Speaker 1: From Schwartz Media. I'm Ruby Jones. This is seven am.
Speaker 1: When the Albanese government created the long promised Anti Corruption Commission,
Speaker 1: there was a sense of optimism that the commission would
Speaker 1: weed out corruption and restore faith in politics. But when
Speaker 1: it came to its first big test, investigating the Robodet scandal,
Speaker 1: it took the commission a year to decide it would
Speaker 1: do nothing. Now there are concerns that the NAK is
Speaker 1: failing to live up to its obligations, hindered by silence
Speaker 1: and secrecy. Today special correspondent in Canberra for the Saturday Paper,
Speaker 1: Jason Kotsukus on what the National Anti Corruption Commission has
Speaker 1: achieved so far and whether that's enough. It's Monday, September nine, So, Jason,
Speaker 1: just over a year ago the National Anti Corruption Commission
Speaker 1: was established, and this came after much public outrage and mistrust.
Speaker 1: We were at a real low point, I think when
Speaker 1: it came to faith in our political system when the
Speaker 1: NAC was established, which meant that there were high expectations
Speaker 1: for it. So tell me about the promise of the knack.
Speaker 2: That's right, Ruby, I think this was one of the
Speaker 2: biggest promises that Anthony Alberizi made when he was in opposition.
Speaker 2: They'd been talking about this pretty much NonStop for the
Speaker 2: three years up to the twenty twenty two election. You know,
Speaker 2: this was something that Scott Morrison had promised but never
Speaker 2: delivered on. After the legislation was introduced towards the end
Speaker 2: of twenty twenty two, that the Elbanezi was very proud
Speaker 2: to stand up in Parliament to be able to say
Speaker 2: that we've delivered on our promises.
Speaker 3: We said we would introduce the legislation and we did
Speaker 3: it today and that delivers on our promises. We promised
Speaker 3: broad jurisdiction, and what this legislation does is will allow
Speaker 3: for the investigation of serious or systemic corruption conduct across
Speaker 3: the Commonwealth public sector by minutes.
Speaker 2: This was something that would restore the faith in our
Speaker 2: political system.
Speaker 3: We do need to restore faith in our political system.
Speaker 3: We need to make sure that there's transparency, that there's accountability,
Speaker 3: and that there is integrity.
Speaker 2: One thing that became clear in November twenty twenty two
Speaker 2: was that while this new body was going to be
Speaker 2: independent from government, you know, it emerged that there would
Speaker 2: only be public hearings in exceptional circumstances. So the Attorney
Speaker 2: General Mark Trefas said that your people should be afraid
Speaker 2: if they've been engaged in corrupt.
Speaker 4: Activities, included any third party who was seeking to adversely
Speaker 4: affect public decision making in a corrupt way is going
Speaker 4: to be the subject of investigation by this commission.
Speaker 2: What about So having set the bar so high, there
Speaker 2: have been some concerns since then that the actually the
Speaker 2: NAC is not living up to its expectations that were
Speaker 2: set by the PM and the Attorney General, and that
Speaker 2: in fact it has betrayed its core obligations. And I
Speaker 2: think there is a growing sense of disappointment and disquiet
Speaker 2: over the neax's performance, not just on the on the crossbench,
Speaker 2: but I think some sections of the Labor caucus are
Speaker 2: also a little bit concerned that this body is not
Speaker 2: quite as powerful as we've been led to believe.
Speaker 1: Well, let's talk more about that than about these concerns
Speaker 1: about how the KNAC is operating and perhaps falling short.
Speaker 1: What is it that you're hearing?
Speaker 2: Well? This week I spoke with former New South Wales
Speaker 2: Supreme Court judge Anthony Wheeley. He's now chair of the
Speaker 2: Center for Public Integrity, one of the leading think tanks
Speaker 2: in the push to establish a National Integrity Commission, and
Speaker 2: he's very disappointed about what he says as the failures
Speaker 2: of the KNACK to do what it's supposed to do.
Speaker 2: And I think the thing he's most furious about is
Speaker 2: Robodet and the NAC's refusal to investigate six public officials
Speaker 2: that were referred to the NAC by the Robodet Royal Commission.
Speaker 5: The National Anti Corruption Commission has ruled out further investigation
Speaker 5: into the public officials behind the disastrous Robodet scheme that
Speaker 5: saw hundreds of thousands of Australian families hounded for debts
Speaker 5: they didn't owe.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that was a big moment when the KNACK decided
Speaker 1: not to investigate Robodet despite specifically being asked to. I
Speaker 1: think that was the point at which a lot of
Speaker 1: faith in the NAC began to crumble. So what was
Speaker 1: the reason that the commissioners gave for that decision?
