Fact-check: Gilbert+Tobin Royal Commission appointment claims, Mostly True
An investigation into how law firm Gilbert+Tobin was appointed to assist a Royal Commission into Antisemitism and Social Cohesion without a public tender process, revealing the firm's sponsorship of the Australia-Israel Chamber of Commerce and potential conflicts of interest.
A February 2025 Michael West Media investigation raised questions about the appointment of law firm Gilbert+Tobin to assist the Royal Commission into Antisemitism and Social Cohesion, focusing on the procurement process and potential conflicts of interest. The article reported that the firm was appointed without open tender through a restricted process, noted the firm's sponsorship of the Australia-Israel Chamber of Commerce (AICC), and highlighted that Attorney-General Michelle Rowland previously worked at Gilbert+Tobin.
The investigation touched on significant issues of public interest, including government procurement transparency, conflicts of interest in sensitive royal commissions, and the relationship between legal service providers and advocacy organizations connected to matters under inquiry. Given the gravity of these questions and the public attention they attracted in legal and political circles, a comprehensive review of the factual claims is warranted.
This fact-check examines six specific claims made in the Michael West article, assessing the accuracy of statements about the procurement process, Gilbert+Tobin's relationship with the AICC, Michelle Rowland's employment history, and the selection criteria used. The review considers government documents, official biographies, legal industry publications, and corporate disclosures to determine which claims are supported by evidence.
Background
The Royal Commission into Antisemitism and Social Cohesion was established by the Australian Government in late 2024 to examine the rise of antisemitism in Australia and related social cohesion issues. Like all royal commissions, it requires substantial legal support, including lawyers to assist commissioners in conducting inquiries, examining witnesses, and preparing reports.
Commonwealth government procurement of legal services operates under a panel arrangement managed by the Attorney-General's Department. The Whole of Australian Government Legal Services Panel, established through an open tender process, comprises pre-approved law firms that government entities can engage for legal work. Under Commonwealth Procurement Rules, once a panel is established, individual procurements from that panel do not require new open tenders. Instead, agencies can use limited tender processes such as requests for quote from panel members. This standing arrangement is designed to streamline procurement while maintaining quality standards and value for money.
Claim 1: Law firm Gilbert+Tobin was appointed to assist the Royal Commission into Antisemitism and Social Cohesion without open tender.
Verdict: Mostly True
The claim that Gilbert+Tobin was appointed without open tender is substantially accurate but requires important technical qualification regarding government procurement processes. According to the government's response to Senate questions on notice from Senator David Shoebridge, Gilbert+Tobin was selected via a request for quote process limited to firms already on the federal government's Legal Services Panel, not through an open tender process accessible to all Australian law firms.
The Attorney-General's Department website confirms that the Legal Services Panel itself was established through an open tender process, with the current panel commencing on 1 July 2024. However, under Commonwealth Procurement Rules, individual procurements from existing panel arrangements do not require new open tenders. The rules explicitly state that procurements from existing standing offers are not subject to the rules governing tender processes. Instead, government entities can approach multiple suppliers on the panel through request for quote processes.
The government's response confirms that multiple law firms from the Legal Services Panel were invited to submit quotes, a selection panel assessed submissions based on experience and value for money, and Gilbert+Tobin was recommended. The department did not disclose which firms were invited or how many were considered.
Therefore, the claim is factually accurate: no open tender was conducted for this specific appointment. However, the framing could be misleading if readers interpret this to mean the appointment violated procurement rules or represented an exceptional departure from normal practice. Using existing panel arrangements without new tenders is standard government practice and consistent with Commonwealth Procurement Rules. The appointment followed established processes for panel-based procurement, though the limited field of invited firms means it was not open to competitive bidding from the broader legal market.
Claim 2: Gilbert+Tobin was selected via a restricted 'request for quote' process limited to firms on the federal government's Legal Services Panel.
Verdict: Mostly True
The claim that Gilbert+Tobin was selected via a restricted request for quote process limited to firms on the federal government's Legal Services Panel is substantially accurate based on available evidence. The government's response to Senator Shoebridge's question on notice states that the Official Secretary of the Royal Commission issued a request for quote from a number of law firms on the Whole of Australian Government Legal Services Panel. This confirms the process was not an open tender and was restricted to panel members.
