to come in under 50,000 

but we knew that because that was our - anything over that 

we didn't have an exemption for and he said we were looking 

at three months worth of work and they wanted to get it out 

fairly quickly, that I should coordinate with Mervyn Joseph 

and that's what I subsequently did. 

Did you indicate that you would draw up the documents and 

send it out for tender and all that?---Yes, sir. That was 

my job. 

Did Steve Musson have a response to that?---What I told 

Steve was that of course I'd write them up and I'd publish 

it, you know, and I said - because of the dollar amount we 

were looking at I advised that we go to a full public 

tender and publish it in the newspaper, and he said, "Well, 

we know what the result is that we want to get," and then 

that was the end of the meeting. 

Did he tell you what the result was that he wanted to get? 

---Yes. We were going to hire Arwa Saleh-Evans and I told 

him, I said, "Look, we have to go out to a public tender. 

She takes her chances like everybody else." 

Why did you tell him it had to go out to a public tender? 

---We didn't have a sole source exemption. There was no 

reason not to. We were hiring a consultant for pity sake. 

4/10/06 ROONEY, J.C. XN 217 

11.57 

Spark & Cannon

22/48/rds 

Okay. Let's go back?---I'm sorry. 

You have been told that it has got to come under $50,000? 

---Yes. 

You have already told me that Central TAFE can deal with 

that in-house?---Mm'hm. 

Why did you say to him, "No. We have to go to public 

tender"?---When I went into the room and I found out what 

the project was, I already knew that we had a problem with 

the functional review and my thought was, "I need to 

protect Central TAFE from doing something shonky, so we go 

out to public tender. We're not just going to take our 

favourite son." TAFE already had a history of doing that 

anyway in other departments and areas of the college. We 

had a number of contractors or consultants that seemed to 

get the contracts all the time. That's not the way the 

game is played, not legally anyway. 

So after this meeting what happened?---I was instructed to 

call Mervyn Joseph. I gave him a call and, you know, 

basically, "Hi. This is who I am. I'm going to be helping 

you out on this," and I said, "Do you have anything for 

your scope of work? You know, how are we going to define 

this project? You know, when do you want it to take place? 

You know, how long is it going to be?" He said, "Well, 

it's going to be a follow-on from phase 4" - excuse me - 

"phase 3 of the functional review," and I said, "Well, if 

we're going to do that, then I need to see the report so I 

can help you write the scope of work because that will have 

the recommendations." He said, "That's where it's coming 

from," and he said if I needed to see that, I needed to 

call Arwa because he didn't have a copy. So later I called 

her and she said, "Well, it's in draft. It hasn't been 

finished yet." So she said, "I can't help you with that. 

It's not available." So I went back to Mervyn and I said, 

"Look, first of all, we can't call it phase 4. The State 

Supply isn't going to buy off on that," and I said, "Second 

of all, Arwa can't give me anything in terms of what the 

scope is going to be, her recommendations. She says those 

aren't final." So I said, you know, "We need to work on 

that," and he subsequently came back with a new title, he 

called it "the student journey" and he had sent me one 

draft of a scope which apparently was from the functional 

review but when I said we have to delete every reference to 

functional review, it can't be a follow-on, then he changed 

the wording a bit and I'm not exactly sure what that was 

this long removed but it was a somewhat different project, 

although not substantively. 

4/10/06 ROONEY, J.C. XN 218 

Spark & Cannon

23/49/glj 

Why did you tell him it couldn't be phase 4?---That's real 

simple. The college had an exemption, you know, up to 

50,000 - it could write its own contracts. If we'd already 

written phases 1, 2 and 3 and each one was roughly 50,000, 

we already busted our exemption; we already knew State 

Supply wasn't going to play ball on a phase 4 for a 

function review, we already had the letter and we'd - she'd 

already busted her budget on phase 3. So, clearly, we 

weren't going back to that well so we had to come up with 

something else and I said, "Look, if you're going to do 

this as phase 4, we're going back to State Supply and they 

take over the whole procurement process," and I said, 

"We're talking six, eight months before we go to contract," 

and he said, "Nope, I got to have it right now." You know, 

"It has to be done before Christmas." He was very adamant 

about that and I said, "Well, it's going to have to be a 

separate project then," and he said, "Okay, we'll do what 

we have to do." 

All right. So you said it had to be a separate project. 

Did he come back to you?---Well, he came back with a 

revised scope of work and I said, you know, "From what it 

looks like to me," I said, "it really looks like you're 

following on from phase 3," and he said, "No, it's not," 

and I figured, "Well, I'm a contractor" - you know, he's 

much higher in the feeding chain than I am - "fine, your 

contract, we'll go with it." So that's what we put out. 

But when it came back, what was different about the scope 

of works?---Well, all I could glean from the original scope 

and what he'd come back with and that we finally put out to 

bid, the first one really was from Arwa's draft that I'd 

never actually seen but it had been described to me in some 

detail by Mervyn Joseph, and I said, you know - and that's 

when I said, "We can't do phase 4," because this first one 

referred to the previous projects, and I said, "It's got to 

be different." I said, "It's got to be separate because 

State Supply is going to see we're trying to run - doing 

the run around." I said, "That isn't going to happen." I 

said, "We'll be audited. Someone is going to get burnt." 

