WEBVTT - Anti-corruption boss accused of ‘officer misconduct’

0:00:01.280 --> 0:00:10.039
<v Speaker 1>From Schwartz Media. I'm Daniel James. This is seven am.

0:00:10.200 --> 0:00:13.039
<v Speaker 1>When the Royal Commissioners of the Robodet scheme handed down

0:00:13.039 --> 0:00:16.120
<v Speaker 1>its findings, the Commissioner went to great lengths to refer

0:00:16.239 --> 0:00:20.240
<v Speaker 1>six individuals to the newly established National Anti Corruption Commission

0:00:20.400 --> 0:00:24.960
<v Speaker 1>for investigation. What followed outraged many, particularly the victims of

0:00:25.000 --> 0:00:28.040
<v Speaker 1>the scheme. The KNACK announced that it would not act

0:00:28.080 --> 0:00:32.120
<v Speaker 1>on the referrals. The decision received so many complaints that

0:00:32.120 --> 0:00:37.280
<v Speaker 1>the decision itself has been investigated. Yesterday, that investigation found

0:00:37.280 --> 0:00:40.120
<v Speaker 1>not only should Robodet be revisited, but that the head

0:00:40.120 --> 0:00:44.640
<v Speaker 1>of the KNACK engaged in officer misconduct. Today senior reporter

0:00:44.720 --> 0:00:47.560
<v Speaker 1>for the Saturday Paper, Rick Morton on what this means

0:00:47.560 --> 0:00:55.600
<v Speaker 1>for the integrity of the Australian corruption washdog. It's Thursday,

0:00:56.200 --> 0:01:08.160
<v Speaker 1>October thirty one. Rick. I think I know you to

0:01:08.200 --> 0:01:11.640
<v Speaker 1>be or somewhat of a cool headed guy, thoughtful, rather

0:01:11.760 --> 0:01:14.520
<v Speaker 1>do someone a good urn than a bad turn. But

0:01:15.000 --> 0:01:17.679
<v Speaker 1>you've expressed a lot of anger at the decision from

0:01:17.720 --> 0:01:21.399
<v Speaker 1>the National Anti Corruption Commission earlier this year not to

0:01:21.480 --> 0:01:22.640
<v Speaker 1>investigate robodebt.

0:01:22.920 --> 0:01:24.959
<v Speaker 2>Yeah, I'm look thank you for that kind assessment. I'm

0:01:25.000 --> 0:01:28.440
<v Speaker 2>not sure it's true because I feel myself growing increasingly

0:01:28.520 --> 0:01:31.399
<v Speaker 2>mad about the state of the world, But that you know,

0:01:31.440 --> 0:01:33.800
<v Speaker 2>I was of the opinion that they completely abdigated their

0:01:33.840 --> 0:01:40.000
<v Speaker 2>responsibility into seriously assessing six referrals from the Rabadet Royal

0:01:40.000 --> 0:01:44.520
<v Speaker 2>Commission relating to five public servants and one presumably minister

0:01:45.240 --> 0:01:48.800
<v Speaker 2>about their role in this kind of systemic failure and

0:01:48.960 --> 0:01:52.160
<v Speaker 2>to judge whether that involved corrupt conduct or not. And

0:01:52.160 --> 0:01:53.960
<v Speaker 2>they just decided there was nothing to see here and

0:01:54.000 --> 0:01:55.040
<v Speaker 2>they didn't want to look into it.

0:01:55.440 --> 0:01:58.040
<v Speaker 1>So let's look at the decision. What did the next

0:01:58.080 --> 0:02:00.520
<v Speaker 1>say exactly when they decided not of lot into.