Legal industry publication Point Blank Law independently reported in February 2026 that officials from the Attorney-General's Department revealed Gilbert+Tobin was selected after quotes were sought from firms on the government services panel. This corroborates the basic facts of the procurement method. The Attorney-General's Department website confirms that a Legal Services Panel has been operational since 1 July 2024, and that non-corporate Commonwealth entities are required to use this panel for all domestic external legal services.
The characterization of the process as "restricted" is technically accurate in the sense that only panel members could participate, not every law firm in Australia. However, this framing requires context. Using whole-of-government panels for legal services procurement is standard Commonwealth practice mandated by government policy, not an exceptional restriction designed for this particular appointment. The government's response indicates this approach is consistent with requirements for non-corporate Commonwealth entities to use the Legal Services Panel.
A limitation in this assessment is that the Senate question response document could not be independently verified on the official parliament website, only on Michael West's site. However, independent corroboration from Point Blank Law and the existence of the Legal Services Panel on the Attorney-General's Department website provides sufficient confidence in the core facts. The claim accurately describes the procurement method used, though readers should understand this represents standard government practice rather than an unusual restriction.
Claim 3: Gilbert+Tobin is a major sponsor of business lobby group the Australia-Israel Chamber of Commerce (AICC).
Verdict: Mostly True
The claim that Gilbert+Tobin is a major sponsor of the Australia-Israel Chamber of Commerce is substantially accurate but cannot be fully verified regarding the specific characterization of "major." Gilbert+Tobin's sponsorship relationship with AICC is well-documented across multiple sources. The AICC NSW website explicitly lists Gilbert + Tobin as a sponsor of the 4th Annual Australia-Israel Innovation Summit held in October 2023, alongside other corporate sponsors including ANZ Bank, KPMG, and Optus.
The firm appears on AICC sponsorship pages for multiple events across 2023, 2024, and 2025. LinkedIn posts from AICC acknowledge Gilbert + Tobin for "generously hosting" AICC events at the firm's offices and for their "ongoing support" of AICC's thought leadership work. The firm's chairman, Danny Gilbert, has been featured as a speaker at AICC events, suggesting a relationship beyond simple financial sponsorship.
The qualification required concerns the term "major sponsor." No authoritative sources provide specific tier designations such as platinum, gold, or silver level, or dollar amounts that would independently verify the scale of the sponsorship relative to other AICC sponsors. The term "major sponsor" appears in Michael West's reporting but is not corroborated by independent sources such as ABC, Guardian Australia, or the Australian Financial Review.
Nonetheless, the evidence supports the substance of the claim. Gilbert+Tobin is consistently listed alongside Australia's largest banks and corporations as an AICC sponsor, has hosted multiple AICC events at its own offices, and maintains an ongoing relationship acknowledged by the organization itself. Describing them as "a major sponsor" is reasonable and substantially accurate based on the visible evidence of sustained, multi-event involvement. The claim is not misleading in any material way, though the specific qualifier "major" represents editorial characterization rather than a verifiable technical designation from AICC's own sponsorship tiers.
Claim 4: The AICC is sponsored by weapons manufacturer Elbit Systems.
Verdict: Unsupported
The claim that the AICC is sponsored by weapons manufacturer Elbit Systems cannot be verified from authoritative independent sources. Michael West Media's own January 2025 investigation states that AICC sponsors include Elbit Systems, Israel's leading weapon-maker, and lists Elbit and Elbit Systems of Australia among defence industry sponsors. However, no independent verification from authoritative sources such as ABC, SMH, Guardian Australia, AFR, The Australian, or Reuters could be found to corroborate this specific claim.
The AICC's own website pages listing sponsors do not display complete sponsor information in publicly searchable formats, a limitation noted in Michael West's own reporting, which observed that finding public information about AICC proved difficult and that the Chamber's website disclosures lack detailed sponsor information. While Elbit Systems of Australia is a well-documented defence contractor operating in Australia with confirmed government contracts, and Gilbert+Tobin is verifiably a sponsor of AICC events as confirmed on the AICC NSW website, the specific claim about Elbit Systems sponsoring AICC relies solely on Michael West's investigative reporting.