So he jiggered around the words a bit and that's the scope 

we went out to bid for, but I didn't feel real comfortable 

with it but still, you know, I'm a contract employee. 

On your assessment of the original scope of works and the 

one that was changed, was it the same project in 

substance?---I thought it was the same in substance. I 

never thought it was particularly different. I thought 

what he had - what he had seemed to have done is instead of 

going for all the recommendations on phase 3, he narrowed 

it to just a few for this phase 4, or the student journey 

as we subsequently called it. 

All right, I want to talk generally now. An RFQ is a 

request for quote, right?---Yes. 

4/10/06 ROONEY, J.C. XN 219 

12.02 

Spark & Cannon

23/50/glj 

That's the document that goes out requesting the quotations 

that you then assess at Central TAFE. Correct?---Right. 

Is the scope of works all of the RFQ or is that just one 

part of the RFQ?---No, that's only one part of it. The 

scope of work is what defines for the contractor what we 

want to have happen. So we will tell them, for instance, 

"We want to buy a gas chromatograph," and that's - we would 

put in all the technical details, or if we want to hire a 

consultant we tell them, "We have this problem or this 

project. Quote me on what it will take to make it happen 

or to get us a conclusion, and how you're going to reach 

that conclusion. What's your - how do you see the project 

happening?" and that's what the scope of work is. 

So the scope of works is the guts of the RFQ, the real 

content of it?---Absolutely. 

What's required?---Yeah. 

Is that right?---Yes. 

And there are lots of details that surround it, that go in 

an RFQ. Correct?---Right. There's a lot of boiler plate, 

standard government language that goes in for every tender 

or every contract, but it's the scope of work is where you 

get creative. 

Did you send an RFQ shell to Arwa Saleh-Evans by email?---I 

believe I did, but I don't remember. 

All right, I will show you an email now - it's CCC bar 

code 9431?---Yes. 

4/10/06 ROONEY, J.C. XN 220 

Spark & Cannon

24/51/mjd 

Now, this is an email from yourself?---Right. 

To Arwa at iprimus.com.au?---Mm. 

On the - must be 4 September, it must be American dates? 

---That's about right, yeah. 

Because you weren't working there in April of 03 were you? 

---No, that would be American dates. 

All right, so that's 4 September 2003, the subject is 

Implementation of Recommendations and you say: 

---Right. 

Arwa, attached is the RFQ shell that I've put 

together so far. I still don't have the 

recommendations, their priority ranking, which ones 

will be implemented or how long it may take which 

depends on which recommendations will be implemented. 

I would appreciate your assistance with this if you 

can, thanks? 

So are you saying that you had done a lot of the boiler 

plate work or the standard stuff and created a shell? 

---Right. 

And then - but the guts of it, the scope of works needed to 

be inserted. Is that the position?---That's correct and 

frankly that memo is a violation of process. You 

understand that? You don't go to someone you think will be 

the contractor and say, "Help me write the tender." 

Did you know at that point that Arwa would be one of the 

potential bidders?---Yeah, and I fought it. I didn't even 

send her the tender when it was published because I didn't 

want her to bid but I was told she's going to bid. 

Okay, that's later on but why did you do this?---I was 

instructed to do so by Mervyn Joseph. He said, "You have 

to get it from her, she's writing it," and I figured the 

only way I'm going to get a scope of work is to go to the 

source. I had already talked to her on the phone and I 

said, "Look, I need some help on this." 

So prior to this point had Mervyn Joseph provided you with 

a scope of works?---Just something in general. It wasn't 

enough. It wasn't enough to put out to the public. It was 

based on his knowledge as I understood it of what phase 3 

was going to look like when it was finally drafted but he 

had already said - when I told him I said, "This really 

isn't enough, it's not specific enough for somebody to bid 

on," he said, "Well, you need to talk to Arwa because 

that's where it's coming from." 

4/10/06 ROONEY, J.C. XN 221 

12.07 

Spark & Cannon

24/52/mjd 

All right, I want to show you - - -?---So I had a phone 

call with her and subsequently this email. 

Did she help provide the scope of works for the RFQ?---No, 

ultimately no. 

So you're saying you didn't get any response to this 

email?---No. I think a week or so later I called her back 

and she said, "Look, it's not drafted, it's not ready, I 

don't want to see it out there," and I said, "Okay, fine," 

and I went back to Mervyn and explained the problem and he 

ultimately came up with what we used. 

All right. I want to show you another document now that 

might assist. All right, that conversation with Arwa 

Saleh-Evans was that on the phone?---Yes, it was. I've 

never actually met her. 

Okay. Who called who?---I called her on both occasions. 

