ACT bureaucrats are now on notice after CIT case

The investigation into her handling of multimillion-dollar consulting contracts awarded to a "complexity and systems thinker" has uncovered the staggering lengths to which Ms Cover - and, ultimately, her board - were in thrall to an obscure consulting outfit peddling corporate mumbo-jumbo and charging ever rising sums of public money.

And the ACT government should be on notice.

Or at least, those negotiating contracts, even with what they believe to be the best will in the world, should stop and consider how their actions might look plastered across the front page of a newspaper alongside the words "corrupt conduct".

In overseeing a strategic review of the institution, Ms Cover may well have been convinced she was onto a good thing, and suspected her board might not be so willing to go along with with the line of thinking spruiked so enthusiastically by Patrick Hollingworth, the aforementioned "systems thinker".

Somewhere along the line, he convinced Ms Cover his expensive strategies would achieve the results she was looking for.

But in getting his eye-wateringly expensive demands over the line, Ms Cover ultimately found herself seemingly manipulating open tenders, crafting the terms of others so they became wholly tailor-made for Hollingworth and his "Think Garden" team, and withholding vital information from a board who would, one would hope, have been less susceptible to Mr Hollingworth's strange jargon.

"The consequence of her conduct was to give [Patrick Hollingworth] a substantial financial gain at the cost of the territory," Integrity Commissioner Michael Adams KC wrote.

This repeated concealments from the board and distortion of the truth has now been shown for what it is - corrupt conduct.

And the findings, in uncovering the almost Toytown nature of Canberra's government and bureaucracy, the report, though weighty reading, is a warning siren for everyone responsible for spending public money.

Not to mention those involved in procurement; Mr Adams was also scathing of the lack of assertiveness of the board when it came to advising Ms Cover at various stages. The public should be confident its money is being spent in ways that meet the standards and expectations of the community that will benefit.

If those responsible for procurement are required to be open and transparent, honest and up front in their processes, it's less likely inappropriately large sums of money will make their way to single contractors who are unwilling or unable to demonstrate what they're offering will be worth the spend.

But in the case of Ms Cover, common sense and commitment to proper process were, at some stage, left at the door, leaving her hopelessly enthralled by the bright and novel world of babble and buzzwords.

Maybe this is more common than we think; that powerful individuals become so fixated on an imagined - and mysteriously indefinable - end result that they convince others the ends justify the means.

But if the means are ultimately declared corrupt, it will hardly have been worth it. Here's hoping this sorry saga results in a widespread reconsideration of those backroom deals that will never pass the pub test.