McGinty: Too Clever by Half

An Intemperate Attorney General with Foot-in-Mouth Syndrome

The Desert Rat is unable to buy the weekend newspapers such as The Sunday Times, because he works in the back of beyond creating wealth for Jim McGinty and Alan Carpenter to squander at an ever increasing and alarming rates.

Internet access however, does allow the Desert Rat to read Grumpy Jack's Blog which has an interesting post on an article in today's The Sunday Times.

The post reveals that Jim McGinty has finally been called to account for his defamatory comments about Brian Burke and Julian Grill. The Desert Rat has written about the stupidity of Jim McGinty's defamatory comments in a previous post which can be read here.

It is not the first time McGinty has made intemperate and defamatory remarks about Burke and Grill.

Grumpy Jack's excellent article on the defamation story can be read here.

McGinty - the Parody of a competent Attorney General

Read my Lips! McGinty's superficiality and disingenuousness exposed

The prospect of Julian Grill being gaoled by the Legislative Council has not been attacked by Jim McGinty. Only strange eerie silence from the opportunistic Attorney General.

The Desert Rat remembers that in 1994 it was a different story, when the Legislative Council gaoled Brian Easton for a week. Jim McGinty the Opposition Leader was very quick to exploit the situation with a vitriolic attack on the “undemocratic” Upper House and its outdated powers.

McGinty appeared to be mortified by the actions of the Legislative Council and expressed great indignation at the gaoling of Easton. His wounded rhetoric flowed freely and he lambasted the Legislative Council. It went along the lines, that the gaoling of citizens for contempt without a fair trial constituted a fundamental denial of human rights.

McGinty’s comments were reported in The West Australian on 21 December 1994 where he stated that:

• a Labor government would overturn the law which allowed Parliament to jail people for contempt;

• he found the jailing of a WA citizen by the Legislative Council “without any right to be heard…to be quite horrific”;

• "the Labor Party is opposed to such a fundamental denial of human rights as imprisonment without trial";

• he thought “every decent WA citizen would be appalled with the Parliament exercising this power”;

• he didn’t agree “with any system of putting people in jail without allowing them to have a fair trial”.

Fourteen years later he hasn’t lifted a finger to fix the gaping problems, particularly the lack of suitable penalties under the Parliamentary Privileges Act.

In 2002 it was left to former Independent Philip Pendal MLA to move a Private Members Bill to fix the urgent problem created by the link between the State Parliamentary Privileges Act 1891 and the House of Commons Act where a superior Court judgment in the United Kingdom automatically changed the interpretation of our State Act - because the link still existed between the House of Common Act and our Act.

The ramifications of this issue were serious.

Our esteemed Attorney General Jim McGinty was so miffed by Philip Pendal’s initiative, (McGinty's own inaction exposed), that he didn’t even bother to get off his shiny backside and speak in the debate.

So much for his interest in parliamentary privilege which the Desert Rat thinks McGinty must have feigned in 1994.

Obviously McGinty doesn’t really care about the Western Australian Parliament having the power to imprison its citizens, where natural justice is not guaranteed by the Huouse procedures.

Despite the passing of fourteen years, seven years of which he has been Attorney General, during which he has seen fit to introduce all sorts of rubbish legislation, McGinty could not be bothered fixing this “horrific” situation – as he described it.

The Desert Rat thinks that McGinty must be salivating at the thought of Julian Grill going to gaol without being afforded any opportunity of the right of natural justice.

No comment, no concern and no attempt to lift a finger to fix this "horrific" problem.

CCC Responsible for Legislative Council Mess

Contempt Charge: Misguided or Phoney?

The Legislative Council has found itself between a rock and a hard place in its handling of the so called “contempt” charge against Julian Grill.

The big mistake of the Legislative Council Committee was to allow a Corruption and Crime Commission lawyer Philip Uruquart into the proceedings. As a result of Uruquart’s influence, it was the CCC agenda that was run exclusively in the second part of the Inquiry.