What did you ask her?---Well, the first time around I 

explained that I was writing the tender for phase 4, which 

is what I thought it was at the time, and I said, "Mervyn 

has asked me to give you a call because we're not having 

any luck writing a good" - what I said was, "Mervyn hasn't 

provided me with enough to write a scope of work but he 

says that you have all the information so then I need to 

talk to you and you will provide me with either a copy of 

the phase 3 report or at least the recommendations and from 

that I could come to get - I could put together a scope of 

work that someone could bid on." 

What was her response?---Well, her response at first was, 

"Well, I'll be glad to help out but it's all in draft," and 

I said, "Well, look let me send you what I've got in terms 

of contract shell, see if you can plug something in there 

that will help me out so I can put it out on the street." 

At the time I knew that she would - I really knew she was 

going to get the contract but as a contracts officer I 

wasn't going to - I didn't have an intention of sending her 

the tender because - - - 

All right, we're moving away from the question?--- - - - we 

were already in trouble. Yeah. 

I thin you're talking about a conversation before you sent 

out the draft - - -?---That's right. 

- - - RFQ shell. You say you didn't get a response to the 

email. Did you call her once you didn't get a response to 

that email?---Yes, I did and I asked her, you know, was she 

going to be able to help me out and she said essentially no 

so then I went back to Mervyn and he came up with, like I 

said, the scope that we finally put out on the street. 

4/10/06 ROONEY, J.C. XN 222 

Spark & Cannon

25/53/rds 

Did she explain why she couldn't help you?---She said the 

document was still in draft and wasn't ready for anyone to 

see and she said that the recommendations might change 

later. To tell you the truth I thought that was a bit odd 

because we'd already paid off phase 3. If we paid the 

final invoice why didn't we have the report, but another 

issue? 

Can you remember anything else she said in that 

conversation following up from that email?---No. Basically 

she just stressed that it wasn't - that the phase 3 report 

was still in draft; the recommendations hadn't been 

finalised, she was still working on it, and she was 

reluctant to turn loose with it at that time. 

I want to show you another document now. It's CCC bar code 

9435. Sorry, before I get there, I apologise, 9426 I would 

like to show you first, CCC9426. We have here a document 

that's headed Statement of Requirements, Consultant to 

Implement the Student Journey Project, and it's 

contract 079 of 2003. Do you recognise this document? 

---It's been long enough, I don't but that's my handwriting 

across it that says "draft." 

This is a document that has a lot of comments on it. Like 

in the second paragraph under the heading Introduction, for 

example, it says, "The student journey is a key concept." 

Then someone has added a lot of editorial comments like, 

"And that concept is? If we are going to use these 

ephemeral types of phrases, they need to be explained," 

et cetera et cetera. Who put in the electronic comments? 

---That would've been me. 

If we just scroll through the document. There's a lot of 

handwriting there. Is that your handwriting?---Yes, it is. 

If we keep going, there's a lot of handwritten edits made 

as well to the document. Does that assist you? Is that 

the draft, do you think, that Mervyn Joseph put together 

that you provided feedback on as the scope of works for the 

RFQ?---It certainly was one of the early ones. I tried to 

keep - early on in this project I thought it was going to 

go pear-shaped, so I tried to keep every scrap of paper. 

Normally this sort of thing would've been binned before we 

- when we worded the contract because I'd have cleaned up 

the file. 

Just go back to the first page. I just want to identify 

one thing before we move on. In the first paragraph under 

the heading Introduction, halfway through that paragraph is 

a sentence that begins "Central TAFE." Do you see that? 

---Yes. 

It says: 

4/10/06 ROONEY, J.C. XN 223 

12.12 

Spark & Cannon

25/54/rds 

Central TAFE has been reviewing its customer service 

operations in the context of a college-wide 

functional review since April 2003. The functional 

review has now delivered its recommendations and the 

college wishes to proceed with their implementation. 

So in the original draft RFQ there's a reference to the 

functional review, isn't there?---Yes. 

And in fact in the fourth paragraph under that heading 

Introduction it says: 

Central TAFE is seeking the services of a suitably 

qualified and experienced service provider to 

implement the changes recommended by a high-level 

functional review completed during September 2003. 

So there's another reference to the functional review? 

---Right. 

To your knowledge was the functional review completed in 

September 2003?---When I got phase 4, what it started as, 

my assumption was that yes, it had been completed. You 

don't start on a phase 4 if you don't have phase 3 

completed but as I tried to build a scope of work for this 

tender, it was pretty obvious that we'd paid the bills but 

the work still wasn't done. So I don't know what - I can't 

remember what the final tender looked like, but I'd be 

reasonably certain that any reference to functional review 

would've been stricken and I don't think we would've said 

looking for a high-level review to have been completed 

during September 2003. 

4/10/06 ROONEY, J.C. XN 224 

Spark & Cannon

26/55/glj 

Well, you are right and I will show you the document soon. 

What I want to know is this: is it possible that the first 

scope of works was broader than just the student journey, 

because this just deals with the student journey?---Yes, it 

would have been. 

Would have been or was, from your memory?---I believe the 

original was broader. The original drafts that I saw would 

have been broader than what we finally put on the street as 

the student journey. 

So your recollection is that the original phase 4 was going 

to be the implementation of all of the recommendations of 

phase 3, the whole functional review?---Well, that was my 

original expectation. That's what I was told. 

