A national audit committee has found “serious” shortcomings in the Attorney-General’s Department’s procurement of support and advocacy services for victims of child sexual abuse.
The Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit has released its inquiry report into the Attorney-General’s Department’s (AGD) procurement process for mandated national support and advocacy services for victims of child sexual abuse.
Josh Burns, the chair of the joint committee, said the inquiry revealed “serious” concerns with the AGD’s procurement processes.
“AGD did not ensure open and effective competition, there were substantial delays in the processes, non-compliant tenders were accepted for evaluation, ethical and probity standards were not met, and value for money could not be demonstrated,” he said.
Burns added that the inquiry aligned with findings of a June 2025 audit by the Australian National Audit Office (ANAO), which raised concerns about timeline blowouts and flaws in the AGD’s procurement process.
Although funding was allocated for the support services in the 2021–22 budget, the market was not approached until late 2023 for procurement. While a contract for the national offending prevention service was eventually executed in July 2025, negotiations for another service to support non-offending family members collapsed in October 2024.
Burns noted that it remained unclear when – or how – the latter service would be delivered.
Following its inquiry, the committee made two key recommendations. Firstly, the AGD should report back within one month on its current plan to establish support services stemming from the 2017 royal commission’s recommendations.
It also recommended the AGD report back within six months on the progress it had made in addressing the ANAO’s six recommendations in its June 2025 audit report.
The ANAO recommended the AGD improve the fairness and transparency of its procurement framework, strengthen its management of conflicts of interest and improve its record-keeping process documenting how value for money was considered and achieved.
“The ANAO concluded that the procurements did not involve open and effective competition, were subject to substantial delays, accepted non-compliant tenders for evaluation, failed to meet ethical requirements, and did not achieve value for money,” Burns said in the inquiry report’s foreword.
“In both procurements, the ultimately preferred tenderers did not comply with mandatory pricing requirements, yet were nonetheless evaluated and offered contracts. The evidence received by the committee was consistent with the ANAO’s findings.”
The AGD had acknowledged that its processes were “unacceptably slow”, the foreword added.
While the AGD accepted all of the ANAO’s findings, the committee said it was not persuaded that the department was positioned to deliver the “full suite of services” required, including nationally available information and a referral service for victims and survivors.