0:02:00.400 --> 0:02:02.520
<v Speaker 2>It, So they released a public statement. It's the only

0:02:02.520 --> 0:02:05.400
<v Speaker 2>public statement they've made about it, not even one page long,

0:02:05.440 --> 0:02:08.280
<v Speaker 2>and they essentially said that the Royal Commission already did

0:02:08.280 --> 0:02:13.720
<v Speaker 2>a thorough investigation, they've fully explored the conduct involved, and

0:02:13.880 --> 0:02:17.200
<v Speaker 2>said that they didn't want to create unequal outcomes if

0:02:17.200 --> 0:02:20.880
<v Speaker 2>they were to come to a different opinion based on whether,

0:02:20.919 --> 0:02:23.360
<v Speaker 2>you know, corupt conduct was found, and also that there'd

0:02:23.360 --> 0:02:26.080
<v Speaker 2>be no value, no public interests value in the National

0:02:26.080 --> 0:02:29.880
<v Speaker 2>Anti Corruption Commission making an adjudication of whether there was

0:02:29.919 --> 0:02:32.960
<v Speaker 2>corrupt conduct. And by the way, let's just refer everything

0:02:33.000 --> 0:02:35.799
<v Speaker 2>to is Train and Public Service Commission, which is doing

0:02:35.840 --> 0:02:39.160
<v Speaker 2>an investigation, and they've got sanctions they can apply and

0:02:40.040 --> 0:02:42.320
<v Speaker 2>you know, they'll look into it. Now we now know

0:02:43.120 --> 0:02:47.640
<v Speaker 2>that that public statement was misleading and has been judged

0:02:47.800 --> 0:02:52.280
<v Speaker 2>as such by the Independent Inspector of the KNACK. So

0:02:52.440 --> 0:02:57.080
<v Speaker 2>essentially they were saying we don't have a role to play, which.

0:02:57.360 --> 0:03:01.079
<v Speaker 1>Caught many people out by surprise because people thought the

0:03:01.160 --> 0:03:04.799
<v Speaker 1>KNACK was set up to explore this exact type of thing.

0:03:05.320 --> 0:03:07.440
<v Speaker 2>It's right there in the legislation. There are you know,

0:03:07.480 --> 0:03:11.000
<v Speaker 2>there are four levels of conduct that can attract a

0:03:11.080 --> 0:03:14.960
<v Speaker 2>term of corruption, including you know, breach of public trust.

0:03:15.040 --> 0:03:18.160
<v Speaker 2>And of course this was the very first decision they

0:03:18.200 --> 0:03:21.000
<v Speaker 2>made in public, and they had it handed to them

0:03:21.000 --> 0:03:24.840
<v Speaker 2>on a platter, and they sat on it eleven months.

0:03:24.880 --> 0:03:27.080
<v Speaker 2>They sat on it, and then they came up with

0:03:27.160 --> 0:03:30.680
<v Speaker 2>this suggestion that not only are they not investigating, they've

0:03:30.720 --> 0:03:35.240
<v Speaker 2>done an assessment, but there's no investigation. And also, you know,

0:03:35.280 --> 0:03:38.480
<v Speaker 2>they say, apart from saying that someone acted corruptly, there's

0:03:38.480 --> 0:03:42.840
<v Speaker 2>not anything we can do, which is precisely their raison deetra.

0:03:42.960 --> 0:03:43.960
<v Speaker 2>That's why they exist.

0:03:46.160 --> 0:03:50.160
<v Speaker 1>And so now there's been an investigation into that decision

0:03:50.280 --> 0:03:54.360
<v Speaker 1>not to pursue robodebt by the Knack. Can you tell

0:03:54.360 --> 0:03:57.240
<v Speaker 1>me what the investigation into that decision found.

0:03:57.560 --> 0:04:00.240
<v Speaker 2>Yeah, So we finally, you know here in July this

0:04:00.360 --> 0:04:02.240
<v Speaker 2>year from the Knack and they put out their statements

0:04:02.240 --> 0:04:06.520
<v Speaker 2>saying nothing to see here. There were eventually nine hundred,

0:04:06.560 --> 0:04:10.160
<v Speaker 2>at least nine hundred individual complaints from members of the

0:04:10.160 --> 0:04:14.840
<v Speaker 2>public to an office called the Inspector of the National

0:04:14.840 --> 0:04:18.480
<v Speaker 2>Anti Corruption Commission, which is held by Galpiness sc who