But then your recollection is that it was narrowed down 

just to focus on this aspect that became the student 

journey project?---It was narrowed down because the State 

Supply Commission wasn't going to allow us to do another 

phase; we had the letter, we already knew that. So to come 

up with a separate project to meet Mervyn Joseph's need, he 

had to narrow the scope. So, clearly, it wasn't going to 

be everything or whatever everything would have been in 

phase 3. 

Because it had to be made to look like a different 

project?---Absolutely. Mervyn understood that going into 

this process - well, after he got into it. 

Is that because you told him?---Of course I told him. 

Is that because you had seen the letter from State Supply 

Commission?---Absolutely. 

Is that why the functional review was taken out of the 

ultimate scope of works?---Absolutely. If we'd left 

functional review in and Central TAFE had been audited, 

somebody was going to gaol. 

Because they would have checked the history - is that 

right - because the functional review was the history? 

---Absolutely, a good auditor - a good auditor would have 

checked the history, and then there's the letter from State 

Supply says, "You've already had three phases. You've 

already broken your contract exemption, and now you are 

doing phase 4?" It couldn't have been any worse. 

So it had to be changed and it was. Is that the position? 

---Absolutely. 

All right, I just want to quickly show you another version 

of this so I will now turn to CCC bar code 9435. This is 

8 September 2003, an email from Mervyn Joseph to yourself; 

subject, student journey project, and he's saying he has 

4/10/06 ROONEY, J.C. XN 225 

12.17 

Spark & Cannon

26/56/glj 

attached an enhanced version of the RFQ: "Please use this 

in preference to my previous attachment." Then behind that 

is the latest draft, I think we will find if we move to 

page 2 - just focus on the introduction. Now, the bits 

about the functional review are still in there, aren't 

they, at this stage?---Yeah. 

So that's 8 September, but if we move on now to the final 

version, I will show you the final version that went to 

press on 24 September 2003 - and this is CCC bar code 9411. 

That's the request to put it in the paper for 24 September 

2003 and if we move to the next page we see the final 

statement of requirements. It's not there I'm told. 

Actually, it might be under a different bar code; it is, it 

has a separate bar code 9418, CCC bar code 9418. Now, if 

we look at this introduction and compare it to the pervious 

drafts we have seen, you will see the second sentence in 

the first paragraph is now: 

Central TAFE has been reviewing its customer 

operations and wishes to proceed with its redesign to 

support the student journey. 

There's no reference to functional review there, is there? 

---No. 

And the fourth or the final paragraph under that heading: 

Central TAFE is seeking the services of a suitably 

qualified and experienced consultant to assist the 

college redesign and implement the necessary changes 

to achieve the goals of the student journey project. 

There's no reference to functional review there, is there? 

---No. 

4/10/06 ROONEY, J.C. XN 226 

Spark & Cannon

27/57/mjd 

So you put this together, correct?---Yes. 

How is that functional review came out?---Because we 

couldn't use the words. We couldn't tie it to the previous 

three projects. 

Whose responsible for that?---What, for writing this 

or - - - 

For taking functional review references out of the scope of 

works?---I did. I mean, I had worked with Mervyn Joseph, 

he knew the problems, you know, we couldn't say functional 

review so he agreed, you know, and we worked this out but 

in the large part that's my text to meet his need which was 

we can't - we can't send up a red flag or a rocket that 

State Supply is going to see. 

And did you do that willingly or did you have 

reservations?---I had reservations all the way. I knew we 

were busting procurement policy. Bryan was madly trying to 

develop some decent ones but people in the college were 

fighting tooth and nail but I knew what proper procedures 

were, you know, I didn't fall off the turnip truck 

yesterday. I knew this whole thing was going to go pear 

shaped at some point. 

All right. Now, the tender went out on 24 September 2003. 

The closing date was 10 October 2003. So this only gave 

potential bidders 16 days to compile a tender. Is that an 

appropriate time frame for this kind of project?---No. No, 

they should have had 30 days but I was told that this 

project had to be completed by mid December when the 

college closed down for Christmas and also I knew all along 

that Arwa was going to get the contract and she already 

knew what to write so, no, it wasn't fair to anybody but 

I'm a contractor and my client tells me what to do so I did 

it. I put out the minimum period of time you can have a 

tender on the street, it's 15 days. No, I didn't like 

anything about it. 

Do you think the limited time frame was done to discourage 

other potential bidders from putting in a bid?---Of course. 

If they didn't have enough time to do more than look at 

this document then it wouldn't have - in the end it wasn't 

going to tell them enough to put together a decent bid. 

Now, for the ones who responded and many of them called me 

or sent me emails and said, "You know, can I get a copy or 

whatever," I encouraged people to talk to Mervyn, you know, 

to come in and ask about what this project is so they could 

get more information. I thought this tender was a little 

thin for anybody but it's not out of line for a government 

tender. Many government tenders for consultancies go out 

looking not much more detailed than this. Part of that is 

because we want them - what we're really trying to do is 

describe a problem and they're going to come back to us 

4/10/06 ROONEY, J.C. XN 227 

12.22 

Spark & Cannon

27/58/mjd 

with a solution and a cost to fix it or to make it happen. 

