Uni's HR chief tells ICAC she was 'shocked' by promotion proposal

The Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) has been conducting an inquiry into alleged misconduct at the University of Wollongong (UOW), focusing on issues surrounding recruitment processes, conflict of interest, and improper influence by high-ranking officials. Central to the investigation is the testimony of Alison Bourke, the university’s chief people and culture officer, who described being “shocked” by the circumstances surrounding a proposed executive role intended for Alyssa White, the former chief governance officer. Bourke revealed that the role, which would have been retitled as vice-president, strategy and executive affairs, came with a remuneration package exceeding $388,000 annually—approximately $50,000 more than her current salary. This proposed elevation was reportedly met with resistance from UOW’s chancellor, Michael Still, who allegedly opposed the idea of running a competitive recruitment process for the position.

Bourke testified that she became increasingly concerned about the situation and started keeping detailed records of her interactions regarding the matter. She recounted how Still reportedly stated that the process would prevent the “right decision” from being made, suggesting a preference for internal appointments rather than open competition. Her concerns eventually led to a formal complaint being filed with ICAC, highlighting what she perceived as a lack of transparency and fairness in the handling of executive roles at the university. Bourke emphasized the importance of restoring trust and transparency among the workforce, drawing parallels to previous recruitment processes for the vice-chancellor role, which had followed more conventional procedures.

The inquiry also delved into the broader context of UOW’s internal dynamics, particularly during a period marked by significant organizational changes and workforce reductions. Consultant Tanya Diesel, whose firm Aspiral secured a contract with UOW, provided insights into her long-standing professional relationship with Chancellor Michael Still. Diesel explained that while they shared a professional connection dating back over two decades, she maintained that this was not a personal friendship. However, she acknowledged that Still played a pivotal role in connecting her firm with potential opportunities, including acting as a referee for Aspiral and participating in informal meetings such as coffee and meal catch-ups. Additionally, Diesel confirmed that Still attended the opening of her father’s art exhibition, where other clients were present.

Diesel’s testimony included a discussion about a series of communications exchanged with Still, which highlighted a perceived alignment of interests. She admitted that there might have been an unconscious influence on her work due to her relationship with Still, though she preferred to frame this as “positive transference” rather than “unconscious bias.” When questioned about whether Still’s views impacted her professional decisions, Diesel affirmed that they did, acknowledging that Aspiral would adjust its approach based on discussions with both Still and White. Nevertheless, she clarified that Still did not dictate the final content of Aspiral’s work, maintaining that the firm retained autonomy in its deliverables.

In another segment of the inquiry, Sean Brawley, a former deputy vice-chancellor at UOW, faced scrutiny over his handling of concerns related to recruitment practices within the governance division. Brawley denied allegations that he ignored these concerns, asserting that he relied on guidance from the university’s people and culture department, which advised against pursuing certain recommendations from a 2024 cultural review. The review had indicated that White may have violated university policies concerning conflicts of interest and recruitment procedures. Brawley’s defense was challenged by White’s legal representative, who argued that Brawley had essentially turned a blind eye to these concerns and should have intervened more actively.

The inquiry also examined the role of Chancellor Michael Still, who faces allegations of improperly influencing consultancy contracts awarded to Aspiral Consulting. These allegations extend to instances where Still may have failed to manage conflicts of interest involving other individuals and firms, such as KordaMenth, where interim deputy vice-chancellor John Dewar held a partnership. Brawley criticized Still for encroaching upon the boundaries between governance and operational management, noting the chancellor’s control over a discretionary fund valued at $2 million. He humorously remarked that he initially believed the fund was akin to the mythical “magic pudding,” given its apparent flexibility in funding governance positions.

Further revelations emerged regarding the dismissal of governance manager Stacey Oon, who reportedly received a disputed salary increase shortly before her termination. Brawley claimed he refused to endorse a higher salary package for Oon, only for the offer to be elevated to $225,000 following discussions involving Still. The approval of this increased package was reportedly facilitated by the acting vice-president of operations, Matthew Wright, after the chancellor’s intervention. This incident underscored the complex interplay of power and influence within the university’s administrative structure, raising questions about the integrity of decision-making processes and the potential for favoritism in personnel matters.