Laurie Marquet the former Clerk of the Legislative Council was very wise and knowledgeable in matters parliamentary and constitutional. While it is clear Marquet made some big errors near the end of his life with drug addiction and theft to sustain the abusive habit, he was prior to that, a formidable opponent and intellect - in his prime.

Laurie Marquet would never have allowed a Crime and Corruption Commission lawyers to become involved in the operation of a Legislative Council committee. He certainly would have opposed ceding any rights or powers to any statutory body outside parliament to operate within parliament.

Marquet realised the importance of not allowing Legislative Council committees to be manipulated by outside lawyers. Lawyers should be welcome to advise their client, sometimes state their case, but never be allowed to run the show. Therein is the genesis of the current stand-off.

There was a sea change when Crime and Corruption Commission lawyer Philip Uruquart came in to run proceedings in the second part of the inquiry. The Desert Rat believes the CCC has a lot to answer for this debacle in the Legislative Council.

The appalling treatment of Julian Grill and the denial of natural justice and procedural fairness to him is bizarre by any standard. The Legislative Council committee’s finding is without substance in fact and was in any event outside their powers.

The Desert Rat puts this outcome down to the result of CCC lawyer Philip Uruquart’s influence. The CCC has a lot to answer for its involvement in this debacle. The Desert Rat believes anyone with integrity and pride would certainly prefer to go to gaol rather than capitulate to misguided or phoney contempt charges.

Laurie Marquet was an arch enemy of Jim McGinty and continually thwarted his attempts to use the Legislative Council to achieve his political ends in matters of electoral tinkering and Legislative Council voting procedures. Laurie Marquet was another enemy of McGinty who was pursued by the CCC, unfortunately to his death bed.

In his prime he was more than a match for Jim McGinty and outpointed him at every turn. The Desert Rat understands that Jim McGinty despised Marquet.

The unravelling of the resulting mess will be there for all to see. CEO Mike "Children Overboard" Silverstone and the rest of McGinty's CCC secret police will keep their heads down.

McGinty - FOI Loser (Pt 2)

Chief Justice Martin rules against McGinty & Carpenter Government

The Desert Rat thinks Jim McGinty has become a recidivist loser, especially with matters involving the Freedom of Information Act.

The McGinty Government (technically the Carpenter Government) has just lost a Supreme Court bid to stop taxpayers finding out the basis of pay rises given to politicians, by making the Salaries and Allowances Tribunal (SAT) subject to the FOI Act.

We will soon be able to read the $185 000 taxpayer funded Mercer Report which the Carpenter Government has been hiding from the public for two years. That is how long it has taken The West Australian to fight this anti-democratic cabal to get the report. This week they were successful in the Supreme Court.

Soon we will be able to find out what the Mercer Report said about politicians’ workloads and learn how the SAT justified the big pay rises two years ago; up to $66 000 for some fat cats. It will make interesting reading when finally released.

The Report may disclose some matters Jim McGinty would prefer to keep secret. Of special interest will be what the Mercer Report says about Jim McGinty's decision to cut the salary of the former Acting Freedom of Information Commissioner Darryl Wookey who was sacked by McGinty after he first slashed her salary. Did he expect her to resign?

The Desert Rat thinks Jim McGinty would prefer the details of that grubby bit of bullying, be kept secret.

The Mercer Report should shed light on McGinty’s appalling political action in downgrading the salaries of three other Government watchdogs that he seems to want muzzled. The Public Service Standards Commissioner and the Electoral Commissioner and the Information Commissioner all got the chop while the politician got the gravy.

Jim McGinty does not seem to want open government.

While chopping funds to these four watchdogs of Government, McGinty has shovelled nearly $90 million of taxpayers funds in the incompetent Corruption and Crime Commission which is desperately trying to destroy Brian Burke and Julian Grill both who are able to thwart McGinty’s complete control of the State Labor Party.