So it wasn't enough time for what they were asking for but 

it was - you could argue that it was enough if you got hit 

by an audit and a government auditor probably would have 

bought it. 

Was it scant of detail because Mervyn Joseph really wasn't 

looking for other bidders?---Yes. 

And was the time frame short because they already knew who 

they wanted and it didn't really matter how short the time 

frame was?---I can't speak to anybody else's frame of mind 

but that's what I got out of this project. They knew who 

they wanted, I fought it, I went out to the public and I 

published in the newspapers instead of using their pet list 

of consultants. I wanted the world to see it so that when 

they hired her anyway at least I would have had as much of 

a procurement process as possible so I could hopefully 

defend against what I, in my experience, knew would result 

in a complaint or a dispute by an unsuccessful bidder. 

The RFQs were sent out to preferred bidders, weren't they? 

---We published in the newspaper and they went to anybody 

who responded and said they wanted a copy. We also had a 

list of preferred bidders that we mailed to anyway. I 

mean, every government agency has its list of pet 

contractors. 

4/10/06 ROONEY, J.C. XN 228 

Spark & Cannon

28/59/mjd 

Yes, I'm not criticising you for that?---No. 

Did you send the RFQ out to that list of bidders?---Yes, I 

did. Arwa was not on my list. She was not sent - when I 

mailed everybody else. A couple of days later I was told 

by Mervyn that she would be calling me and requesting a 

copy of that tender and I said, "Look, she's already had 1, 

2 and 3, I think it's inappropriate." 

Did she call you?---Yes, she did. She either called or 

sent an email and, you know, against my better judgment I 

sent it out anyway. I didn't want to but it happened. 

So she requested the RFQ and you sent it. Is that right? 

---Yes but I did not volunteer to send it to her and she 

was not on my mailing list. 

Can you remember when you sent it? Was it before or after 

this ad was published in the West Australian? 

24 September?---We wouldn't have sent it out to anybody 

before the ad was published. When it hit the street at 

about the same time then we would have sent to everybody 

but if we had sent it out earlier then that's giving 

somebody too much time but to tell you the truth I don't 

remember the dates. I'm sure you can refresh my memory. 

Yes, I've read some material that the bids - the RFQs went 

out on 19 September, five days before the advert in the 

paper?---I can't comment on that. My policy would not have 

been to send them out before it was published in the 

newspaper because if I had done that whoever got it by 

email first would have had preference but this thing was so 

screwed up, yeah, I could have done that. 

Were all the bidders sent the same information by email? 

---All the bidders got the same tender that everybody else 

got. 

Do you think that all the bidders were bidding on a level 

playing field?---Absolutely not. 

Why not?---Everybody was on a level playing field meaning 

pretty much trying to tap dance in the dark on this thing 

until I sent it to Arwa Saleh-Evans. She already knew 

phases 1, 2 and 3. She had information none of these 

people had. I told Mervyn, I said, "Look, if we are going 

to do this you need to give everybody full access to all 

the information so they can put together a proper response" 

and what I got back from him was, "Well, if they ask the 

right questions I will give them the answers." I said 

something to the effect, "Well, you know, that's not the 

way this game is played. You've got to give everybody a 

full set of data so they can bid properly," but it never 

proceeded beyond that. 

4/10/06 ROONEY, J.C. XN 229 

12.27 

Spark & Cannon

28/60/mjd 

Ultimately you did receive some bids. Did you give those 

to Mervyn Joseph?---Yes, I did. 

And did he get back to you?---I sent him the bid package 

along with all of the instructions on how to do it and in 

his case I also asked that he sign a document noting the - 

what was it - well, basically the rules and regulations 

from State Supply, moral and ethical guidelines and 

whatnot. 

All right, we will get there but after you gave Mervyn 

Joseph all the bids did he come back to you?---Well, he 

came back real fast with his evaluations and I said, "Look, 

these aren't properly evaluated," because he had knocked 

out everybody with no comment. I said, "Look, if you're 

going to disqualify somebody," I said, "you have to 

disqualify them because they're either nonresponsive to the 

bid or what we asked for or they're not responsible which 

means they don't have the capability of doing the work." I 

kept that first set of responses that he sent me and I sent 

him some blanks. 

What did he say to you when you told him you had to 

evaluate - he had to evaluate all the bids properly? 

---Well, he said he was really busy and besides he was 

going to award it to Arwa anyway and I said, "Well, you 

can't do that unless you can fully disqualify the other 

bidders." So I sent him some more blanks to work on and 

then Phil May and I had a couple of meetings with him but 

ultimately but Phil and I disassociated ourselves from the 


Why did you engage Phil May in this process?---I forget his 

exact title but essentially he was like a troubleshooter 

and he worked - he sort of coordinated the activities of 

the program and places like procurement or HR or whatnot. 

Was a relationship manager, was he?---Yeah, that's the 

title. Relationship manager. Basically he tried to smooth 

out the bumps in our relationships with the program. 

