Our recruitment team has unparalleled experience in helping enterprises, local and state government find talented professionals.
Published on 26 June 2025
Back to News
By Sonali Cordeiro, Senior Advisor - Probity and Assurance & Procurement Office
In the first article in this series, we explored the foundations of probity and the powerful precedent set by Hughes Aircraft Systems v Airservices Australia. We examined how procedural fairness is not only a principle of good public sector governance, but also a legally enforceable obligation.
In this second article, we turn our focus to two principles that are tightly intertwined: conflict of interest and confidentiality. Together they form the ethical backbone of integrity in decision-making. When either is neglected, the entire procurement process can be compromised and the outcome challenged.
Through a real-world case study, involving Racing Queensland, we’ll explore how a failure to declare a personal relationship, and protective sensitive information, led to serious legal, organisational, individual and reputational consequences. We’ll also provide practical strategies to help public sector agencies uphold integrity and fairness in their procurement processes.
A conflict of interest occurs when a person’s private interests - financial, personal, or professional - could improperly influence, or appear to influence, their official duties and responsibilities. These can be:
In procurement, even the perception of bias or unfairness can undermine trust in the process and expose the agency to legal or reputational risks. That’s why early identification, disclosure, and effective management are critical.
A former Infrastructure and Operations Manager at Racing Queensland (RQ) was investigated by the Queensland Crime and Corruption Commission (CCC) and charged with fraud and misconduct in public office. Over an 18-month period, the employee was responsible for managing tenders for five contracts - while secretly assisting a close friend who was bidding for the work. The employee disclosed confidential information - including competitor pricing and internal budget details - to their friend to improve their chances of winning. Despite being aware of their obligation to declare any conflict of interest, they failed to do so.
Although there was no evidence of personal financial gain, the breach of confidentiality and undisclosed relationship compromised the integrity of the procurement process.
The employee pleaded guilty to fraud and was sentenced to two years’ imprisonment, wholly suspended for three years. The matter caused significant reputational damage to Racing Queensland, leading to internal reforms.
This case offers clear insights into how conflicts of interest, if unmanaged, can unravel public trust and organisational integrity:
Racing Queensland’s experience reflects a broader truth: conflicts of interest are not wrong and can be common in the public sector. However, conflicts of interest can be manageable when organisations have the right controls in place.
Just as Hughes Aircraft Systems v Airservices Australia reminded us of the legal enforceability of fair process, the Racing Queensland case highlights that even small lapses in judgment can have major consequences. Probity isn’t just about protecting contracts—it’s about protecting confidence in government decision-making.
In Article 3, we’ll bring the series to a close by examining fairness, transparency and accountability in the evaluation process through two “Wild West” council case studies. We’ll explore how poor documentation and consultant involvement almost derailed tender outcomes - and how organisations can ensure equity and process integrity from start to finish.
For more information on Probity and Assurance contact Brian Jackson, General Manager - Consulting Services at bjackson@wearepeak.com.au