Mike Pezzullo, Mr Briggs, and their conflict of interests
· Michael West
Mike Pezzullo’s desire for power and influence may have led to his failure to declare a conflict of interest between himself and Liberal ‘power broker’ Scott Briggs. Rex Patrick on the Pezzullo inquiry – part 4.
So far, we have outlined four of the seven allegations that were levied against Mike Pezzullo and found to be true by Lynelle Briggs, the report’s author. (No relation to Scott Briggs.)
Visit asg-reflektory.pl for more information.
There were seven allegations in total, and two of them were found to be unsubstantiated and were also redacted when the report was released to us. We’ll come back to that.
Conflict of interests
Mr Pezzullo was alleged to have failed to make adequate conflict of interest disclosures regarding his relationship to Mr Briggs, nor any conflict of interest generally; and/or [Redacted].
The allegation refers to the engagement of DPG advisory, a consulting firm affiliated with Mr Briggs, in August 2021, when the Minister for Home Affairs was given in-principle agreement to engage a commercial service provider through competitive tender to provide a fully scalable service to facilitate the entry and (COVID-19) quarantine of temporary skilled migration.
Originally, the contract was for $80,000, which was later changed to $79,950, just $50 below the then Commonwealth Procurement threshold for a competitive tender of $80,000 (it is now $125,000).
Source: AusTender
It appears from the report that Mr Pezzullo had some form of involvement in the procurement process, but “no conflict of interest declaration by Mr Pezzullo was located.”
The report is heavily redacted (due to the unsubstantiated elements of allegation 6), but it is clear from the unredacted portion that Mr Pezzullo had some involvement in the procurement, with reference in the unredacted reports to an email.
Lynelle Brigg’s analysis states:
“Mr Pezzullo’s email [redacted] did not include any reference to Mr Pezzullo’s relationship to Mr Briggs, nor did it identify any conflict of interest generally; and on 17 August 2021, DPG Advisory was engaged by the Department of Home Affairs with a contracted amount of $79,950 for a two month period (with there being no explanation why the contracted amount was reduced by $50 from the 16 August 2021proposal … )”
“Upon review of documents held by the Department of Home Affairs in relation to this tender, it did not appear that any conflict of interest declaration had been made in relation to this procurement”, and further noted that this fact was supported by the fact that Mr Pezzullo supported this notion in his response to the inquiry. His response stated, “No conflict of interest declarations were made”.
Lynnelle Briggs found that, on the balance of probabilities, the allegation is partially substantiated. She considered that Mr Pezzullo had a direct conflict of interest and that it was “clearly necessary for Mr Pezzullo to disclose that conflict,” and,
failure to declare and document a conflict of interest was ‘a significant lapse of judgment’.
Allegations unsubstantiated (and redacted)
Information in respect of allegations five and seven is completely redacted in the documents so far revealed to MWM, because the two allegations were found to be unsubstantiated.
We are seeking those redactions removed.
In the Australian Public Service Commissioner’s submission to the Administrative Review Tribunal, they argue that the release of unsubstantiated arguments “could still damage Mr Pezzullo’s reputation, or cause distress, because it would encourage public discussion and speculation about this conduct, call into question previous conduct, and re-enliven a now concluded inquiry.”
In a sea of guilty findings in respect of Mr Pezzullo, it is hard to believe that the allegations in which he has been found not guilty could somehow further damage his reputation. It’s the bit of the report that Mr Pezzullo can wave in the air and say, “It was found that I did not do this”.
The argument by the Commissioner that the inquiry might be re-enlivened is pathetic. One of the successes of the public hearings in the RoboDebt Royal Commissioner was that people saw what was being said and decided to come forward.
If there is no further evidence, then so be it. If reporting adduces further evidence, then justice can be better served. If an uncovered truth is out there, the Commissioner is hoping it remains buried.
Particularly in relation to allegation 6 (conflict of inetersts), where it is arguable (from the other substantiated findings in the report) that Mr Pezzullo was receiving the benefit of a being able to conduit his political thoughts and views through a confidant of two Prime Ministers and that confidant benefitted from a contract given to a company with whom he was associated, the Commissioner should come clean on the unsubstantiated allegation and how it was dealt with.
On that basis alone, we will continue to pursue transparency around this matter.
Loading... Taking too long?The full picture must be provided to the public if confidence in the Commissioner is to be maintained.
Reload document | Open in new tab
The mandarin who got caught. Mike Pezzullo inquiry details revealed