The Claim
“Paid tens of thousands of dollars to a company which was known to be corrupt, through a tender that was not opened up to all competitors.”
Original Sources Provided
✅ FACTUAL VERIFICATION
The core facts of this claim are substantially accurate. Australia's Department of Defence awarded a $25,000 contract to US company Lock N Climb to supply specialist ladders used for aircraft maintenance in 2018 [1]. The contract was awarded through a limited tender process, which restricted other firms from competing [1]. Lock N Climb was indeed blacklisted by the US government for bribery offences at the time Australia awarded the contract [2].
Lock N Climb's president, Jeffrey A Green, had pleaded guilty to bribing a US Air Force official at Tinker Air Force Base in Oklahoma to secure sales [1]. Green was caught in an undercover sting in 2016, prosecuted, pleaded guilty, and was sentenced to weekend detention with a fine of $22,291, remaining on 36-month court-imposed probation [1]. Most critically, Lock N Climb was actively barred from US government work until August 2019 at the time Australia awarded the contract [2].
The bribery was relatively minor in scope—Green paid small amounts of cash to an individual to ensure his ladders were used at the base—rather than systemic corruption [1]. However, the fact pattern is clear: a company with a convicted bribery record, whose president was serving probation for that conviction, and which was blacklisted by the US government, received a contract from Australia's Defence Department.
Missing Context
However, the claim omits several important contextual factors:
First, the Defence Department stated it was not aware that Lock N Climb had been blacklisted [2]. The lack of knowledge of US debarment was described as "likely to raise questions about defence's procurement processes" [2]. Critically, information about Lock N Climb's bribery was publicly available—it was announced in 2016 by the US attorney and appeared on the third page of Google search results for "Lock N Climb LLC," and the company appeared on the US government's publicly available list of blacklisted companies [2]. This represents a due diligence failure, not intentional misconduct.
Second, Defence awarded the contract in a limited tender specifically because market research determined no Australian company could provide the same ladders within the required timeframe [2]. This was a commercial off-the-shelf product deemed low-risk, and the Commonwealth Procurement Rules permitted limited tender for such circumstances [2]. The decision to use limited tender was not inherently improper, though it did bypass competitive scrutiny that might have revealed Lock N Climb's history.
Third, Lock N Climb successfully completed the contract on time and on schedule [2]. Air Force officials stated they would have purchased the ladders even without bribes, and that the company's products were high quality [1]. The bribes did not appear necessary to secure the sale—rather, Green appears to have naively applied private-sector commission practices to government work without understanding the illegality [1].
Fourth, there is no legal force of the US blacklisting in Australia [2]. While the US debarment is a red flag for Australian due diligence, Australia is a separate sovereign nation and the US blacklist is not binding Australian law.
Source Credibility Assessment
The original source is The Guardian Australia's investigative journalism, authored by Christopher Knaus and Nick Evershed. The Guardian is a mainstream, UK-based publication with strong investigative credentials but known centre-left editorial positioning. The 2019 reporting was well-researched, citing multiple primary sources including US court documents, the US Attorney's Office media release, and Defence Department statements. The reporting itself is factually solid and appropriately critical of Defence's procurement failures.
However, the claim as framed in the source material is somewhat ambiguous about intent versus negligence. The Guardian's framing emphasizes "undermining overseas efforts to deter corruption" and questions "Is the Australian government serious about combating bribery and corruption?" [1], which imports a critical editorial judgment beyond the factual findings.
Labor Comparison
Did Labor do something similar?
Extensive search conducted for "Labor government defence contracts procurement issues" and "Labor government defence procurement corruption."
While no direct equivalent lock-N-climb-style scenario emerged in search results, Labour administrations have faced significant defence procurement and corruption-related controversies:
- AWB Oil-for-Food scandal (Howard government, not Labor, but worth noting): Australia's Wheat Board engaged in systematic corruption in Iraq sanctions era—though this predates the period under examination.
- The search results show Defence Department procurement failures are a recurring issue across time periods, not unique to Coalition governance [3].
Notably, Australia's Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade awarded hundreds of millions in foreign aid contracts to Sinclair Knight Merz (SKM), a company the World Bank found to have engaged in systematic bribery across Southeast Asia [4]. This was revealed by Guardian Australia as occurring under Labor administration. This demonstrates that awarding contracts to companies with corrupt histories is a systemic issue across Australian governments, not unique to the Coalition.
Balanced Perspective
While critics argue the Defence Department displayed negligence in procurement due diligence by not identifying Lock N Climb's blacklist status before awarding the contract, the government's response reveals this was a failure of process rather than intentional misconduct [2]. The department's own statement acknowledged it "took due diligence of suppliers very seriously" but in this case "was not aware that the company had been blacklisted" [2].
