David McGinlay awarded at least 12 ICAC investigations

The NT’s anti-corruption watchdog awarded external contracts for at least 12 investigations to the boyfriend of its investigations director.

The NT’s anti-corruption watchdog awarded external contracts for at least 12 investigations to the boyfriend of its investigations director.

• ICAC contractor probed, documents reveal
• EXCLUSIVE: ICAC Commissioner subjected NT News journalist to a secret interrogation

THE NT’s anti-corruption watchdog awarded external contracts for at least 12 investigations to the boyfriend of its investigations director while other staff had been assigned none.

Information provided to Sky News shows David McGinlay had been assigned 12 investigations by the Office of the Independent Commissioner Against Corruption in March this year, the second highest number of any investigator.

At the same time, three investigators who were employed on the ICAC’s staff had been assigned no investigations.

Mr McGinlay’s domestic partner, Kate Kelly, is the ICAC’s Director of Investigations.

Inspector Bruce McClintock has cleared the ICAC of any wrongdoing over the handling of the conflict of interest between Mr McGinlay and Ms Kelly.

Contract investigator David McGinlay was awarded at least 12 investigations while three investigators on the ICAC’s staff were assigned nothing. Picture: Katrina Bridgeford

But the new Independent Commissioner Against Corruption Michael Riches – who started in the role following the retirement of Ken Fleming QC on July 5 – has ruled the ICAC will no longer use external contractors.

“I will not engage external investigators in the future,” Mr Riches said.

“While I may engage external counsel, auditors or other experts to assist me with an investigation, investigators will be sourced from within my office.”

The number of investigations conducted by Mr McGinlay is significantly higher than the “three or four” Mr Fleming said he had been given when he appeared at Budget Estimates on June 15.

“We had four people to whom we could give investigations. We gave three or four to him and we gave investigations to other contractors as well,” Mr Fleming told the Estimates committee.

Last week Sky News revealed Mr McGinlay had resigned as a South Australian police officer in 2003 while he was the subject of serious disciplinary charges.

It’s understood SA police discontinued an investigation in allegations Mr McGinlay had breached the police code of conduct after he resigned.

Investigators hired as ICAC staff can be required to undergo extensive “suitability” checks before they are employed.

MORE TOP NEWS

Why $100k is being spent on Cav St ‘shade’ structure

Police union calls for NTG to patch up ‘substantial gaps’ in resourcing

Zach Rolfe arrives at court for day three of hearings ahead of murder trial

As Mr Fleming noted at Estimates: “The ICAC may request the person to do any of the following: provide or consent to a criminal history check, and if necessary, provide biometric data for that purpose — we do that; undergo a police intelligence or integrity check — we do that; require a declaration of personal interests that I consider relevant — we do that; undergo a medical or psychological assessment — that is something we are now taking on board.”

Those checks are usually made before an investigator is issued with “authorised officer” status, allowing them to exercise powers given in the ICAC Act.

However, it is unclear if these checks were made in Mr McGinlay’s case or if he made any declaration in relation to the circumstances surrounding his resignation from the South Australian police force.

Staff had also raised concerns about Ms Kelly sitting on the ICAC’s Operations Committee, which helps determine how matters before the ICAC should proceed.

Sky News sent questions to the Office of the ICAC, including inquiries about whether Mr McGinlay had been given “authorised officer” status when contracted to conduct investigations and whether Ms Kelly had any involvement in decisions made by the Operations Committee regarding Mr McGinlay’s investigations.

Mr Riches provided detailed answers to some questions sent by Sky News but maintained he would not comment “upon matters that arose prior to my commencement”.

“My focus is dedicated entirely to the future, ensuring my office is a highly professional, capable and trusted integrity body that supports agencies to better their own integrity frameworks while identifying and dealing with those who chose to act without integrity,” he said.

QUESTIONS WE SENT TO THE OFFICE OF THE INDEPENDENT COMMISSIONER AGAINST CORRUPTION

■ Are OICAC investigators who are employed as staff members required to have “Authorised Officer” status?

■ Are contractors required to have this status?

■ Did Mr McGinlay have authorised officer status?

■ Were other OICAC employees instructed to perform work to assist Mr McGinlay, even though he was being paid as a contractor?