The Desert Rat is interested to read what McGinty and Carpenter have wanted to hide from the public for two years.

McGinty - FOI Loser

A Miffed McGinty - Petty and Petulant

The Desert Rat thinks Jim McGinty is becoming a loser because of his fear and paranoia about bad news and publicity. His woes have come from his inability to accept that Western Australians have a State Freedom of Information Act .

When public information or documents are applied for that McGinty does not want released he can be very petty and petulant.

The Desert Rat would like McGinty to show some courage and respond to the media when bad news is around or unpalatable facts are exposed. Instead we have to usual two-year-old behaviour of hiding and skulking - "Mr McGinty was unavailable for comment" or "Mr McGinty could not be contacted"!

The first smack on McGinty’s bulbous red nose came from news that the new Acting Freedom of Information Commissioner John Lightowlers was seeking legal advice about how FOI documents can be fairly released.

Lightowlers has decided to seek Parliamentary support for changes that would ensure that media organisations which apply for information are not given documents after they have been provided to their rivals.

The West Australian applied for all documents related to the recent payout of Neil Fong. Instead they were provided to, or leaked to Channel 9, before they were given to The West Australian.

Channel 9 broke the “exclusive” story which should have been broken by The West Australian.

Is this McGinty’s way of showing his displeasure to The West Australian reporters? Often documents applied for, are released, the day before the Carpenter Government is forced to give them to the applicant. The recent Casey Report on the Department of Indigenous Affairs is one of many such secrecy examples.

Jim McGinty resents, or doesn’t want to, or doesn’t seem to realise that the FOI Act was passed by Parliament to allow the public to participate in Government and make Government representatives more accountable to the public.

The Desert Rat thinks Opposition Leader Troy Buswell was spot-on when he said that

“McGinty’s way of manipulating the FOI process to play favourites and that it had undermined the integrity of the accountability system”.

Secrecy and a fear of facing the facts or the unpleasant truth are McGinty’s political hallmarks. Openness and transparency are weak points.

The Labor Government should not be run like the Socialist Left faction where fear reigns and everyone does as they are told.

No questions asked!

McGinty’s dysfunctional CCC

Truth Overboard? – the CCC should now be investigated for corruption

The failure of some senior Corruption and Crime Commission officers to meet the standards it expects of others is the most damning revelation of the discredited Smith’s Beach Inquiry.

The Desert Rat expects some CCC officers may be charged with serious offences and others should lose their jobs.

The cavalier treatment of evidence by CCC officers has been somewhere between negligent and or grossly incompetent, and corrupt.

Two examples have been recently revealed. Are more to come?

The first example is the failure to pursue evidence that did not support their case.

The evidence from Barbara Pedersen in which she denied any knowledge of the so called DPI Smith’s Beach report or being asked to write one, was omitted by the CCC from the final CCC Smith’s Beach report.

Also the CCC officers failed to interview Ms Clegg, the woman to whom the claimed report was to be written. The CCC also failed to interview the Supervisor of both women, to get to the truth of the claim, which the CCC presents as fact.

Malcolm McCusker QC adds the Commission also failed to interview other crucial witnesses in the matter.

The second example is failing to inform Special Council assisting the CCC of the content of the taped recorded meeting.

CCC investigators listened to the South West Planning Committee meeting tapes and knew, but did not disclose to Stephen Hall SC, the Special Council doing the CCC’s interrogating of witnesses during the Smith’s Beach Inquiry of evidence that showed Paul Frewer was innocent.

The tape of the Planning Committee meeting revealed Paul Frewer had made proper disclosures but Stephen Hall SC was not informed and his interrogation and cross examination of Paul Frewer was allowed to proceed of his false belief that Paul Frewer had not made proper disclosures to the meeting.

Stephen Hall SC was unaware of the real content of the tape and would not have allowed the misconduct finding against Paul Frewer had he known of the exculpatory content of the tapes.

