skip navigation


Register for Latest Research

Stay Informed
Register with NCJRS to receive NCJRS's biweekly e-newsletter JUSTINFO and additional periodic emails from NCJRS and the NCJRS federal sponsors that highlight the latest research published or sponsored by the Office of Justice Programs.

NCJRS Abstract

The document referenced below is part of the NCJRS Virtual Library collection. To conduct further searches of the collection, visit the Virtual Library. See the Obtain Documents page for direction on how to access resources online, via mail, through interlibrary loans, or in a local library.


NCJ Number: 200736 Find in a Library
Title: Spending Public Money: An Investigation into How Certain Government Grants and Contracts Were Awarded to a Commercial Company
Corporate Author: Queensland Crime and Misconduct Cmssn
Date Published: November 2002
Page Count: 56
Sponsoring Agency: Queensland Crime and Misconduct Cmssn
Brisbane Qld 4001, Australia
Publication Number: ISBN 1 876986 07 7
Sale Source: Queensland Crime and Misconduct Cmssn
GPO Box 3123
Level 3, Terrica Place
140 Creek Street
Brisbane Qld 4001,
Type: Legislation/Policy Analysis
Format: Document
Language: English
Country: Australia
Annotation: This document discusses an investigation on how certain Australian Government grants and contracts were awarded to a commercial company.
Abstract: In May 2002, concerns were raised of favoritism in the awarding of contracts and grants to a Brisbane-based commercial company, Cutting Edge. The company was said to have too close a relationship with the Queensland branch of the Australian Labor Party (ALP) and an officer in the Department of State Development. A thorough Crime and Misconduct Commission (CMC) investigation found no evidence of official misconduct. The investigation did reveal evidence of noncompliance with State Government Purchasing Policies on the part of the Corporate Communications Unit of the Department of State Development. This noncompliance may have given rise to the perception of favoritism towards Cutting Edge even though it did not amount to official misconduct and was not restricted to dealings with Cutting Edge. The CMC, which has a statutory function to help prevent misconduct, has made five procedural recommendations designed to prevent a recurrence of the events that led to these complaints. The first recommendation was that the Department of State Development should conduct a probity assessment of some or all of the directors and office holders of companies seeking grants (or an individual if the applicant is not a company). The second recommendation is that procedures be introduced to enable officers administering a grant scheme to make a decision with knowledge of the nature and extent of other grants recently received by the applicant. The third recommendation is that the department implement appropriate measures to ensure that staff are aware of, and comply with, departmental purchasing policy requirements. The fourth recommendation is that the department implement appropriate risk-management processes so as to enable it to identify any future instances of noncompliance with the requirements of its purchasing policies. The fifth recommendation is that, after a 12-month period, the department review internal compliance with purchasing policy requirements to ensure that effective remedial action has been taken. 1 footnote
Main Term(s): Australia; Government contract fraud
Index Term(s): Corporate crimes; Corporate self-regulation; Corruption of public officials; Misconduct; Professional conduct and ethics; Professional misconduct; White collar crime
To cite this abstract, use the following link:

*A link to the full-text document is provided whenever possible. For documents not available online, a link to the publisher's website is provided. Tell us how you use the NCJRS Library and Abstracts Database - send us your feedback.