Speaker 2: So the KNACK announced on June six that would not
Speaker 2: investigate the referrals because the conduct of the six public
Speaker 2: officials had already been explored by the Robodet Royal Commission,
Speaker 2: and that further investigation was unlikely to produce significant new evidence,
Speaker 2: and the Commissioner, Paul Breton, spoke about the robot debt
Speaker 2: decision at a public sector anti corruption conference in July,
Speaker 2: and he said that rather than investigating what had already
Speaker 2: been exposed by the Royal Commission, the way that his body,
Speaker 2: the National Anti Corruption Commission, was addressing these issues like
Speaker 2: ROBODET was through prevention and education and equipping decision makers
Speaker 2: to make decisions ethically. But we also learned on June
Speaker 2: six that Paul Breton had recused himself from that decision.
Speaker 2: We don't have a reason why he delegated the decision
Speaker 2: whether to investigate or not to a deputy commissioner. We
Speaker 2: do know that it was to avoid a perception of
Speaker 2: conflict of interest, but it hasn't really been made clear why.
Speaker 2: So there are a lot of questions still hanging over
Speaker 2: this decision. So when Mark Dreyfus announced that there would
Speaker 2: only be public hearings accepted exceptional circumstances, this came as
Speaker 2: a surprise to Anthony Wheely, and he told me that
Speaker 2: he had always believed that public hearings would be a
Speaker 2: core part of the National Anti Corruption Commission, and he'd
Speaker 2: consulted with the Attorney General early on during the process
Speaker 2: of establishing the KNAC. He said there'd been a good
Speaker 2: deal of agreement about what the body should look like
Speaker 2: and what powers it should have, and he told me
Speaker 2: that this limit on public hearings had never been raised
Speaker 2: with him.
Speaker 1: That's interesting that that secrecy provision, according to Willie, wasn't
Speaker 1: mentioned as part of the consultation process, but by the
Speaker 1: time the KNACK was created there it was. So what
Speaker 1: has that provision meant? Jason?
Speaker 2: I think what he really said to me was that
Speaker 2: we've got this veil of secrecy around the National Anti
Speaker 2: Corruption Commission. And in the main he said that the
Speaker 2: new body has really been strangely silent, and there have
Speaker 2: been a few announcements, Anthony Whey said, but not very much,
Speaker 2: and no positive indication as to what the body is doing.
Speaker 2: In other words, it seems to be surrounded by this
Speaker 2: wall of relative secrecy.
Speaker 1: After the break, is there a good reason why the
Speaker 1: knac's hearings should be behind closed doors? Jason, We've been
Speaker 1: talking about the secrecy that surrounds the NAC's activities. All
Speaker 1: its hearings are largely happening behind closed doors. So what
Speaker 1: is it that we actually know then about what the
Speaker 1: NAC has been doing for the past year. What has
Speaker 1: it achieved since it was established?
Speaker 2: Well, I think you know, you're exactly right, it's very
Speaker 2: difficult to know. It's impossible to really judge what they've
Speaker 2: been doing because we don't really know. What we do
Speaker 2: know is that the Commissioner Paul Brereton did provide some
Speaker 2: insight into just how many referrals have been triaged and assessed.
Speaker 2: In the next first year. To June thirty, twenty twenty four,
Speaker 2: the Commission had received three one hundred and eighty nine
Speaker 2: referrals of suspected corrupt conduct. About ninety percent of those
Speaker 2: were excluded at the triarche stage because they did not
Speaker 2: concern a Commonwealth per wig official or they didn't raise
Speaker 2: a corruption issue. Commissioner Breriton also revealed that the KNACK
Speaker 2: had opened twenty six corruption investigations, seven of them jointly
Speaker 2: with other agencies, and that they referred nine corruption issues
Speaker 2: to other agencies for investigation. Only one of the NAC's
Speaker 2: investigations has resulted in individual being charged. It's pretty thin pickings,
Speaker 2: you know what the NACS actually achieved so far. I mean,
Speaker 2: we will see the publication of annual reports and other information,
Speaker 2: you know, regarding what the NAC's been doing. But as
Speaker 2: Professor Ann Toomey said to me, she's Professor Emerita at
Speaker 2: the University of Sydney. She says, you know, it's possible
Speaker 2: that the KNACK is operating extremely well, but we just
Speaker 2: don't know what the knack's doing. And she does have
Speaker 2: a bit of a problem with that.
Speaker 1: And I think, Jason, the case for more transparency is clear,
Speaker 1: so that the the public can know that corruption is
Speaker 1: being investigated. But can we talk for a moment about
Speaker 1: the reasons to not have public hearings. Is there a
Speaker 1: case to be made that if the KNACK was to
Speaker 1: do that, then potentially referrals could be made for political
Speaker 1: reasons and people who haven't actually done anything wrong their
Speaker 1: names could be tarnished.