The contract's circumstances partially mitigate the severity: it was for a low-value, low-risk commercial product that Australia's defence needed urgently, with no Australian alternatives available within the required timeframe [2]. The company successfully delivered the product on time and to standard [2]. The bribes Lock N Climb had paid were not to Australian officials but to US Air Force personnel, and there is no evidence the company attempted bribery in the Australian procurement process.
However, the perception is genuinely damaging: Australia claimed to maintain zero-tolerance for bribery and was a signatory to the OECD anti-bribery convention [1], yet awarded a contract to a company actively blacklisted by its "most important ally" and whose president was serving probation for bribery [1]. Integrity campaigners were correct to note this undermined US anti-corruption efforts [1].
Key context: The Lock N Climb case is not unique to the Coalition. Australia's Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade similarly failed in due diligence by awarding hundreds of millions in foreign aid contracts to SKM after the World Bank had documented its systematic bribery [4]. This pattern suggests systemic procurement failures across Australian government, not Coalition-specific corruption.
The actual policy failure here is Defence's inadequate supplier due diligence procedures, which should have included checking international blacklists for a limited-tender contract. The Morrison Coalition government subsequently stated it would "regularly review its procurement processes to ensure appropriate controls regarding selection of contractors are in place" [2]—indicating the issue was treated as a process deficiency rather than corruption.
PARTIALLY TRUE
6.0
out of 10
The factual elements of the claim are accurate: Defence did pay $25,000 to Lock N Climb, the company was blacklisted for corruption and bribery, and the contract was awarded through limited tender. However, the claim's framing suggests intentional disregard ("known to be corrupt") when the evidence shows negligent failure of due diligence. Defence stated it was not aware of the blacklist status [2]. The company's corruption was committed against US authorities, not Australian ones, and there was no evidence it attempted corruption in the Australian procurement. The limited tender decision, while it bypassed competitive scrutiny, was procedurally permissible under Commonwealth Procurement Rules for low-risk commercial products with no local alternatives [2].
The core issue—that Australia awarded work to a blacklisted company—is genuinely problematic for a signatory to anti-corruption conventions, and the due diligence failure is valid criticism. However, this reflects systemic procurement process failures common across Australian governments, not unique Coalition corruption.
Final Score
6.0
OUT OF 10
PARTIALLY TRUE
The factual elements of the claim are accurate: Defence did pay $25,000 to Lock N Climb, the company was blacklisted for corruption and bribery, and the contract was awarded through limited tender. However, the claim's framing suggests intentional disregard ("known to be corrupt") when the evidence shows negligent failure of due diligence. Defence stated it was not aware of the blacklist status [2]. The company's corruption was committed against US authorities, not Australian ones, and there was no evidence it attempted corruption in the Australian procurement. The limited tender decision, while it bypassed competitive scrutiny, was procedurally permissible under Commonwealth Procurement Rules for low-risk commercial products with no local alternatives [2].
The core issue—that Australia awarded work to a blacklisted company—is genuinely problematic for a signatory to anti-corruption conventions, and the due diligence failure is valid criticism. However, this reflects systemic procurement process failures common across Australian governments, not unique Coalition corruption.
📚 SOURCES & CITATIONS (5)
-
1
Australian defence department gave contract to US business blacklisted for bribery
Lock N Climb awarded $25,000 contract when firm’s president still serving court-imposed probation for bribery offence
the Guardian -
2
Australian defence department 'not aware' US firm given contract was blacklisted
Department’s lack of knowledge of Lock N Climb’s debarment for bribery likely to raise questions about procurement processes
the Guardian -
3
Defence data contract with KPMG rife with governance failures, review finds
A Defence data project involving a $100 million contract issued to KPMG is rife with serious governance failures, conflicts of interests and a "lack of accountability", according to an external review.
Abc Net -
4
Australia handed out millions in aid contracts to company accused of bribery
Exclusive: Sinclair Knight Merz, a donor to both Labor and Liberal parties, won contracts worth $489m for Asia-Pacific projects
the Guardian -
5
President of Kansas ladder company pleads guilty to bribery at Tinker Air Force Base
Justice
Rating Scale Methodology
1-3: FALSE
Factually incorrect or malicious fabrication.
4-6: PARTIAL
Some truth but context is missing or skewed.
7-9: MOSTLY TRUE
Minor technicalities or phrasing issues.
10: ACCURATE
Perfectly verified and contextually fair.
Methodology: Ratings are determined through cross-referencing official government records, independent fact-checking organizations, and primary source documents.