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.