The omission of critical evidence by CCC officers in the Smith’s Beach inquiry, investigation and subsequent report, lies somewhere between gross incompetence or negligence and corruption. That omission meant the CCC’s findings were inconsistent with evidence it had collected from relevant witnesses; evidence that it did not disclose in its report.

Remember John Button and Andrew Mallard both were convicted of murders they did not commit and spent over a decade in jail. In each trial, evidence that would have made it impossible to convict Button and Mallard, was withheld from the Court.

The CCC’s modus operandi and treatment of evidence are terrifyingly dangerous.

The omission of exculpatory evidence is criminal behaviour in the Desert Rat’s humble opinion.

The Desert Rat would like to know when some of the officers responsible for this sick behaviour in the CCC will resign, and take responsibility for this misguided McCartheyist purge of the non-Left members of the Australian Labor Party?

McGinty & Travers : A Pigeon Pair - Pouter and Squab?

Not so great minds think alike.

Socialist Left Labor MP Ken Travers is Chairperson of the Joint parliamentary committee with oversight of the Crime and Corruption Commission.

Ken Travers is a factional colleague and very close to Jim McGinty. Any misbehaviour by Travers or any of his Left colleagues could see them swiftly dumped from their winnable positions on their Legislative Council election tickets.

The Desert Rat has read with interest Ken Travers comments on the confrontation between Parliamentary Inspector Malcolm McCusker QC and the Corruption and Crime Commission.

Don’t expect to see any comment from Travers that would upset Jim McGinty. The Desert Rat will need sedation if Ken Travers ever says anything that would upset Jim McGinty's bowel.

So, closely read whatever Travers says, and see who is playing the piper and who dances to the tune.

The Desert Rat won’t expect to see any evidence of an independent mind from Ken Travers in respect of Parliamentary Inspector Malcolm McCusker’s dispute with the CCC and his revelations of the CCC's terrifying incompetence.

Travers latest comment reported in The West Australian is :

“It is too early to conclude that the watchdog’s reputation had been damaged by Malcolm McCusker’s report”.

Ah! Jim McGinty would approve!

In a recent non-committal oxymoron(ic) contribution to The West Australian’s record, Travers said that he

“acknowledged widely varying facts in both investigations, but said he had faith in both Mr Roberts-Smith and Mr McCusker".

Well done Ken, Jim McGinty will approve of this non sequitur!

Unfortunately, even the Desert Rat knows that the crux of the dispute is about facts not opinion.

In the Desert Rat’s view, Socialist Left and McGinty acolyte Ken Travers will continue to sit on the fence unless he has an opportunity to have a swipe at Malcolm McCusker QC.

The Desert Rat predicts that Ken Travers will say nothing that will upset Jim McGinty and he will never embrace McCusker's compelling demolition of the Smith Beach Inquiry unless Jim McGinty get his head out of the sand; reverses his position and dumps on the CCC. McGinty's cynical media line (“staying on message”) for the present, is, that "the CCC is doing a great job".

The Desert Rat will be combing the media to see if Ken Travers ever expresses a view contrary to Jim McGinty on the CCC.

Don’t hold your breath.

If wrong, the Desert Rat's humility will be boundless. A grovelling apology will be forthcoming and a free repast will be offered, in his sudden unplanned retirement from the WA Parliament.

McGinty: A disgrace as Attorney General

The Desert Rat could not believe his ears when listening to ABC Regional Radio news this afternoon while exploring the Goldfield's terrain in 42 degree heat.

No, it was not a case of “a touch of the sun”.

The ABC news item was about the latest Corruption and Crime Commission fiasco which has been forensically dissected and discredited in a report by Parliamentary Inspector Malcolm McCusker QC which has been tabled in State Parliament.

McGinty’s “spin”, to avoid answering the facts in McCusker’s report

Attorney General Jim McGinty was interviewed. He ignored the unpalatable facts exposed by McCusker and brazenly told listeners that:

“the CCC was doing a good job”.

