So much money spent, yet so little learnt

Neither of which is evident in the Canberra Institute of Technology's hugely expensive engagement of a "complexity and systems thinker".

This is no trifling sum; it involves a major expenditure - $8.5 million over the past five years - which not only fails the pub test but has eroded public confidence in how the ACT government manages public funds.

Skills Minister Chris Steel could shed little light on CIT's awarding of one specific $4.99 million contract to Think Garden, a company run by consultant Patrick Hollingworth.

Alarm bells should have rung loudly at the contract pricing, which ever so conveniently fell just $10 shy of the $5 million mark at which it would have attracted the scrutiny of the government procurement board.

Furthermore, the tender's supporting documentation, much of which was redacted, overflowed with jargon, buzzwords and cleverly framed gobbledygook, resplendent with phrases like "developing iterative capacity to cycle through adaptive/renewal processes across multiple spatial and temporal scales".

For the purposes of transparency, it would have been better served to have submitted it in Klingon.

The government's own "probity in procurement" guide lists five key principles, notably an appropriately competitive process; fairness and impartiality; consistency, transparency and accountability - there's those two key words again; confidentiality; and identification of any conflicts of interest.

And yet in assessing Think Garden's submission of the change management work that it would perform for its conveniently priced $4,999,990.00, both the CIT and the procurement office which signed off on the deal appear to have let these principles slide.

The same company has trousered a total of $8.7 million in ACT contracts of this type since 2017, including one invoice of more than $850,000 for "CEO mentoring".

So many questions are left unanswered. The Canberra Liberals, to their credit, have been vigorous in seeking the answers the public deserves.

Some of the key questions must be around the tangible, measurable deliverables - the identifiable returns on a very significant multimillion-dollar investment - that this ambiguous arrangement has provided.

Value for money and benefit to the ACT taxpayers and CIT students must be demonstrated as an outcome, far removed from the near-incomprehensible gibberish and management speak that has been dished up so far.

There's little doubt that the territory's key vocational educational institution faces some big challenges ahead in reshaping the programs it offers and recruiting the right people to deliver them. And it will most likely need some external guidance in doing that.

But these engagements - and their stated outcomes - should not come about through cosy contracts, priced to avoid scrutiny, and couched in convoluted language. This only serves to foster public distrust and cynicism.

As Prime Minister Anthony Albanese outlined in his vision statement during the election campaign, there would be a clear and immediate need for his government-to-come to "drive improved outcomes in the vocational education and training sector and to strengthen workforce planning, particularly in the growing sectors of our economy".

As more public money is poised to flow into vocational training, the only thing learned here is how our institutions appear to work the system to suit themselves.