4/10/06 ROONEY, J.C. XN 230 

Spark & Cannon

29/61/glj 

Was there ever an evaluation panel formed?---The original 

evaluation panel, as I recall, would have been Mervyn 

Joseph, myself from contracts, and I think I asked Phil to 

be - to sit on it as well. You needed to have at least 

three people. That way there would always, hopefully, if 

there was a problem, be one person to break the tie. 

I want to take you to the meeting. You said you had a 

meeting with Mervyn Joseph when Phil May was present. Is 

that right?---Yes. Yeah. 

Can you tell us about that meeting?---I asked Phil to go 

along because I was going to go over the proper way to do 

an evaluation with Mervyn, and Mervyn didn't seem to 

understand that we had to - if we were going to disqualify 

somebody there had to be a good and sufficient reason. It 

wasn't, "Well, this is the one I want. How do I get rid of 

the rest of them?" which was essentially what he asked us 

or words to that effect. Phil and I both went over the 

procedure with him and it really didn't seem to sink in. 

You know, in the end Phil and I left him with the - with 

another blank set of evaluation forms and we did the 

Pontius Pilate thing and washed our hands of it. I don't 

think either one of us expected this one to be successful. 

When you say you washed your hands of it, did you sign any 

evaluation report at the end of it?---No. My name was not 

on that evaluation report and I refused to sign it. I told 

Phil Bianchi I refused to sign it and I said I wanted 

nothing whatever to do with this project in the future. 

Well - - - 

Why did you refuse to sign it?---Because it violated 

virtually every rule and regulation of State Supply 

Commission. I mean, from the get-go this thing was bad. 

Did Phil May sign the evaluation report as far as you 

know?---No. His name was not on there. There was only one 

name and that was Mervyn Joseph and - - - 

Did he express any concerns to you?---Yeah, but both of us 

were limited in what we could do. You know, I could make 

all the recommendations I wanted, I recommended to Phil 

Bianchi - he and I had a meeting with Steve Musson about 

this. 

What was Steve Musson's response?---Basically, he just blew 

it off. He wasn't all that fussed about it. 

What do you mean by that, "not fussed"?---Well, he wasn't - 

he wasn't concerned; it wasn't an issue for him. He didn't 

raise any concerns about, "Well, she's the best qualified." 

It was just, "Well, just give them what they want. Don't 

worry about it," you know; but I'm thinking, crikey, all 

the rules and regulations were busting here. Surely the 

4/10/06 ROONEY, J.C. XN 231 

12.32 

Spark & Cannon

29/62/glj 

manager, the boss, would be concerned because if we get 

audited it's going to land on his desk, but, no, there was 

no particular concern from him. 

Was this meeting with Steve Musson prior to the decision on 

22 October to award the contract to Arwa Saleh-Evans? You 

know, on the 22nd the offer was sent to her - - -?---Yeah. 

- - - and you sent an email on that date to Cindy Corless? 

---Yeah. 

Was this meeting before?---I had several discussions with 

Phil. Phil and I had at least two sit-down discussions 

with Steve in his office, going over just how bad this 

whole process was. 

But was this before - - -?---But I don't remember the date, 

you know, but probably was, yeah. 

You sent an email to Cindy Corless outlining your concerns. 

Correct?---Mm'hm. 

Does that assist you? That was on the 22nd as well, the 

day that the offer went out. So on the same day that you 

sent the offer out to Shared Services, Arwa Saleh-Evans, 

you sent an email to Cindy Corless. Does that assist you 

in placing those meetings with Steve Musson?---I would have 

had at least two meetings with Steve and Phil before I sent 

the memo to Cindy and I had a sit-down with Cindy and 

explained it in a face to face. 

Was that after you sent her the email?---I believe it was, 

yes, because I - I sent her the email and got no response 

so I went looking for her. She wasn't 10 metres away; you 

know, I went and talked to her about it and I got no 

response. 

What was her response?---Her response was "no big deal" 

but, frankly, I don't think she understood a damn thing 

about procurement. I think she was just a jumped-up HR 

tech to tell you the truth. Her only interest seemed to be 

in HR issues. 

Now, you talked about a form that Mervyn Joseph signed 

before. Was that a conflict of interest form?---That's it, 

yeah, a conflict of interest. We didn't have one per se 

but this - - - 

All right, I want to show you - - -?---But this time I 

absolutely wanted to make sure that somebody signed 

something. 

4/10/06 ROONEY, J.C. XN 232 

Spark & Cannon

30/63/rds 

I want to show you the document now. It's CCC bar code 

10022. If we go to - yes; it's headed Central TAFE 

Declaration of Confidentiality and Conflict of Interest 

Form?---Yeah. 

If we go to the bottom it's witnessed by someone. Is that 

your signature?---That's me. 

So it's witnessed by you on 22 October 2003. Is that 

Mervyn Joseph who signed that?---Yes, it is. 

If we go to the top, he signed there to declare that he has 

"no pecuniary or other private interests in this contract 

or with any of the respondents and should the situation 

change during the procurement process, I shall inform the 

panel chairman as the case may be immediately in writing." 