The comment and the style is typical McGinty "spin" – he ignored the appalling incompetence exposed first by senior public servant Petrice Judge in her independent report and eloquently reinforced in the latest of three reports from WA's leading barrister and Parliamentary Inspector Malcolm McCusker QC. McGinty;s haunting indifference to the embarrassing facts laid out in these reports reveals a lot about McGinty's real character, his motives and the way he operates politically.

Defamatory comment

The Desert Rat has learned to not expect much better from Jim McGinty. To cap off this crass substitute for a reasoned response to McCusker's scathing expose, McGinty then said of the CCC:

"It's stopping corruption, particularly by lobbyists, in its tracks”.

This latter comment is clearly aimed at Julian Grill and Brian Burke and by implication is highly defamatory of and prejudicial to both men.

How can anyone get a fair hearing or a fair trial in Western Australia when its Attorney General carries on with behaviour like that?

The statement clearly says that the CCC is stopping corruption by lobbyists in WA and the inference is that Burke and Grill are “corrupt” and have been stopped in their tracks because of “corrupt” behaviour.

Julian Grill and Brian Burke are the only two lobbyists in Western Australia that have been investigated by the CCC. Neither has been found to have acted corruptly, or has been charged with a criminal offence or have any findings of misconduct against them, despite a multi-million dollar investigation and public interrogations by the CCC. The Smith's Beach Report, the CCC major investigation is unravelling daily.

The problem that confront anyone defamed by (this apology for) an Attorney General, is that, if those aggrieved sue McGinty for defamation it will cost them about $200 000 for the privelege. Jim McGinty’s costs will be met by the State Government, as well as any damages claim against him. McGinty knows that.

The plaintiffs may not be awarded enough to cover their legal costs. If defamation is established, mud sticks and negative impressions remain.

The Desert Rat reckons that's a win-win for Jim McGinty who is protected from any personal costs. he knows it and is using it to bait and smear Julian Grill and Brian Burke!

The Office of Attorney General

Holding the office of Attorney General is a special position in politics. It is a special position in Cabinet as well, as it provides legal advice to Cabinet. The position of Attorney General has always been seen as one of discharging the duties of the Office fairly and without favour. The Attorney General should always be above politics in that role. The Attorney General’s job is to protect the legal system and people. Attorneys' General who understand the responsibilities of the role such as Joe Berinson and Darryl Williams Qc often appeared a bit aloof in their detachment from petty politics - but McGinty can't help himself!

The Attorneys General make recommendations to Cabinets on the appointment of judges, magistrates, QC’s or Special Councils as they are now titled - another role which should be above politics.

Jim McGinty’s behaviour today reflects how he has politicised the role of Attorney General.

His grubby defamatory comments today are, in the opinion of the Desert Rat, a negation of his role of Attorney General.

CCC and integrity - mutually exclusive?

McCusker's scathing report exposes more CCC incompetence

Attorney General Jim McGinty must be incontinent with embarrassment at Parliamentary Inspector Malcolm McCusker’s scathing report on the Corruption and Crime Commission’s investigation of the Smith’s Beach Inquiry and the “misconduct finding” against public servant Dr Mike Allen.

McGinty already devastated and deflated that there was no adverse finding or impropriety by Brian Burke and Julian Grill, now has to read about the CCC's terrifying incompetence and possible corrupt behaviour. Their omission of evidence that showed Mike Allen was innocent, the misrepresentations and distortion of the truth, are all on display.

McCusker's findings were that:

• The CCC had relied heavily on hearsay between lobbyists Brian Burke and Julian Grill and their client David McKenzie in reaching its conclusion that Mike Allen had agreed to appoint a woman favoured by Burke to write an environmental report for the Department of Planning and Infrastructure on the Canal Rocks development at Smith’s Beach in WA’s South-West.

