The Independent Commission Against Corruption will not investigate allegations that one of the region’s senior bureaucrats acted corruptly in the decision to cut Newcastle’s heavy rail line and build a transport interchange at Wickham.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
The parliamentary inquiry into planning decisions in Newcastle questioned Hunter Development Corporation general manager Bob Hawes last year over his 50 per cent ownership of a property in Beresford Street, within metres of the planned transport interchange site.
Mr Hawes was a consultant for HDC prior to May, 2007, before he became general manager in 2011.
HDC is a government organisation.
Some members of the parliamentary committee alleged last year that Mr Hawes stood to gain financially if the heavy rail line was replaced with light rail and a transport hub was built at Wickham, given the proximity of the infrastructure to his property.
Christian Democratic Party MLC and committee chairman Fred Nile referred the issue to ICAC, the state’s independent corruption watch dog.
In a letter to Reverend Nile that was made public yesterday, ICAC commissioner Megan Latham said there was no reasonable likelihood that Mr Hawes had acted corruptly.
The letter noted that, while Mr Hawes could financially benefit from the government’s decision to cut the rail and build the interchange, he did not participate in any HDC board meetings where the issue was discussed.
She noted that Mr Hawes had declared his interest on the relevant register when he became HDC general manager in 2011.
“It appears that Mr Hawes did not lodge disclosures when he was engaged as a consultant to HDC, but he appears to have made disclosures in a timely manner as general manager, including the first one, which was just prior to being appointed,” Ms Latham wrote.
“The only exception is in relation to his development application, which was not disclosed in a timely manner.”
The letter noted that ICAC would not investigate the allegations against Mr Hawes any further.
“In the absence of information indicating a reasonable likelihood of corrupt conduct, we will not be investigating the allegations raised,” Ms Latham wrote.
“In short, for conduct to be considered corrupt, there needs to be an element of dishonesty or deliberate wrongdoing.
“A mistake or even negligence are not sufficient indicators of corrupt conduct as having occurred.”
Mr Hawes declined the Mercury’s invitation to respond to the ICAC commissioner’s letter yesterday.