Speaker 2: That's right, and that's definitely the strong view of quite
Speaker 2: a number of people. One of the people I spoke
Speaker 2: to was William Staltz. He's a lecturer at the Australian
Speaker 2: National University's National Security College. He said the KNACK should
Speaker 2: be aiming to avoid people misrepresenting or weaponizing the referrals
Speaker 2: process for political or other purposes, and he says a
Speaker 2: decision not to progress a referral shouldn't be regarded as
Speaker 2: an indication of innocence, and nor should the existence of
Speaker 2: a referral against a public official be regarded as a
Speaker 2: mark of guilt. So he thinks that we need more
Speaker 2: secrecy and that'll help the KNACK do its work. While
Speaker 2: there's been calls for public hearings, we should also remember
Speaker 2: that with bodies like the New South Wales Independent Commission
Speaker 2: against Corruption, there have been a lot of concerns that
Speaker 2: public hearings that they have conducted have descended into show
Speaker 2: trial like rituals. Gladys Bergiclian has lost the battle to
Speaker 2: clear herself of corruption findings.
Speaker 1: The former premier was hoping to overturn the IYEA.
Speaker 2: We saw Gladys bedicular in the former New South Wales
Speaker 2: premier who was essentially forced to resign because of the
Speaker 2: public hearings that were investigating some of her personal relationships
Speaker 2: while she was.
Speaker 1: Premier, a premier turned optics executive, unable to shake the
Speaker 1: shame of her secret relationship with Daryl Maguire.
Speaker 2: Their love affair ended so while there are some concerns
Speaker 2: about how the KNACK is operating, you know some people
Speaker 2: like Xavier Boffer from the Samuel Griffith Society, this is
Speaker 2: the obviously on the right of Australian politics. But he
Speaker 2: he said to me, look, any talk of reform to
Speaker 2: the NAK is premature and more likely to be ideological
Speaker 2: rather than evidence based. In his view, Australians must remain
Speaker 2: vigilant that the KNAK does not devolve into a kangaroo
Speaker 2: court that compromises the rule of law by engaging in
Speaker 2: theatrical public show trials. When it comes to AIKAK, Mark
Speaker 2: Dreyfus has said that the exception kind of puts the
Speaker 2: National Anti Corruption Commission in line with IKAK because even
Speaker 2: though we see a lot of high profile cases in
Speaker 2: the media, actually only about five percent of those hearings
Speaker 2: of public. But the converse of that is that New
Speaker 2: South Wales IYAKAK does have a broader ability to hold
Speaker 2: public hearings and having the ability to do so hasn't
Speaker 2: led to an overuse of that of that privilege. So
Speaker 2: it's even though the Attorney General Mark Treefuss has used
Speaker 2: that argument the way the new said, well, Eyekak has
Speaker 2: operated seems to prove that having the ability to hold
Speaker 2: public hearings is a privilege that is used wisely by
Speaker 2: the commissioners.
Speaker 1: And at the end of the day, this all goes
Speaker 1: to public trust, doesn't it. That's why the commission was
Speaker 1: set up in the first place, because there was this
Speaker 1: deep public distrust about what politicians and public officials might
Speaker 1: be doing behind closed doors. So if the KNACK isn't
Speaker 1: working to restore that faith because it isn't transparent enough,
Speaker 1: then is the KNAC even working at all?
Speaker 2: Well, I think it probably is too early to say
Speaker 2: whether the KNAC is working or isn't working, but I
Speaker 2: do think that it hasn't properly explained the reasons why
Speaker 2: it didn't investigate the Robodet referrals, and I think that
Speaker 2: has seriously undermined public faith in this body that was
Speaker 2: set up to investigate exactly those types of cases. Having
Speaker 2: said that, I do think we need to give them
Speaker 2: more time to demonstrate whether or not it can do
Speaker 2: the job that it has been asked to do by
Speaker 2: this government. From what I can tell, Paul Breretton is
Speaker 2: a person of high integrity, But I do think they
Speaker 2: haven't properly explained the decision making around not investigating that.
Speaker 2: The Robott referrals.
Speaker 1: Jason, thank you so much for your time.
Speaker 2: Ruby, always a pleasure talking with you. Thanks very much.
Speaker 1: Also in the news today, questions on sexual orientation and
Speaker 1: gender will be included in the next census. Sure Jim
Speaker 1: Chalmers confirmed the new position yesterday, saying the government has
Speaker 1: listened to the community. His comments follow weeks of criticism
Speaker 1: of the government's decision to withdraw questions on sexuality and
Speaker 1: gender on the basis they would be divisive. A government
Speaker 1: statement confirms only people sixteen and over will be asked
Speaker 1: the new questions and there'll be an option not to answer.
Speaker 1: And protests have broken out across France in response to
Speaker 1: President Emmanuel Macron's decision to pick a conservative prime minister.
Speaker 1: Seventy three year old Michelle Barnier is a former Brexit negotiator.
Speaker 1: His appointment comes after a snap election in June left
Speaker 1: France with a hung parliament. Protest organizers set about three
Speaker 1: hundred thousand people took to the streets across France, with
Speaker 1: just over half in Paris, but police in Paris estimated
Speaker 1: twenty six thousand people had protested there. I'm Ruby Jones.
Speaker 1: This is seven am. Thanks for listening.
Speaker 4: A low mon