The Independent Commission Against Corruption's inquiry into the University of Wollongong has heard damaging testimony about how a $1 million-a-year interim vice-chancellor appointment became entangled with a consulting contract awarded to a firm the appointee was simultaneously working for — raising serious questions about conflicts of interest and procurement integrity at one of Australia's major universities.
Former university chancellor Michael Still, who resigned from his post last Friday just days before he was scheduled to appear at the inquiry, returned to give further evidence on Tuesday during the commission's third week of hearings. Central to the day's testimony was how the university handled the appointment of Professor John Dewar as interim vice-chancellor at a reported salary of $1 million a year.
Legal Advice, Conflict of Interest and the Nine-Day Fortnight
The hearing detailed how the university's general counsel, Rebecca Lim, issued advice in May 2024 outlining the steps required to manage any real or perceived conflict of interest before Dewar could be hired. The concern was direct: Dewar intended to work a nine-day fortnight at the university, reserving one day per fortnight for unpaid work at KordaMentha — a consulting firm with a significant client base among Australian universities.
Lim's advice stipulated that Dewar must agree, as a condition of employment, to play no role in steering the university toward engaging KordaMentha's services. However, just before taking up the interim vice-chancellor role in June 2024, Dewar emailed Still a draft "scope of services" document outlining how KordaMentha could conduct an enterprise-wide review of the university's operations — at a cost of up to $300,000. The proposed review would cover cost savings, potential restructuring and greater use of artificial intelligence in service delivery, described in the document as a "diagnostic" review.
Dewar also reportedly emailed a colleague at the time to say it was "very likely" KordaMentha would win work from the university.
'Did This Trigger Some Alarm Bells?'
Counsel assisting the inquiry, Emma Bathurst, pressed Still directly on whether receiving that draft document — given the explicit legal advice around conflicts of interest — had concerned him at the time.
"Did this trigger some alarm bells for you?" Bathurst asked.
"I can't recall reading this," Still replied. "But as I read it now… there's nothing special about it, but I can't recall reading it. I'm sorry."
The inquiry then examined a request for proposal (RFP) sent to KordaMentha and two other firms. Still had requested amendments to the RFP, including the insertion of the word "diagnostic" — the same term used in Dewar's draft scope of services document. When Bathurst suggested this indicated Still had in fact read the draft, Still conceded: "Yes, it does."
He added that while "the wording is similar in some ways, for sure," there had been "no intention to have it mirror Professor Dewar." KordaMentha ultimately won the contract.
Procurement Integrity and a Second Contracts Controversy
Bathurst put it directly to Still that the procurement process had not been conducted in accordance with the university's own procurement policy, that the integrity of the process had been undermined, and that Still had wanted KordaMentha to win the tender because it would improve the chances of securing Dewar's agreement to serve as interim vice-chancellor. She further suggested Still had "kept tight control over the procurement process" so it was structured in a way that made a KordaMentha win highly likely.
The hearing also turned to a separate matter: Still's 20-year professional relationship with Tanya Diesel, owner of Aspirall Consulting. That firm won two contracts with the university worth tens of thousands of dollars, paid from the chancellor's $2 million discretionary fund. Still acknowledged that, in hindsight, he "possibly should have" disclosed the close professional relationship at the time.
The commission's inquiry into governance at the University of Wollongong continues, with the details emerging raising broader questions about how institutional relationships and legal obligations interact when senior appointments and procurement decisions overlap.