Then he says: 

I'm not aware of any reason which could lead a 

fair-minded person to believe that I may have a 

potential conflict of interest in this contract 


There's reference at the bottom there to a module 1 

policy 6, on the reverse of this form?---Mm'hm. 

I believe it's on page 2 of the document that we have on 

the screen, so if we can move to that?---Word for word from 

State Supply. 

Did you show that document to Mr Joseph before he signed? 

---Absolutely. He didn't hesitate to sign. He didn't 

bother to read it. 

He didn't bother to read it?---No. He just signed. I 

explained to him, you know, that I was looking for - I 

said, you know, since he's signing the evaluation report, 

he was on the evaluation committee, he needs to sign this 

conflict of interest statement. Frankly this is the first 

time I'd ever done anything like this at TAFE and I'd never 

felt the need to do this anywhere else but from this point 

on, every tender that I put out at TAFE, when I got to the 

evaluation portion, I made sure people were signing a 

conflict of interest statement. 

So this should be done at the start of the evaluation 

process. Correct?---Absolutely. 

But was there really a formal evaluation process where 

there was a meeting of the panel and all of that?---There 

was supposed to be a formal evaluation process and as soon 

as I sent the bids down to Mervyn, I think within a day or 

two days he had it all done, before Phil and I could even 

set up a meeting. So there was no sit down, evaluate the 

4/10/06 ROONEY, J.C. XN 233 

12.37 

Spark & Cannon

30/64/rds 

bids type meeting. Basically Phil and I were trying to 

play catch-up ball with this guy. He'd already done it. 

So the process had gone off the rails?---Yeah. This whole 

process was off the rails from the get-go. 

The only reason it was signed on the day that the offer 

went out to Arwa Saleh-Evans is because you put it in front 

of him to sign. Is that right?---Absolutely. To be honest 

I don't know why anybody would sign that without reading 

it. Well, not if you've got an IQ bigger than your shoe 

size. 

Are you aware that one of the unsuccessful bidders made a 

complaint to Central TAFE about - - -?---Yes. 

- - - awarding the contract to Shared Services?---Yes. 

I just want to quickly show you the letter that was 

received by Central TAFE. It's CCC bar code 9382. I want 

to focus on questions 4 and 5, if I can. This letter of 

complaint asks in question 4: 

Is it correct that TAFE has an extended history of 

contracting with Shared Services or its principal 

under other business names? If correct, how is this 

not bias or giving an unfair advantage? 

Question 5 is: 

Did any previous contracts to Shared Services or its 

principals provide inside information that was not 

available to other bidders not included in the tender 

document? 

Did you have some role in formulating a response to that 

letter?---Could you go back to the top? 

Yes?---The very top of the letter. I'm sorry, I'm thinking 

about the response. You will see the response to this 

letter - my name is at the top. I was the author - - - 

All right. We will go to that then?--- - - - but yeah, I'm 

familiar with this letter. I'm aware of Gryphon 

Consultants and in the past I've had contracts through 

Gryphon Consultants 

4/10/06 ROONEY, J.C. XN 234 

Spark & Cannon

31/65/rds 

We will go to the letter of response. It's CCC bar code 

9367. All right. If we go to the top?---Yeah, there it 

is. 

The inquirer is Joseph Rooney?---That's the author. 

So you authored this letter?---Yes, I did. 

What about the content, did you get any assistance in terms 

of the answers to put in the letter?---When we got the 

original complaint from Gryphon, I figured I could handle 

questions 1, 2 and 3. There was no way we could honestly 

answer questions 4 and 5 because if we had answered those, 

we would've been proving his complaint for him. Honesty in 

this case would not have worked. So I wrote several drafts 

- I was going for Steve's signature, Steve Musson's 

signature. I would write a draft and thrash it out. Bryan 

and I tried to work on it. The other contracts officer, 

Alan Sharp, tried to give us a hand. Really we could only 

answer the first three questions honestly. The last two, 

we didn't have an honest up-front answer. Steve Musson saw 

a couple of drafts. He had a lot of comments; kicked it 

back a couple of times before we finally got an answer that 

went out, and I've always described this as my yes minister 

answer. 

We will go to the answer to questions 4 and 5. 4 and 5 are 

over the page I think. The answer to question 4 is: 

Central TAFE's contracts are publicly advertised to 

maximise the number of potential respondents to its 

request for quotation tender..........the services of 

the same individuals or firms more than one? 

---That's all accurate and truthful as far as it goes but 

it never answered the question, did it, and it wasn't 

intended to answer the question? It was intended to throw 

up words and hopefully they would just read this and say, 

"Okay, fine." That's how it works. 

And answer 5: 

All potential respondents were given the same 

information when the RFQ was published. Previous 

contracts with Central TAFE would not necessarily 

have given any competitive advantage. 

Is that true?---Of course not. How could it have been 

true? Arwa Saleh-Evans got the contract. Mervyn withheld 

anything from phases 1, 2 and 3. Nobody could've logically 

bid on the student journey without knowing something about 

those other projects. 

