As procurement activity increases and staff numbers grow, managing conflicts of interest has become a core responsibility for local councils. Automation can help detect conflict of interest.

When it comes to conflict of interest (COI), most councils have the right intentions and ensure they have clear policies, regular training, and governance oversight.

Yet in practice, structural limitations make enforcement difficult. Procurement is decentralised. Teams change often. Self-declaration remains the default safeguard.

As such, councils are being increasingly exposed to compliance gaps, reputational risk, and audit findings.

Where conflict of interest issues begins

Conflict of interest is not necessarily the result of intentional wrongdoing. Individuals are human, prone to forgetfulness, time pressures, and uncertainty about what needs to be disclosed or declared.

Councils also frequently have decentralised procurement staff and high staff turnover, with the majority using self-declaration as their initial line of defence. This relies on individuals to judge for themselves and report their own exposure to risk.

While most of the time a lack of disclosure is just an oversight, other times it is deliberate. When this occurs with limited oversight across systems, or the absence of a mechanism that cross-checks employees against supplier records, duplication such as shared addresses or bank accounts can go unnoticed, and conflict of interest becomes a very real risk for councils.

What does better conflict detection look like?

Effective conflict of interest detection is defined by visibility, verification and consistency. Councils with more mature detection capabilities typically share characteristics including:

1. Integrated data: Employee and vendor records are assessed together to surface hidden links.
2. External context: ASIC director data adds verification and depth.
3. Pattern recognition: Shared addresses, emails, or ABNs are flagged in context.
4. Consistency across teams: Checks are applied consistently across teams.
5. Continuous oversight: Monitoring runs in the background, not just during reviews.
6. Data enrichment: Internal records are matched against ASIC and other public datasets to surface hidden risks.

Employing these processes makes conflict monitoring more responsive and supports faster, more informed decision-making.

In practice: Melton City Council

With a population growing by more than 13,000 each year and a capital works program exceeding $225 million, Melton City Council operates in a high-pressure procurement environment. Staff numbers have surged past 900, and continued growth means more projects, more vendors, and more people involved in purchasing decisions.

“Growth pressure creates opportunities for fraud, such as accidentally failing to declare a conflict or not understanding the right process,” said Noel Irwin, Procurement Manager. “New staff often rely on what they knew at their last council or organisation. Some don’t fully understand what a conflict of interest is.”

In response, Melton has moved beyond manual declarations, implementing Satori's Verify program.

The Council uses Satori to continuously scan for potential conflicts, with the platform integrating ASIC director data with internal procurement records. It flags matches between employees and vendors, triggering investigation workflows for potential conflicts and enabling timely, structured investigations. It also maintains a full audit trail for compliance and review.

“We use ASIC data, our procurement data, and Satori’s capability to track, match, and record that information,” Irwin said. “For us, it’s a perfect system.”

ASIC data and the council landscape

ASIC director data provides an additional layer of visibility when monitoring conflicts of interest. Yet only a small percentage of councils have operationalised its use.

Satori research has found that less than 10% of councils use ASIC data in their COI monitoring processes, although nearly 50% would like to.

This suggests that while the value of enriched data sources to identify and prevent COI is widely recognised, many councils have yet to implement the systems, like OK2Pay and Verify, or processes, to use ASIC data effectively and reduce risks.

The role of automation in building a COI culture

A strong COI framework starts with staff awareness. While education is essential, expecting every individual to recall policies under pressure leaves too much to chance.

Automated checks offer a safeguard. They allow councils to analyse full datasets rather than samples, apply the same standards across all departments, and proactively detect issues as they arise, not just during audits. Reducing reliance on manual processes, automation also eliminates common human errors and ensures a more consistent, repeatable approach.

Automation creates a culture of responsibility where accountability is not simply the preserve of governance teams and improves the audit and review processes by creating a clear, traceable audit trail of checks and outcomes.

Critically, for a large sector with constant turnover, automation supports the COI guardrails, even when teams grow and priorities shift.

A smarter approach to conflict of interest

While most councils have policies in place, effective conflict of interest oversight requires systems that connect data, flag risks early, and support consistent action across teams.

Using automation alongside combined sources of data, as demonstrated by Melton City Council, can move councils away from reactive processes into constant visibility.

Satori’s products OK2Pay and Verify have been specifically designed to automate and improve COI detection and management for local government, with proven success in improving governance and oversight.