• An interview with the woman, Barbara Pedersen, in which she denied any knowledge of the report or being asked to write one, was omitted by the CCC from its final Smith’s Beach report. Mr McCusker says the Commission also failed to interview other crucial witnesses in the matter.

• The CCC should publicly acknowledge it was wrong after discovering no evidence to support the finding of misconduct by Department of Planning and Infrastructure executive Michael Allen.

• The CCC finding was inconsistent with evidence it had collected from relevant witnesses, evidence that it did not disclose in its report.

McCusker recommended:

• The CCC should publicly acknowledge that it was in error in finding that Mr Allen was guilty of misconduct, and withdraw not only the "opinion" of misconduct by Mr Allen as expressed in its October report but also its "substituted" opinion of February 13, 2008, as neither opinion is supported by evidence, and both are inconsistent with evidence which the CCC had, but did not refer to in its report, as well as evidence of other relevant witnesses not interviewed by the CCC.

• The CCC should conduct an internal investigation of why the Barbara Pedersen evidence was not included in the Smith’s Beach report and then report to him on whether he should hold an inquiry into the possible misconduct by CCC officers.

• The CCC make greater use of private hearings when public servants are suspected of misconduct.

Mr McCusker said the CCC had failed to satisfactorily explain in its Report why it decided to publicly examine Mr Allen, with (foreseeable) consequential damage to his reputation and career.

Mr McCusker responded in today's report by stating that: "The CCC contention, that the Parliamentary Inspector cannot review and report on an adverse finding made in a CCC Report which it has tabled in Parliament "including any factual errors, or inadequacy of the evidence relied on by the CCC to support the finding" is incorrect."

He added that this contention was contrary to the intention of the Parliament and would mean that the power of the CCC to make and table findings of "misconduct" by any public office, with the serious consequences that follow, would be absolute and unchecked.

CCC attacks McCusker the messenger - not the message

McGinty "put the telescope to the blind eye".

The Corruption and Crime Commission first argued Parliamentary Inspector Malcolm McCusker QC was acting outside his powers and should not be allowed to examine the evidence of the CCC. No one bought that claptrap except Carpenter and McGinty who conveniently sat on the fence. When the CCC could not or would not argue the facts, they argued the law!

Now we read in The West Australian that the CCC have ‘another problem with McCusker” but they won’t air it in public!

It appears the CCC are now playing the man rather than pointing out where Petrice Judge and then Parliamentary Inspector Malcolm McCusker QC possibly got it wrong in both their devastating critiques.

What is this new secret evidence? Have the CCC been tapping Malcom McCusker's phone or listening to his conversations on the electronically intercepted phones of aggrieved witnesses? The Desert Rat thought those coversations would be covered by legal professional privilege.

Certainly Jim McGinty should not be signing warrants that infringe on McCusker's ability to do his job, without the prying eyes and ears of the CCC. Still, there is no apology to any of the witnesses in the Smith’s Beach Inquiry. Paul Frewer, Dr Wally Cox and probably Dr Mike Allen (whose report is yet to be released), their good names smeared and soiled by these reckless amateurs, are still waiting for the apology that McCusker said they deserved.

All we have had is barefaced dissimulation from Dad's Army. The arrogance of the CCC is astonishing, as is the silence of their patron Emperor Jim McGinty.

Why doesn’t the CCC publish a dissection of the Petrice Judge and McCusker reports and make their case? Instead, they argue a weak, nebulous legal argument that McCusker should not look at the CCC evidence and now they hint at some malfeasance by McCusker.

The CCC has given Western Australian taxpayers no value for the $90 million they have wasted. Who needs a tabloid press, when we have the CCC to make up stories, air quotes out of contexts to pruriently sensationalise "evidence", destroy people reputations, livelihoods, businesses and family lives.

Heritage Phillistine McGinty was Bropho’s Bunny

The Desert Rat was not surprised to read in The West Australian that Robert Bropho was convicted for a string of sex offences. The Judge Peter Nisbet, described Bropho as “a paedophile, a bully and a liar”.