This presents a methodological challenge for fact-checking. The claim may be factually accurate based on Michael West's investigation, but cannot be confirmed through the evidentiary standard of verification by independent authoritative sources. The absence of corroboration does not prove the claim is false, but rather that it remains unverified through the sources available for this review. Organizations' sponsorship relationships are not always publicly disclosed in accessible formats, particularly for business chambers and advocacy organizations that may not have the same disclosure requirements as registered charities or public companies.
The claim receives an Unsupported verdict not because evidence contradicts it, but because it cannot be independently verified beyond the original Michael West reporting. Readers should note this distinction: unsupported claims may prove accurate upon further investigation or disclosure, but lack sufficient independent evidence at the time of review.
Claim 5: Michelle Rowland is a former partner at Gilbert+Tobin.
Verdict: Misleading
The claim that Michelle Rowland is a former partner at Gilbert+Tobin is not supported by authoritative sources and mischaracterizes her employment history at the firm. Multiple official and authoritative sources consistently describe her as a "senior lawyer" at the firm, not a partner, a distinction that carries significant meaning in the legal profession.
The official biography on the Australian Government Attorney General's website states she was a senior lawyer at Gilbert and Tobin from 2000 to 2010. The Department of Infrastructure biography uses identical language. The Law Society Journal reported in May 2025 that Rowland was a senior lawyer at Gilbert + Tobin for ten years. Similarly, Lawyers Weekly reported in March 2026 that Rowland worked in the competition and regulation group, describing her position as a lawyer rather than a partner. These sources were published around the time of her appointment as Attorney General in May 2025, when biographical details would have been carefully vetted.
In Australian law firms, the title of partner denotes an ownership stake or equity position in the firm and represents a specific professional rank significantly senior to a senior lawyer or senior associate. While some firms have varied partnership structures including salaried or non-equity partners, the consistent use of "senior lawyer" across official government biographies, professional legal publications, and mainstream media coverage indicates this was Rowland's actual position. No authoritative source describes Rowland as having held a partnership position at Gilbert+Tobin.
The distinction matters in the context of the article's discussion about potential conflicts of interest. Describing someone as a former partner when they were a senior lawyer overstates their seniority and professional standing at the firm, potentially implying stronger ongoing ties than actually existed. While Rowland worked at Gilbert+Tobin for a substantial decade-long period and operated at a senior level in telecommunications and competition law, the evidence does not support the claim that she held partnership status. This claim is therefore assessed as Misleading rather than simply false, as it overstates her role in a way that affects the article's argument about potential conflicts.
Claim 6: The selection panel within the Office of the Royal Commission assessed submissions based on experience and 'value for money' before recommending Gilbert+Tobin.
Verdict: True
The claim that the selection panel within the Office of the Royal Commission assessed submissions based on experience and value for money before recommending Gilbert+Tobin is accurate and directly supported by official government documentation. According to the Australian government's written answer to Senator David Shoebridge's Question on Notice 478, provided by Attorney-General Michelle Rowland through Senator Don Farrell, a selection panel within the Office of the Royal Commission reviewed proposals and evaluated them based on the required qualifications and experience as set out in the request for quotes, and value for money, before recommending Gilbert+Tobin for appointment.
The government response confirms the sequence of events: after the Australian Government Solicitor was appointed as Solicitor Assisting on 19 January 2026, the Official Secretary of the Royal Commission issued a request for quote from multiple law firms on the Whole of Australian Government Legal Services Panel. The selection panel then reviewed these proposals and made its recommendation based on the stated criteria. The recommendation was subsequently approved by Sarah Chidgey, Deputy Secretary, Integrity and Security Group in the Attorney-General's Department.
This factual claim about the selection process, the specific assessment criteria of experience and value for money, and the recommendation by a selection panel is substantiated by the government's own documentation provided in response to parliamentary questions. While the broader Michael West article characterizes the overall process as opaque, a characterization that represents editorial opinion about transparency rather than a factual claim, the specific factual elements checked here about the existence of a selection panel, its location within the Office of the Royal Commission, and its use of experience and value for money as assessment criteria are all accurate according to official sources.
The claim is straightforward and fully supported by the evidence available. It accurately reports what the government disclosed about its internal selection process and criteria.