0:04:18.560 --> 0:04:20.880
<v Speaker 2>is also the Inspector of the New South Wales Independent

0:04:20.880 --> 0:04:24.240
<v Speaker 2>Commission against Corruption. It is the only body outside of

0:04:24.240 --> 0:04:27.960
<v Speaker 2>a parliamentary committee that oversees appointments to the KNACK and

0:04:28.040 --> 0:04:32.600
<v Speaker 2>ken in its own conception, investigate issues of corruption or

0:04:32.680 --> 0:04:35.480
<v Speaker 2>misconduct as they were carried out by officers of the

0:04:35.600 --> 0:04:39.839
<v Speaker 2>NAC and so it's the watchdog of the watchdog essentially.

0:04:40.480 --> 0:04:45.160
<v Speaker 2>And Galpiness decided to open an investigation because there was

0:04:45.200 --> 0:04:49.400
<v Speaker 2>sufficient merit to looking at whether the Commissioner of the KNACK,

0:04:50.160 --> 0:04:55.080
<v Speaker 2>former Court Justice Paul Brereton, should have removed himself from

0:04:55.120 --> 0:04:58.320
<v Speaker 2>all decision making in relation to a conflict of interests

0:04:58.320 --> 0:05:01.440
<v Speaker 2>that he had declared in relation to a person we'll

0:05:01.480 --> 0:05:08.280
<v Speaker 2>call referred Person number one, a public servant who mister Breton,

0:05:08.320 --> 0:05:13.760
<v Speaker 2>Commissioner Breton has variously told Galpiness he knew well, they

0:05:13.800 --> 0:05:16.800
<v Speaker 2>had a close involvement, they were well known.

0:05:16.600 --> 0:05:17.120
<v Speaker 1>To each other.

0:05:17.640 --> 0:05:19.920
<v Speaker 2>It's a position that he is attempted to walk back

0:05:19.960 --> 0:05:23.440
<v Speaker 2>from publicly by saying, you know, this wasn't a close

0:05:23.480 --> 0:05:25.520
<v Speaker 2>personal relationship, it was someone he knew in a form

0:05:25.560 --> 0:05:29.000
<v Speaker 2>of professional life. That statement, in and of itself was

0:05:29.160 --> 0:05:34.600
<v Speaker 2>roundly rejected by another former Federal Court judge, Alec Robertson,

0:05:34.839 --> 0:05:38.479
<v Speaker 2>sc who was engaged by Galfiness to kind of a

0:05:38.560 --> 0:05:41.400
<v Speaker 2>parallel investigation that she could rely on in her investigation

0:05:41.480 --> 0:05:45.040
<v Speaker 2>of the NAC Are you following and so Alan Robinson

0:05:45.200 --> 0:05:48.560
<v Speaker 2>said that Commissioner Barriton was glossing over the fact that

0:05:48.640 --> 0:05:52.000
<v Speaker 2>he knew Referred Person number one well, and that it

0:05:52.040 --> 0:05:54.440
<v Speaker 2>wasn't enough to say that it was a former professional relationship,

0:05:54.440 --> 0:05:59.719
<v Speaker 2>because that's not what he told Galpiness. And so what

0:05:59.760 --> 0:06:03.360
<v Speaker 2>we're see now is the outcome of that investigation and

0:06:03.480 --> 0:06:08.640
<v Speaker 2>whether Commissioner Rariton did more than he should have and

0:06:08.720 --> 0:06:12.480
<v Speaker 2>evolve himself more than he should have in the decision

0:06:13.040 --> 0:06:17.440
<v Speaker 2>to not do anything about the six people referred by

0:06:17.440 --> 0:06:19.120
<v Speaker 2>the Robbet Oral Commission.

0:06:21.920 --> 0:06:25.040
<v Speaker 1>After the break, can the corruption watch dog repair it's

0:06:25.080 --> 0:06:40.080
<v Speaker 1>already tarnished image. So this investigation into NAC's decision not

0:06:40.160 --> 0:06:43.799
<v Speaker 1>to follow up on referrals from the Robodebt Royal Commission,

0:06:44.480 --> 0:06:47.599
<v Speaker 1>it's recommended that that decision be revisited. Do we know

0:06:47.680 --> 0:06:48.479
<v Speaker 1>what happens from here?

