Former boss Anthony Manning fronts ICAC investigation into School Infrastructure NSW

Former School Infrastructure NSW chief Anthony Manning was deeply at odds with his new bosses in text messages tendered as evidence to a corruption probe.

Former School Infrastructure NSW chief executive Anthony Manning testifies to an ICAC inquiry into his hiring practices on Thursday June 12. Picture: Independent Commission Against Corruption.

The former boss of School Infrastructure NSW was deeply at odds with the Minns government over its stance on consultants, describing public servants as “oxygen thieves” in text messages shown to a corruption inquiry.

The Independent Commission Against Corruption is investigating whether former chief executive of the infrastructure unit Anthony Manning acted improperly in awarding lucrative contracts worth millions to friends and former colleagues, and whether he and HR manager Wendy O’Brien took reprisal action against whistleblowers.

After nearly six weeks of testimony from witnesses including former contractors and public servants, the man at the centre of Operation Landan has finally taken the stand, admitting that he should have declared his relationships with several contractors due to “perceived” conflicts of interest.

Former School Infrastructure NSW chief executive Anthony Manning testifies to an ICAC inquiry into his hiring practices on Thursday June 12. Picture: Independent Commission Against Corruption.

The inquiry was also shown a text message exchange between Manning and his friend Ioan Morgan – whose companies would be paid more than $2 million by SINSW – in which the pair made disparaging comments about the newly-elected Labor government’s promise to reduce hiring of contingent workers by 25 per cent.

“Yes there is a consultant beat up process going on through the new government,” read a message sent by Manning on 16 May, 2023.

Mr Morgan replied “Bloody lefties!!” to which Manning responded “Yep – more public servants – just what we need to grind the state to a halt – oxygen thieves the lot of them”.

Manning told the inquiry the message was a “flippant remark between friends” but said his use of the phrase “beat-up” referred to concerns he held about the state’s response to the PwC scandal.

“There was pressure put on the procurement board to block PwC from further work in NSW on the back of what had happened in the federal government space,” he said.

“It just seemed there was a kneejerk reaction to something that they, as an organisation hadn’t done in NSW.”

Text messages between Ioan Morgan and Anthony Manning. Picture: Independent Commission Against Corruption.

Mr Morgan was the sole individual for whom Mr Manning declared – in writing to then-Secretary Mark Scott – a pre-existing relationship with.

Mr Morgan had a key to Mr Manning’s house, and it was in Mr Morgan’s care that Mr Manning’s family dog passed away in 2015, the inquiry heard.

However during Thursday’s hearing, Mr Manning acknowledged that “in hindsight” he should have declared his relationships with PwC’s Amy Brown, Paxon Group director Michael Palassis and Heathwest Advisory director Martin Berry as potential conflicts of interest – “only on the perception front”.

Mr Manning testified that, in hindsight, he should’ve declared his relationships with several former work mates. Picture: Independent Commission Against Corruption.

The inquiry was shown a declaration of interests that Mr Manning signed on June 26 2017, prior to him taking up the chief executive role that August, which did not list names of any individuals or companies that Mr Manning may have had a conflict of interest with – either real or perceived.

Instead, he declared a “consultancy business providing advice to the operationalisation of a Chinese cancer hospital”.

He did not mention that this involved Michael Palassis of Paxon consulting, who had attended a launch party for the new school infrastructure unit hosted by PwC just three days earlier and would later win an SINSW contract jointly with the ‘big four’ firm.

Counsel assisting Jamie Darams interrogated Mr Manning over how he defined his “friends”. Picture: Independent Commission Against Corruption.

In a terse exchange, Mr Darams prodded Mr Manning to define his relationship with Mr Palassis as a friendship, with the inquiry hearing Mr Palassis was entrusted with “highly personal information”.

“I don’t think Michael was a friend, he was always a work colleague,” Mr Manning said.

“(He was) certainly someone you … trusted to disclose highly personal information to, that would be fair?” Mr Darams asked.

“Probably,” Mr Manning responded.

“Isn’t that a hallmark of someone you would regard as a friend?” Mr Darams then asked.

“I think it can be, yes,” Mr Manning said.

The inquiry continues on Friday.