Unfortunately he only got 3 years jail for a string of child sex offences and will be out on the streets in 18 months.

Not a peep from McGinty about the adequacy of this sentence. The Desert Rat asks if this sentence is accomodated in the Left's notion of "social justice"?

The Desert Rat was reminded how Jim McGinty was well and truly sucked in by Bropho’s and his cabal’s campaign to destroy the wonderful Old Swan Brewery heritage buildings in Mount’s Bay Road. A cause celebre of the Left.

In his maiden speech in 1991 McGinty said in support of Bropho and his mob:

“ .. the old Swan Brewery site dispute needs to be reconsidered. In my view it is a social justice issue rather than a simple question of whether one ought to preserve an old building.”

McGinty supported the demolition of the Old Swan Brewery, which is probably the finest piece of industrial architecture of its type in Western Australia. The lines, structure and brickwork of the old building are brilliant. Now restored, the Old Swan Brewery is a fine asset to our city and river landscape.

Bropho’s claim that the old brewery was supposedly a sacred site was not supported by anthropological evidence. It was built on reclaimed land; there wasn’t a native tree anywhere along the foreshore and the Mt Elisa Spring, the home of the mythical Waagl was over 100 metres away towards Perth and on the other side of Mount Bay Road and was sealed.

Geoff Gallop was the first of the Leftist thinkers to change their view on Bropho and thankfully pulled the plug on his taxpayer funded fiefdom. McGinty in true philistine form has his electorate office in the most modern designed building in the heritage Port of Fremantle.

Not surprising that McGinty did not appreciate the heritage listed Woodside Hospital in East Fremantle which he is now keen to dispose of.

Heritage buildings should be appreciated and not be destroyed for phoney reasons.

CCC: Justice by opinion poll?

CCC - Dog-whistle politics and worm polls

The Desert Rat was gob-smacked when he read in The West Australian yesterday that the Corruption and Crime Commission had released a poll saying 96% of those polled supported public hearings. Does that mean they believe Neil Fong and Jim McGinty should have given their evidence in public, humiliated like Brian Burke and Julian Grill – rather than in unexplained and very convenient secrecy, especially for the Attorney General Jim McGinty.

The poll also suggests 80% thought that the CCC would properly investigate complaints. That is a unimpressively low number given few people really understand the expensive and incompetent efforts of the CCC - to date.

More galling is that the CCC should be polling at all. Most of these polls are usually done for window-dressing - rather dopey, meaningless performance indicators in Annual Reports. The contractor know it is in their interest to deliver the best possible results, if they want to continue getting the annual work, They are usually self-serving nonsense and a gross waste of taxpayer's money.

To use this polling in a public relations campaign, as some credible evidence that the CCC is doing a good job, is pathetic, and shows the spin monkeys and media harlots are now running the CCC image makeover sideshow.

What will we have next, the Supreme Court polling the public about it verdicts and whether the public thinks it is doing a good job? Will we have Chief Justice Wayne Martin QC commissioning polls on the judgments of the Supreme Court? Any judgment of the Supreme Court should stand on its own merit. Are we now to have justice by opinion poll - all with McGinty's silence or blessing?

Similarly, the CCC reports and activities should be judged on their particular merit - their thoroughness and accuracy, not by some phone poll done on the cheap to tell the public how wonderful the CCC are.

With respect, the Attorney General Jim McGinty should read Len Roberts-Smith and the CCC the Riot Act and tell them to stop using these crass meaningless polls. While McGinty is at it he should tell Commissioner Major-General Len Roberts-Smith not to waste taxpayers' money on Eastern State's OC’s opinions as to whether the Parliamentary Inspector Malcolm McCusker QC is able to look at the evidence when forming an opinion about CCC inquiries and reports. Another fat cheque from the CCC to add to the $90 million already wasted by this discredited, lame-duck institution.