0:06:49.080 --> 0:06:52.279
<v Speaker 2>I mean they have to now engage an independent, eminent,

0:06:52.360 --> 0:06:54.920
<v Speaker 2>independent person. Of course, the NAC gets to choose who

0:06:54.920 --> 0:06:59.039
<v Speaker 2>that person is to re examine the referrals. We know

0:06:59.160 --> 0:07:03.159
<v Speaker 2>that they had in legal advice which certainly seemed to

0:07:03.160 --> 0:07:06.680
<v Speaker 2>agree that there were corruption issues and that there could

0:07:06.800 --> 0:07:09.840
<v Speaker 2>be findings made, but that legal advice also went so

0:07:09.880 --> 0:07:12.520
<v Speaker 2>far as to say that there were gaps in the

0:07:12.760 --> 0:07:16.000
<v Speaker 2>documentary evidence that meant they were not free from doubt.

0:07:16.080 --> 0:07:19.800
<v Speaker 2>So the findings made by the Raw Commission were serious

0:07:19.880 --> 0:07:23.000
<v Speaker 2>and well supported in some cases, but it was easier

0:07:23.040 --> 0:07:26.280
<v Speaker 2>to disprove in other cases, or at least argue. And

0:07:26.360 --> 0:07:28.160
<v Speaker 2>one of the reasons why they declined to do anything

0:07:28.200 --> 0:07:30.400
<v Speaker 2>the first time around is that the people who were

0:07:30.440 --> 0:07:33.160
<v Speaker 2>subject to those findings, such as referred Person Number one

0:07:33.360 --> 0:07:38.120
<v Speaker 2>and the other five, would likely litigate and fight every

0:07:38.160 --> 0:07:41.960
<v Speaker 2>single decision along the way. They would want to re

0:07:42.040 --> 0:07:44.960
<v Speaker 2>examine witnesses, they would want to cross examine make submissions,

0:07:45.000 --> 0:07:47.440
<v Speaker 2>which of course is all their right, and so they

0:07:47.480 --> 0:07:49.480
<v Speaker 2>should have been able to test these things. And of course,

0:07:49.960 --> 0:07:51.720
<v Speaker 2>not only did they not do that, they wrote to

0:07:51.760 --> 0:07:54.440
<v Speaker 2>the six people to say, we're not looking into this

0:07:54.480 --> 0:07:57.960
<v Speaker 2>any further. Here's the public statement we're going to make.

0:07:58.840 --> 0:08:01.000
<v Speaker 2>Do you want to say anything about it? And only

0:08:01.040 --> 0:08:02.480
<v Speaker 2>one person took them up on the offer, and it

0:08:02.560 --> 0:08:06.880
<v Speaker 2>was referred Person number one, the person about whom Commissioner

0:08:06.920 --> 0:08:10.240
<v Speaker 2>Breton had to make a conflict of interest disclosure, and

0:08:10.320 --> 0:08:14.360
<v Speaker 2>their lawyers referred Person number one's lawyers changed the language

0:08:14.360 --> 0:08:18.200
<v Speaker 2>in the public statement issued by the KNACK in several

0:08:18.280 --> 0:08:23.280
<v Speaker 2>quite important editorial ways. They don't like the idea that

0:08:23.320 --> 0:08:26.120
<v Speaker 2>they say that the Royal Commission had fully exposed the

0:08:26.160 --> 0:08:30.480
<v Speaker 2>conduct of individuals, and so that got changed to canvast,

0:08:30.520 --> 0:08:33.400
<v Speaker 2>and then later it got changed to explored, and then

0:08:33.400 --> 0:08:36.400
<v Speaker 2>they wanted to make some watering down changes to the

0:08:36.480 --> 0:08:40.599
<v Speaker 2>language later on about beyond considering whether the conduct in

