Investigation into the conduct of a Mine Subsidence Board district manager (Operation Tunic)

Findings 4

Allegations are not findings. A commission's finding or opinion of corrupt conduct or misconduct is not a finding that a person is guilty of a criminal offence, and the commissions say so in their reports.

1. serious corrupt conduct

   Finding

   The Commission found that Mr Bullock engaged in serious corrupt conduct by: • between 2008 and 2014, soliciting and receiving payments totalling $314,115.50 from Mr Inskip as an inducement or reward for Mr Bullock exercising his public official functions as district manager of the MSB’s Picton office to favour, or not to show disfavour to, Mr Inskip’s business in relation to its work for the MSB (chapter 3) • between 2006 and 2013, using his position to direct Mr Salmon to produce and submit 11 backdated A & DJ Building Services “cover quotes” (false quotations) to the MSB and then applying false “Received” date stamps to specific A & DJ Building Services cover quotes, and using the cover quotes for the purpose of exercising his public official functions as district manager of the MSB’s Picton office, to show favour in the provision of work to Plantac by falsely representing that quotations competitive with the Plantac quotations had been sought and obtained in relation to work on those properties (chapter 4) • between 2007 and 2015, arranging with Mr Salmon for Mr Salmon to include additional amounts totalling $210,200 in A & DJ Building Services invoices, quotations and tenders for repairs to properties submitted to the MSB with the intention that these additional amounts would be shared equally between Mr Salmon and himself. Mr Bullock received $83,600 from Mr Salmon as a result of this arrangement as an inducement or reward for Mr Bullock exercising his public official functions as district manager of the MSB’s Picton office, to favour, or not to show disfavour to, Mr Salmon’s business in relation to its work for the MSB (chapter 5) • between 2007 and 2013, using his position at the MSB to direct Mr Inskip to produce and submit seven Plantac cover quotes to the MSB in relation to seven properties, for the purpose of exercising his public official functions as district manager of the MSB’s Picton office, to show favour in the provision of work to A & DJ Building Services by falsely representing that quotations competitive with the A & DJ Building Services quotations had been sought and obtained in relation to those properties (chapter 5).

   Report, page 8, Summary of investigation and outcomes

2. serious corrupt conduct

   Finding

   The Commission found that Mr Inskip engaged in serious corrupt conduct by:

   Report, page 8, Summary of investigation and outcomes

3. serious corrupt conduct

   Finding

   The Commission found that Mrs Inskip engaged in serious corrupt conduct by facilitating the making of payments totalling $314,115.50 to Mr Bullock between 2008 and 2014 as an inducement or reward for Mr Bullock exercising his public official functions as district manager of the MSB’s Picton office to favour, or not to show disfavour to, Mr Inskip’s business in relation to work for the MSB (chapter 3).

   Report, page 9, Summary of investigation and outcomes

4. serious corrupt conduct

   Finding

   The Commission found that Mr Salmon engaged in serious corrupt conduct by: • between 2006 and 2013, at Mr Bullock’s direction, producing and submitting 11 backdated A & DJ Building Services cover quotes to the MSB to facilitate Mr Bullock exercising his public official functions as district manager of the MSB’s Picton office, to show favour in the provision of work to Plantac by being able to falsely represent that quotations competitive with the Plantac quotations had been sought and obtained in relation to work on the relevant properties (chapter 4) • between 2007 and 2015, at Mr Bullock’s direction, including additional amounts totalling $210,200 in A & DJ Building Services invoices, quotations and tenders for repairs to MSB properties submitted to the MSB with the intention that these additional amounts would be shared equally between Mr Salmon and himself.

   Report, page 9, Summary of investigation and outcomes

Recommendations 7

1. Recommendation 1

   That the Mine Subsidence Board (MSB) strengthens its organisational capability to fulfil its obligations, including: securing the optimum staffing levels and staff with appropriate skills formalising service-level agreements generating meaningful data for the purposes of analysis and reporting to the MSB improving internal and external auditing arrangements tightening the accounts payable system.

   Mine Subsidence Board – allegations concerning former district manager (Operation Tunic), Recommendations for corruption prevention

2. Recommendation 2

   That the MSB builds controls into the claims and tendering processes to restrict a single user having end-to-end control and exceeding expenditure delegations.

   Report, page 10

3. Recommendation 3

   That the MSB segregates the process and staff involved in estimating the costs of works, the allocation of contractors to undertake the works and the process of evaluating the delivery of works.

   Report, page 10

4. Recommendation 4

   That the MSB agrees a threshold of delegated approvals and/or price for the whole-of-job remedial repairs, so that when the original scope and variations increase beyond a percentage of the agreed delegation or price, the matter is escalated for management review and approval.

   Report, page 10

5. Recommendation 5

   That the MSB includes benchmarking as a method of better practice to verify the estimated costs of remedial work.

   Report, page 10

6. Recommendation 6

   That the MSB routinely assesses the risk of contractor favouritism and takes steps to minimise those risks.

   Report, page 10

7. Recommendation 7

   That the MSB takes steps to ensure increased transparency in undertaking remedial works, including the periodic assessment of the performance of contractors and value for money of work performed. Such matters are to be taken into account when determining the selection of future contractors.

   Report, page 10

Published responses 1

• Plan of action

  Action plan

Coverage

This publisher

• Reports on investigations made public before 2016 are not online: the ICAC keeps only a summary for each, and copies must be requested from the ICAC. Those records hold the ICAC's published summary; findings and recommendations are not extracted.
• The ICAC copyright statement reserves all rights (fair dealing aside). OPAX keeps short verbatim finding and recommendation passages with links to the original report.
• Findings are read from the summary chapter of each report PDF. Where a finding's particulars run past the cited page only the finding statement is kept, and reports whose layout could not be read confidently are marked not_extracted.
• Agency action plans and progress reports are listed as documents; their contents (implementation status for each recommendation) are not parsed.
• Report PDFs without a text layer (scanned images, for example Operation Scania) are not OCRed; their findings stay not_extracted.
• Many pre-2016 summaries give only the month a report was made public; those records carry no date and a note with the month, because the schema holds day-level dates only.