■ Did Mr McGinlay reimburse the OICAC for work performed for him by OICAC staff?

■ Was Mr McGinlay given a security pass to the OICAC offices and use of its facilities? Is this usual practice for contractors? Were other contractors given this access?

■ During his appearance at Budget Estimates on July 15, Mr Ken Fleming QC said:

“Mr McGinlay was doing investigations. We did not select high-level investigations for him. We had four people to whom we could give investigations. We gave three or four to him and we gave investigations to other contractors as well.“

My information is that Mr McGinlay was in fact allocated significantly more than “three or four” investigations. Can you confirm how many investigations were in fact allocated to Mr McGinlay?

■ Is it true Mr McGinlay was being allocated these investigations while some other senior investigators had no investigations allocated to them?

■ What is the role of the OICAC’s Operations Committee?

■ Does Kate Kelly sit on this committee?

■ If so, was she involved in any of the committee’s decision when it came to Mr McGinlay’s investigations?

FULL RESPONSE FROM INDEPENDENT COMMISSIONER AGAINST CORRUPTION MICHAEL RICHES

I think it appropriate that I respond directly to the questions you have raised via email dated 20 July 2021.

As has already been communicated to you, I am not minded to offer commentary on matters that arose prior to my commencement as the Commissioner.

However, given some of the questions you have asked have broader relevance I am pleased to answer those questions.

I hope that my answers may assist in better understanding the processes I intend to adopt as Commissioner.

Are OICAC investigators who are employed as staff members required to have “Authorised Officer” status?

There is no requirement for an investigator employed in my office to be appointed an authorised officer. However, if an investigator is not so appointed that investigator is not entitled to exercise the powers given in the ICAC Act that are reserved for authorised officers.

When I commenced as Commissioner I reviewed the background and capability of each employed investigator before determining that it was appropriate to appoint each of those investigators as an authorised officer.

I add that neither of the remaining contracted investigators have been appointed as authorised officers. It is not my intention to do so while those contracted investigators finalise work allocated to them prior to my commencement.

As I have said on a previous occasion, I will not engage external investigators in the future. While I may engage external counsel, auditors or other experts to assist me with an investigation, investigators will be sourced from within my office. To the extent that I do engage external experts to assist me on an investigation, it is not my intention that they be appointed authorised officers.

Access to ICAC premises by contractors

Again I do not intend to comment on the past. I will say that the question of access to ICAC premises by contractors will depend upon the nature of the duties assigned to the contractor and whether those duties necessitate access on site. Where access is necessary I would have to be satisfied that the contractor understands his or her obligations in respect of confidentiality, security and conflicts of interest.

The ICAC Operations Committee

Understanding the role of the Operations Committee requires an appreciation of the process by which information from reports and other sources are dealt with.

Ultimately the decision as to whether to commence an investigation, refer a matter to another body, or take no action rests with me. Where a report or other information identifies a matter that is not serious or sensitive, a delegate can determine not to take action or to refer the matter to another body.

Any matter that raises potential corrupt conduct or might warrant investigation is brought to my attention.

The Operations Committee comprises the OICAC directors and the Deputy Chief Executive. It meets on a regular basis to consider such reports and to offer recommendations to me as to how the matter should be addressed. I consider the views expressed during those meetings but ultimately the decision falls to me. I think such a forum is important to ensure that the decisions I make are considered, having had the benefit of hearing a broad range of views.

Prior to the commencement of each Operations Committee meeting the chair will require all persons to identify and disclose any conflicts of interest of which that person is aware. Where such a conflict exists that individual will absent themselves from any discussion about the particular matter.

More information

As you will appreciate I have been in the position for less than 3 weeks and I have a great deal to consider and learn.

While I am keen to explain as much as I can to the public, through the media, I am not presently in a position to provide timely responses on every occasion.

It is my intention to hold an information session with the media so that I can explain my approach to the role, and outline my priorities. I will also be happy to answer questions to the extent that I can.

However, I remain steadfast in my position that I will not comment upon matters that arose prior to my commencement.

My focus is dedicated entirely to the future, ensuring my office is a highly professional, capable and trusted integrity body that supports agencies to better their own integrity frameworks while identifying and dealing with those who chose to act without integrity.

I trust this response is of assistance.