0:08:40.679 --> 0:08:43.680
<v Speaker 2>question amounted to crop conduct. They essentially tried to just

0:08:43.720 --> 0:08:48.000
<v Speaker 2>tamper that down and Commissioner Breton accepted those changes. The

0:08:48.040 --> 0:08:52.720
<v Speaker 2>Commissioner of the National Anti Corruption Agency was giving people

0:08:53.320 --> 0:08:55.880
<v Speaker 2>who they had made, we now know on a flawed

0:08:56.240 --> 0:09:01.079
<v Speaker 2>assessment process, a decision to not investigate for corrupt and

0:09:01.120 --> 0:09:04.320
<v Speaker 2>we have internal correspondence from the commissioner himself to the

0:09:04.360 --> 0:09:06.560
<v Speaker 2>deputy commissioner saying, let's not get hung up on the

0:09:06.559 --> 0:09:09.439
<v Speaker 2>corruption issue. And they're giving that to the people who

0:09:09.480 --> 0:09:12.720
<v Speaker 2>are the subject of that potential investigation and allowing them

0:09:12.760 --> 0:09:15.720
<v Speaker 2>to water down the language, not the facts, but the

0:09:15.840 --> 0:09:18.600
<v Speaker 2>language in the public statement that is issued under the

0:09:18.600 --> 0:09:20.240
<v Speaker 2>banner the imprimater of the KNACK.

0:09:22.160 --> 0:09:24.880
<v Speaker 1>So what sort of powers does the KNACK have to

0:09:24.880 --> 0:09:28.320
<v Speaker 1>deal with robodebt that no other body has.

0:09:28.960 --> 0:09:32.040
<v Speaker 2>So the KNAC doesn't really have a role beyond finding

0:09:32.120 --> 0:09:34.240
<v Speaker 2>that there is corrupt conduct. And I think there's a

0:09:34.240 --> 0:09:38.480
<v Speaker 2>normative value in that of actually applying the label corrupt

0:09:38.600 --> 0:09:42.600
<v Speaker 2>conduct to people who have done the wrong thing. There

0:09:42.679 --> 0:09:46.840
<v Speaker 2>might not be any enduring kind of civil or criminal penalty,

0:09:47.679 --> 0:09:49.400
<v Speaker 2>but that is something that you don't get to scrub

0:09:49.440 --> 0:09:51.800
<v Speaker 2>for your name. And I know for a fact that

0:09:51.840 --> 0:09:54.240
<v Speaker 2>it's something that the people involved in robot really do

0:09:54.360 --> 0:09:56.920
<v Speaker 2>not like being reminded.

0:09:56.400 --> 0:09:57.880
<v Speaker 1>Of of their role.

0:09:57.880 --> 0:10:03.600
<v Speaker 2>In this and absent any other findings in any other justice,

0:10:03.920 --> 0:10:08.280
<v Speaker 2>this was really the best course of action. But again,

0:10:08.960 --> 0:10:11.600
<v Speaker 2>none of that is an argument for an institution whose

0:10:11.640 --> 0:10:15.520
<v Speaker 2>sole remit is to investigate and assess corrupt conduct to

0:10:15.640 --> 0:10:19.440
<v Speaker 2>decide that they don't feel like doing it, and particularly

0:10:19.760 --> 0:10:22.840
<v Speaker 2>under such a flawed process. Whereas Garverness points out and

0:10:23.320 --> 0:10:27.120
<v Speaker 2>Alan Robertson her reviewer, points out, there is a huge

0:10:27.160 --> 0:10:30.280
<v Speaker 2>difference between saying I've got a conflict of interest and

0:10:30.320 --> 0:10:33.800
<v Speaker 2>I'm not going to be the decision maker and saying

0:10:34.679 --> 0:10:37.559
<v Speaker 2>I'm not going to be involved in any of the

0:10:37.679 --> 0:10:41.640
<v Speaker 2>decision making around this. And what happened was that there

0:10:41.679 --> 0:10:44.720
<v Speaker 2>is a matter of minutes in that October meeting where