Overall assessment
The Michael West article's core claims about the appointment of Gilbert+Tobin to the Antisemitism Royal Commission are substantially accurate, though some require qualification and one contains a significant error. The central claim that Gilbert+Tobin was appointed without open tender is factually correct, as is the claim that selection occurred via a restricted request for quote process from the government's Legal Services Panel. The article accurately reports that a selection panel assessed submissions based on experience and value for money. Gilbert+Tobin's sponsorship of the Australia-Israel Chamber of Commerce is well-documented, supporting the article's reporting on this relationship.
However, the article contains one misleading claim that affects its analysis of potential conflicts of interest. Michelle Rowland is described as a former partner at Gilbert+Tobin, when authoritative sources including official government biographies consistently describe her as a senior lawyer. While this may appear a minor distinction, it overstates her seniority and professional standing at the firm in a way that is material to the article's argument about connections between the Attorney-General and the appointed firm. Additionally, the claim that AICC is sponsored by Elbit Systems could not be verified from independent authoritative sources, though this does not necessarily mean the claim is false.\n\nThe article's framing of the procurement process as lacking transparency raises legitimate questions about public accountability, even though the process followed standard Commonwealth procurement rules for panel-based legal services. The government's use of an existing panel rather than open tender is legally compliant and routine, but the limited disclosure about which firms were invited and considered does restrict public scrutiny of the decision. Overall, the article's factual foundation is solid on most key points, undermined somewhat by the error regarding Rowland's former title and the unverified Elbit Systems claim.
This fact-check reviews the article "Israel-aligned law firm appointed to Antisemitism Royal Commission, no tender - Michael West" published by Michael West Media.
Right of reply was offered to Michael West Media with a 48-hour response window. No response was received.
Claims assessed
Law firm Gilbert+Tobin was appointed to assist the Royal Commission into Antisemitism and Social Cohesion without open tender.
The claim that Gilbert+Tobin was appointed without open tender is substantially accurate, but requires technical qualification regarding procurement terminology and process. According to the government's response to Senate questions on notice from Senator David Shoebridge, Gilbert+Tobin was selected via a restricted "request for quote" process limited to firms already on the federal government's Legal Services Panel, not through an open tender process. The Attorney-General's Department website confirms that the Legal Services Panel itself was established through an open tender process (the current panel commenced July 1, 2024), but individual procurements from the panel do not require a new open tender. Under Commonwealth Procurement Rules, there are two main procurement methods: open tender and limited tender. When government entities procure from an existing panel arrangement, they are not required to conduct a new open tender for that specific engagement. The rules explicitly state that "procurements from an existing standing offer are not subject to the rules in Division 2" (which govern tender processes). Instead, the entity can approach multiple suppliers on the panel through a request for quote process. The government's response confirms that "a number of law firms" from the Legal Services Panel were invited to submit quotes, a selection panel assessed submissions based on experience and value for money, and Gilbert+Tobin was recommended. The department did not disclose which firms were invited or how many were considered. Attorney-General Michelle Rowland, a former Gilbert+Tobin partner, had no role in the procurement process and was informed only after the decision was made. Therefore, the claim is technically accurate in that no open tender was conducted for this specific appointment. However, it could be misleading if readers interpret this to mean the appointment violated procurement rules, when in fact using existing panel arrangements without new tenders is standard government practice and consistent with Commonwealth Procurement Rules. The process was a limited, panel-based procurement rather than an open competitive tender.
Gilbert+Tobin was selected via a restricted 'request for quote' process limited to firms on the federal government's Legal Services Panel.
The claim that Gilbert+Tobin was selected via a restricted request for quote process limited to firms on the federal government's Legal Services Panel is substantially accurate based on available evidence, but requires minor qualification. The evidence from the government's response to Senator Shoebridge's question on notice (Question 478) confirms the core factual elements of the claim. The response document, hosted on Michael West's website, states that "The Official Secretary of the Royal Commission subsequently issued a request for quote from a number of law firms on the Whole of Australian Government Legal Services Panel." This confirms that it was not an open tender and was restricted to panel members. Point Blank Law, a legal industry publication, independently reported in February 2026 that "Officials from the Attorney-General's Department revealed G+T was selected after quotes were sought from firms on the government services panel." The Attorney-General's Department website confirms that a Legal Services Panel exists and has been operational since 1 July 2024, with the stated purpose that "non-corporate Commonwealth entities" are required to use this panel "for all domestic external legal services." This provides context that using the panel was mandatory rather than discretionary. The minor qualification needed is that the claim describes this as a "restricted" process. While technically accurate in the sense that only panel members could participate (not every law firm in Australia), this framing could be seen as slightly misleading because using whole-of-government panels for legal services procurement is standard Commonwealth practice, not an exceptional restriction. The government's response indicates this approach is "consistent with the requirement for non-corporate Commonwealth entities to use the Whole of Australian Government Legal Services Panel." The primary limitation in this assessment is that the Senate question response document could not be independently verified on the official aph.gov.au website, only on Michael West's own site. However, the independent corroboration from Point Blank Law and the existence of the Legal Services Panel on the AG Department's website provides sufficient confidence that the core facts are accurate.
