Did Investigators Miss a Conflict of Interest?

I questioned Comcare officials on the details of their investigation, confirming that they had identified two matters warranting a brief of evidence to the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (CDPP), though they failed to identify any individuals responsible for systemic issues.

When I asked about conflicts of interest among witnesses or within the Defence Flight Safety Bureau investigation, as well as serious concerns regarding the corruption of process and the fabrication of evidence, I was told they were unaware of any such issues.

Despite confirming that their recommendation for prosecution stands, they noted that reopening the case is severely restricted by a two-year limitation period under the Work Health and Safety Act. This period can generally only be extended for another 12 months through the IGADF or Queensland coroner’s reports.

I pressed whether this Senate inquiry, particularly regarding my concerns about conflicts of interest, corruption, and fabricated evidence, could also trigger a review, prompting officials to take my questions on notice while confirming their ongoing investigation would consider any new material that comes to light.

Transcript

CHAIR: Senator Roberts.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing. How many breaches of acts have you identified in this case?  

Mr Radford: We formed the view in this case that there were two matters that warranted a brief of evidence to the CDPP.  

Senator ROBERTS: And did you identify any individuals responsible, or was it systemic?  

Mr Radford: No.  

Senator ROBERTS: You haven’t. Did you hear the testimony of Mr Wilson and Mr Lamb?  

Mr Radford: I heard it in part, and then we were travelling to parliament, so I didn’t hear the whole testimony, but we heard a substantial section of it, yes.  

Senator ROBERTS: Are you aware of any conflicts of interest or potential conflicts of interest in this case?  

Mr Radford: Of whom?  

Senator ROBERTS: Of witnesses.  

Mr Radford: No, not that I’m not that I’m aware of.  

Senator ROBERTS: What about the Defence Flight Safety Bureau investigation? Did you assess that?  

Mr Napier: That was part of the material assessed by the investigator, yes.  

Senator ROBERTS: Was there any potential for conflicts of interest there?  

Mr Napier: There was none that I’m aware of.  

Senator ROBERTS: What about corruption of process?  

Mr Napier: Again, there was none that I’m aware of.  

Senator ROBERTS: What about evidence being fabricated?  

Mr Napier: There was none that I’m aware of.  

Senator ROBERTS: Has any pressure been put on you? You were actually recommending prosecution, weren’t you?  

Mr Radford: Yes, we in fact did recommend prosecution, and that remains our position.  

Senator ROBERTS: This may have been asked in part by one of the other senators. What is the avenue for reopening the case?  

Mr Radford: I might defer to Ms Close, but the avenue is that, if the IGADF or the Queensland coroner’s reports or findings give rise to a view that there has been a contravention of the act, as I understand it, that may re-enliven the statutory period for a further 12 months.  

Senator ROBERTS: Is there any other avenue apart from those two investigations?  

Mr Radford: There is none that I’m aware of.  

Ms Close: I’m not aware of any, but one of the limitations of the Work Health and Safety Act is that there is a two-year limitation period which cannot be extended other than in very specific circumstances, which have been described by the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions and which in this case specifically relate potentially to the findings of other inquiries.  

Senator ROBERTS: So what about this Senate inquiry?  

Ms Close: I am unsure of the position of that. We would need to take that on notice.  

Senator ROBERTS: Especially with regard to the three items I mentioned—conflict of interest, corruption and evidence fabrication—you’d consider that? You’d take it on notice?  

Mr Radford: I’m sorry, but I didn’t quite hear the question.  

Senator ROBERTS: You consider those or you’d have to take on notice whether or not you could consider them?  

Mr Radford: We would consider any material that that came to light if we were to—I’ll go back a step. Our investigation is ongoing, and we would consider any matters that came to light in the event that there was an opportunity to progress another brief of evidence to the CDPP.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you very much.