0:10:44.720 --> 0:10:47.000
<v Speaker 2>Berton stepped out of the room when the quote unquote

0:10:47.000 --> 0:10:51.480
<v Speaker 2>decision was made. But he was involved comprehensively before, during,

0:10:51.640 --> 0:10:54.760
<v Speaker 2>and after. And I think we have a serious problem

0:10:55.320 --> 0:10:59.200
<v Speaker 2>when we think that the KNAK just can't do anything

0:11:00.120 --> 0:11:02.640
<v Speaker 2>and therefore we shouldn't care that they abrogated their responsibility,

0:11:02.640 --> 0:11:03.880
<v Speaker 2>and then why have them. We're paying a lot of

0:11:03.880 --> 0:11:04.360
<v Speaker 2>money for it.

0:11:05.080 --> 0:11:07.760
<v Speaker 1>So this was the first decision of the KNACK. It

0:11:07.880 --> 0:11:11.360
<v Speaker 1>blew its integrity out of the water, and the mines

0:11:11.400 --> 0:11:14.560
<v Speaker 1>of a lot of people. What does the decision mean

0:11:14.880 --> 0:11:17.640
<v Speaker 1>for the commission moving forward? Can it regain some sort

0:11:17.640 --> 0:11:19.120
<v Speaker 1>of semblance of credibility after this?

0:11:19.720 --> 0:11:22.400
<v Speaker 2>I honestly don't think they can. They've talked he about

0:11:22.400 --> 0:11:26.280
<v Speaker 2>their credibility and they did it, you know, almost single handedly.

0:11:26.600 --> 0:11:28.320
<v Speaker 2>Mind you, they had a lot of help from what

0:11:28.520 --> 0:11:31.640
<v Speaker 2>was essentially a bipartisan two party political project to create

0:11:31.640 --> 0:11:35.080
<v Speaker 2>a toothless tiger. Not just toothless, but the tiger's arfter ittic.

0:11:35.080 --> 0:11:38.120
<v Speaker 2>It's got osteoporosis like, it's just it's not doing well.

0:11:38.640 --> 0:11:41.040
<v Speaker 2>And it's in no one's best interests if you're a

0:11:41.040 --> 0:11:46.360
<v Speaker 2>politician to have a truly effective accountability body. And what

0:11:46.400 --> 0:11:49.560
<v Speaker 2>we saw was, you know, the coalition and labor with

0:11:50.240 --> 0:11:53.200
<v Speaker 2>decision making over who gets to be appointed to this body.

0:11:53.240 --> 0:11:55.000
<v Speaker 2>I think the Coalition were given quite a lot of

0:11:56.040 --> 0:11:59.640
<v Speaker 2>say in some of the commissioners. Brereton was a consensus

0:12:00.040 --> 0:12:03.920
<v Speaker 2>missioner by all accounts. And the legislation that underpins the

0:12:04.000 --> 0:12:05.800
<v Speaker 2>Act allows then Act to do most of its work

0:12:05.800 --> 0:12:10.120
<v Speaker 2>in secrecy, which you know, certain types of lawyers and

0:12:10.400 --> 0:12:13.600
<v Speaker 2>barristers and judges love because they think that the law

0:12:13.679 --> 0:12:17.400
<v Speaker 2>is perfect. Of course, and quite above the hoi poloi

0:12:17.520 --> 0:12:20.360
<v Speaker 2>and anyone who might you know, terrible icky journalists like myself,

0:12:20.400 --> 0:12:23.680
<v Speaker 2>who might have questions of propriety, because what would we know.

0:12:25.200 --> 0:12:28.280
<v Speaker 2>But of course we got lucky in this case. Breton

0:12:28.320 --> 0:12:30.120
<v Speaker 2>put out a statement saying, you know, I made it

0:12:30.160 --> 0:12:32.480
<v Speaker 2>an error of judgment. Judges make errors all the time.