Gilbert+Tobin is a major sponsor of business lobby group the Australia-Israel Chamber of Commerce (AICC).
The claim that Gilbert+Tobin is a major sponsor of the Australia-Israel Chamber of Commerce (AICC) is substantially accurate but cannot be fully verified from authoritative sources regarding the specific characterization of "major." Gilbert+Tobin's sponsorship relationship with AICC is well-documented. The AICC NSW website explicitly lists Gilbert + Tobin as a sponsor of the 4th Annual Australia-Israel Innovation Summit held in October 2023, alongside other corporate sponsors including ANZ Bank, KPMG, and Optus. The firm appears on AICC sponsorship pages for multiple events across 2023, 2024, and 2025. Additionally, LinkedIn posts from AICC acknowledge Gilbert + Tobin for "generously hosting" AICC events at the firm's offices and for their "ongoing support" of AICC's thought leadership work. The firm's chairman, Danny Gilbert, has been featured as a speaker at AICC events. However, no authoritative sources from the whitelist directly characterize the sponsorship as "major" or provide specific tier designations (such as platinum, gold, or silver level) or dollar amounts that would independently verify the scale of the sponsorship. The term "major sponsor" appears in Michael West's own reporting but is not corroborated by independent Tier 1 or Tier 2 sources such as ABC, Guardian Australia, or the Australian Financial Review. Given that Gilbert+Tobin is consistently listed alongside Australia's largest banks and corporations as an AICC sponsor, has hosted multiple AICC events, and maintains an ongoing relationship acknowledged by the organization itself, describing them as "a major sponsor" is reasonable and substantially accurate. The claim is not misleading in any material way, though the specific qualifier "major" represents editorial characterization rather than a verifiable technical designation.
The AICC is sponsored by weapons manufacturer Elbit Systems.
The claim that the AICC is sponsored by weapons manufacturer Elbit Systems cannot be verified from authoritative sources on the whitelist. While Michael West Media's own January 2025 investigation states that "AICC sponsors include Elbit Systems, Israel's leading weapon-maker" and lists "Elbit, Elbit Systems of Australia (ELSA)" among "defence industry sponsors," no independent verification from whitelisted authoritative sources (ABC, SMH, Guardian Australia, AFR, The Australian, Reuters, or other major media) could be found. The AICC's own website pages listing sponsors do not display full sponsor information in publicly searchable formats. MW's reporting notes that "finding public information about AICC proved difficult" and that "The Chamber's website disclosures also lack these details." While Elbit Systems of Australia is a well-documented defence contractor operating in Australia with confirmed government contracts, and Gilbert+Tobin is verifiably a sponsor of AICC events (confirmed on AICC NSW website), the specific claim about Elbit Systems sponsoring AICC relies solely on MW's own investigative reporting without corroboration from independent authoritative sources. The factual claim may be accurate, but cannot be confirmed through the required evidentiary standard of verification by at least two independent authoritative sources from the whitelist.
Michelle Rowland is a former partner at Gilbert+Tobin.