So it wasn't a level playing field. That's what you are 

saying?---Of course not but - - - 

4/10/06 ROONEY, J.C. XN 235 

12.42 

Spark & Cannon

31/66/rds 

Who drafted - - -?--- - - - at the end of the day it wasn't 

intended to be. This letter is just a yes minister answer 

to cover our tracks and hopefully Gryphon would go away. 

Who came up with that answer to question 5?---I did. I 

knew it was a lie but that's what Steve would accept. 

Steve had a lot of input into these. I told Steve on at 

least two occasions - I said, "Look, I can't answer 

questions 4 and 5, not honestly." So Steve Musson was part 

of the answer - you know, how we got to these answers, part 

of the process. It didn't just arrive on his desk and he 

signed off. 

The original student journey project was meant to finish in 

December 2003. Correct?---Yes. 

Was there any extension granted to Shared Services?---It 

was either within the first week or the first two weeks of 

that contract term. I got a call from Mervyn Joseph and he 

said, "Can we hold off on this contract? We don't want to 

implement," and I said, "Well, she's already signed it. 

The contract started. It has a start date and an end 

date," and I said, "We're already into it." He said, 

"Well, she's really too busy; you know, she's got other 

things going." I said, "Well, if that's the case, then you 

shouldn't have written the contract with her. If she can't 

handle the work, why did we contract, besides she was 

supposed to have three other people working for her?" and I 

said, "What about them?" 

Was there an extension to the contract?---Absolutely. I 

think we extended it to March and then we ultimately 

extended another 30 days, to the end of April or something, 

but basically the contract wasn't even going to start until 

we came back from the Christmas break and that also 

irritated the heck out of me because I'd done a lot of work 

to get it written and out on the street against my better 

judgment and advice, and now they're coming back - he's 

coming back and telling me, "Well, she's too busy and she 

can't do the work." You know, we had other consultants who 

had offers that would've been perfectly acceptable, fully 

competent people and they were prepared to take the work on 

right then. They weren't going to wait but we had a 

contract and he was my client so I did what the client 

wanted. 

4/10/06 ROONEY, J.C. XN 236 

Spark & Cannon

32/67/mjd 

Do you know why full contract payment was made in two lump 

sums at the end of January? One lump sum on 16 January and 

another on 29 January 2004?---Normally - - - 

Do you know - - -?---No, I don't know but normally we would 

never have known. 

As a contract officer you mean?---As contract officer - - - 

All right, well I won't ask - I won't follow that question 

up then?---Yeah. 

Was the estimated project cost for the student journey 

project kept under $50,000 so that it could be dealt with 

in-house?---Absolutely. 

Was this a common practice at Central TAFE at the time that 

you were there?---To the extent that TAFE could manage it, 

yes because it could be handled in-house. If it went of 

out of house anything over 50,000 then State Supply managed 

the procurement and when that happens you're talking at 

that point in time six to eight months worth of process, a 

lot of public scrutiny, you know, basically it takes it out 

of TAFE's hands. Anything they could do for under 50 they 

would but that's no different than any other government 

agency either. If you've got an exemption you use it. 

Who was Mervyn Joseph's supervisor at the time of the 

student journey project?---I don't remember the man's name. 

John something. 

Was it John Chadwick?---That sounds right. It's been a lot 

of years. 

Did you have any direct interaction with John Chadwick 

during the student journey project?---I talked to him a 

couple of times, may not have been about this project or it 

may have been. I - to be honest I don't really remember at 

this - - - 

Are you aware of any relationship between Arwa Saleh-Evans 

and Mervyn Joseph?---I only know gossip from the office. I 

don't know anything personal. 

Are you aware of any relationship between Arwa Saleh-Evans 

and John Chadwick?---There was - - - 

Or is that just gossip?---There was a lot of gossip about 

that, yeah. 

Did you ever have a conversation with Arwa Saleh-Evans 

where she referred to the functional review as her gravy 

train?---I had very few personal contacts with her as much 

from my choice as anything else. She may have. I can't 

remember her style well enough to know whether she would 

4/10/06 ROONEY, J.C. XN 237 

12.47 

Spark & Cannon

32/68/mjd 

have used that but, yeah, it certainly would have been a 

gravy train. She kept getting contracts. 

All right, so that was your opinion that it was a gravy 

train?---I would think that would be my opinion. It sounds 

like my words not hers. 

That completes my examination, Commissioner. 


from his summons? 

Right. Can Mr Rooney be discharged 

TOOKER, MR: 


THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you very much, Mr Rooney, you're 

now free to go, thank you for your assistance. 



now till 2.00? 

Would it be best, I wonder, to adjourn 

TOOKER, MR: Yes, the formalities will take up 10 minutes 

anyway so it's no use starting now. 

THE COMMISSIONER: No, all right. We will adjourn until 

2 o'clock on the dot. 

(Luncheon adjournment) 

4/10/06 ROONEY, J.C. XN 238 

Spark & Cannon

Letting of Contracts at Central TAFE Public Hearing AM session

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?