0:12:32.520 --> 0:12:34.800
<v Speaker 2>That's why we have appeal processes and all the rest

0:12:34.800 --> 0:12:37.240
<v Speaker 2>of it. But what happened in this case was that

0:12:37.480 --> 0:12:40.679
<v Speaker 2>he made a significant error that amounted to engage in

0:12:40.679 --> 0:12:45.880
<v Speaker 2>in official misconduct. That error would have gone unchecked were

0:12:45.920 --> 0:12:49.280
<v Speaker 2>it not for the public outcry and the sheer kind

0:12:49.320 --> 0:12:52.439
<v Speaker 2>of public interest of the robotic case, which sparked the

0:12:52.520 --> 0:12:56.880
<v Speaker 2>interest of the inspector. And then of course we are

0:12:56.920 --> 0:12:59.319
<v Speaker 2>lucky that we have the inspector that we do, because

0:12:59.600 --> 0:13:01.360
<v Speaker 2>you know, that could have ended up another way. And

0:13:01.440 --> 0:13:05.600
<v Speaker 2>so this idea that all of these decisions behind clostors

0:13:05.640 --> 0:13:09.080
<v Speaker 2>are inherently perfect is just it's clearly wrong. And it's

0:13:09.120 --> 0:13:12.439
<v Speaker 2>only now by sheer half luck and half thank god

0:13:12.480 --> 0:13:15.719
<v Speaker 2>it's Gaulphinair's that we're actually getting a peek behind the

0:13:15.760 --> 0:13:18.240
<v Speaker 2>window of what they were talking about in making these decisions.

0:13:18.280 --> 0:13:20.000
<v Speaker 2>And it's like they had no idea what they were doing.

0:13:20.559 --> 0:13:22.320
<v Speaker 2>The knack is his shot.

0:13:25.440 --> 0:13:26.800
<v Speaker 1>Rick, Thanks so much for your time.

0:13:27.960 --> 0:13:29.360
<v Speaker 2>Thanks so much, Danie, I appreciate it.

0:13:41.320 --> 0:13:45.160
<v Speaker 1>Also in the news, Australia's annual inflation rate has dropped

0:13:45.200 --> 0:13:48.240
<v Speaker 1>a full percent from three point eight percent mid year

0:13:48.280 --> 0:13:51.400
<v Speaker 1>to two point eight percent, the lowest rate in three years.

0:13:52.040 --> 0:13:55.480
<v Speaker 1>Data from the AABS also shows pressure on the economy's easing,

0:13:56.000 --> 0:13:59.520
<v Speaker 1>with electricity prices falling by seventeen points three percent in

0:13:59.559 --> 0:14:03.400
<v Speaker 1>the last quarter. The economists are optimistic the figures, meaning

0:14:03.440 --> 0:14:05.760
<v Speaker 1>the Reserve Bank may take an interest right cut in

0:14:05.800 --> 0:14:11.440
<v Speaker 1>twenty twenty four and Health Minister Mark Butler says he

0:14:11.480 --> 0:14:14.280
<v Speaker 1>has enormous respect for the leaders who led Australia's COVID

0:14:14.360 --> 0:14:18.120
<v Speaker 1>nineteen response. The comments follow an independent inquiry finding that

0:14:18.160 --> 0:14:21.720
<v Speaker 1>Australia's response resulted in fewer deaths than in other countries,

0:14:22.360 --> 0:14:24.640
<v Speaker 1>but it also found that the heavy handed restrictions and

0:14:24.680 --> 0:14:27.920
<v Speaker 1>inconsistent responses had likely burned through the good will of

0:14:27.920 --> 0:14:31.640
<v Speaker 1>Australians who may not accept such measures in a future pandemic.

0:14:32.320 --> 0:14:35.000
<v Speaker 1>The minister said he didn't think leaders needed to apologize

0:14:35.000 --> 0:14:37.520
<v Speaker 1>to the public, and that the newly announced Center for

0:14:37.600 --> 0:14:42.160
<v Speaker 1>disease control will improve Australia's response to future outbreaks. I'm

0:14:42.240 --> 0:14:46.760
<v Speaker 1>Daniel James. Seven AM will be back tomorrow