The claim that Michelle Rowland is a former partner at Gilbert+Tobin is false. Multiple authoritative sources consistently describe her as a "senior lawyer" at the firm, not a partner, a distinction that is significant in the legal profession. The official biography on the Australian Government Attorney General's website states she was a "Senior lawyer at Gilbert and Tobin from 2000 to 2010." The Department of Infrastructure biography, also an official government source, uses identical language. The Law Society Journal reported in May 2025 that "Rowland was a senior lawyer at Gilbert + Tobin for ten years." Similarly, Lawyers Weekly reported in March 2026 that "Rowland started her legal career at BigLaw firm Gilbert + Tobin" and worked in the "competition and regulation group," describing her position as a lawyer rather than a partner. These sources were published around the time of her appointment as Attorney General in May 2025, when biographical details would have been carefully vetted. In law firms, the title of "partner" denotes an ownership stake or equity position in the firm and represents a specific professional rank that is significantly senior to a "senior lawyer" or "senior associate." The consistent use of "senior lawyer" across official government biographies, professional legal publications, and mainstream media coverage indicates this was her actual position. No authoritative source describes Rowland as having held a partnership position at Gilbert+Tobin. The distinction matters because describing someone as a former partner when they were actually a senior lawyer overstates their seniority and professional standing at the firm, which is particularly relevant in the context of the article's discussion about potential conflicts of interest in the firm's appointment to the Royal Commission. Note: A steelman review found a moderate case that this claim may be partially justified or subject to legitimate interpretation. The strongest case for the claim that Michelle Rowland was a former partner at Gilbert+Tobin rests on several factors: First, at least one published source—Michael West Media, a well-known Australian investigative journalism outlet—explicitly describes Rowland as "a former partner at Gilbert+Tobin" in articles from February and April 2026. This same description appears in republished versions on other sites like Palestine Uncensored. While these sources may ultimately be incorrect, they represent published claims by professional journalists, not random internet commentary. Second, there is genuine ambiguity in legal title nomenclature that could support different interpretations. The term "senior lawyer" is not a standardized title across all Australian law firms. Some firms use different hierarchies, and the term could potentially encompass various senior positions including salaried (non-equity) partners. In Australian legal practice, there has been a shift toward varied partnership structures, including "salaried partners" and "non-equity partners" who hold the partner title without equity ownership. It's possible that official government biographies opted for the more generic "senior lawyer" descriptor to avoid confusion about partnership types, or that Rowland herself preferred this more modest description for political reasons—presenting oneself as a "senior lawyer" rather than a "partner" might be seen as less elitist in Australian politics. Third, Rowland worked at Gilbert+Tobin for a full decade (2000-2010), which is a substantial tenure. By the end of that period, she would have been approximately 8-10 years post-qualification, which is within the typical timeframe when lawyers at top-tier firms are considered for partnership. The fact that she specialized in telecommunications and competition law—working alongside Gina Cass-Gottlieb, who later became chair of the ACCC—suggests she was operating at a senior level in a high-profile practice area. However, the claim faces significant challenges: multiple authoritative sources including official government biographies, the Law Society Journal, and Lawyers Weekly consistently describe her as a "senior lawyer" rather than partner, and this distinction is meaningful in the legal profession. The most likely explanation is that the Michael West articles contain an error, but the existence of published sources making this claim, combined with some ambiguity in legal titles, provides at least a moderate basis for the assertion.
The selection panel within the Office of the Royal Commission assessed submissions based on experience and 'value for money' before recommending Gilbert+Tobin.
The claim is accurate and directly supported by the Australian government's official response to Senate Questions on Notice. According to the government's written answer to Senator David Shoebridge's Question on Notice 478, provided by Attorney-General Michelle Rowland through Senator Don Farrell, a selection panel within the Office of the Royal Commission reviewed proposals and evaluated them based on "the required qualifications and experience as set out on the request for quotes, and value for money" before recommending Gilbert+Tobin for appointment. The government response confirms that after the Australian Government Solicitor was appointed as Solicitor Assisting on 19 January 2026, the Official Secretary of the Royal Commission issued a request for quote from a number of law firms on the Whole of Australian Government Legal Services Panel. The selection panel then reviewed these proposals and made its recommendation, which was subsequently approved by Sarah Chidgey, Deputy Secretary, Integrity and Security Group in the Attorney-General's Department. This factual claim about the selection process, assessment criteria (experience and value for money), and the recommendation by a selection panel is substantiated by the official government response. While the article's framing characterizes the process as "opaque" (a matter of opinion), the specific factual claim being checked here about the existence of a selection panel and its assessment criteria is accurate according to the government's own documentation.
Was this fact-check useful?
Contribute evidence or feedback
Have a source that supports or challenges this verdict? Submit it for editorial review. Approved links and documents may be used to update this fact-check.