Opposition says allegations by police watchdog head that Troy Grant tried to influence hiring raises serious questions

The New South Wales opposition has called for an inquiry into allegations the police minister, Troy Grant, sought to “improperly” influence staff appointments at the state’s police anti-corruption watchdog.

The shadow attorney general, Paul Lynch, said allegations levelled at Grant by the head of the NSW Law Enforcement Conduct Commission, Michael Adams, had raised serious questions.

Adams alleged last month that the minister had previously sought to “improperly” influence staffing at the LECC.

In an explosive budget estimates hearing, Adams alleged Grant told him not to hire senior officers from the axed Police Integrity Commission because the officers’ union, the Police Association of NSW, had “taken exception” to the former watchdog.

The LECC was formed last year to replace the PIC, the police division of the NSW ombudsman and the inspector of the NSW Crime Commission. It was established following the recommendations by a former shadow attorney general, Andrew Tink, into police oversight.

When the PIC was disbanded, the head of the Police Association, Scott Weber, said police had “lost faith in the PIC for a long period of time”. He also previously confirmed that he had lobbied the government to make a “clean slate” with the new anti-corruption watchdog.

Queensland corruption watchdog declines to investigate claim of whistleblower reprisal Read more

Grant has vehemently denied the accusations levelled by Adams, labelling them “offensive and disappointing”. During the hearing, he confirmed he had spoken to Adams about the Police Association’s position as a matter of courtesy last year, but did not endorse it.

“I was being helpful to him, providing him with situational awareness of the environment,” he said at the time.

“[But] I did not support that position. I was aware of that position and I informed the chief commissioner of it. But at no stage – I repeat, at no stage – did I ever endorse it. I do not support it and such a stance is not consistent with the relevant statutory obligations.”

However, Grant’s comments in the hearing appear to contradict previous public statements. In 2016 he told the Daily Telegraph the government intended for the recruitment process at the LECC to reflect the need for “a new culture” in police oversight. “It is clear a new culture and greater confidence in the NSW policing oversight system is needed” he said at the time. “The government intends for the recruitment process for the new LECC to reflect that.”

The minister’s office did not directly respond to questions from the Guardian about the apparent contradiction. Instead, he repeated his denial of the claims made by Adams.

Kathleen Folbigg: NSW announces inquiry into serial killer's convictions Read more

“I completely reject the claims made by Mr Adams,” he said. “At no time did I ever instruct, or request, Mr Adams or anyone else to refrain from, or avoid, the hiring of people who were previously employed by the Police Integrity Commission or the office of the ombudsman.

“I merely informed Mr Adams of the position taken by the Police Association. At no time did I ever endorse it.”

But Lynch said the 2016 comments “raise a series of questions” that should be dealt with by “an impartial inquiry”.

“There should be a full and impartial inquiry into the allegations by chief commissioner, Michael Adams QC,” he said. “The Law Enforcement Conduct Commission is too important an institution to have uncertainties surrounding it. There should be no clouds around LECC’s staffing arrangements.”

In a letter sent to Grant in May last year following their meeting, Adams told the minister that refusing to hire former PIC employees on that basis alone would be “contrary” to the Government Sector Employment Act.

In the letter, seen by the Guardian, he said the act required him to “consider people without prejudice or favour” when making hiring decisions.

When asked in the hearing whether the accusations levelled by Adams would constitute improper conduct, Grant replied: “Absolutely, and they did not happen.”