WEBVTT - The Coalition minister and the corruption watchdog

0:00:01.320 --> 0:00:02.400
<v Speaker 1>From Schwartz Media.

0:00:02.759 --> 0:00:03.680
<v Speaker 2>I'm Ruby Jones.

0:00:04.160 --> 0:00:12.760
<v Speaker 1>This is seven AM. In deciding not to probe ROBODEBT,

0:00:13.320 --> 0:00:18.120
<v Speaker 1>Australia's anti corruption body seemingly failed its first big test.

0:00:18.920 --> 0:00:21.799
<v Speaker 1>But the NAC has been given a second chance to

0:00:21.920 --> 0:00:25.640
<v Speaker 1>reconsider an investigation into the scheme and the six people

0:00:25.720 --> 0:00:28.800
<v Speaker 1>referred to the body by a royal commission. But now

0:00:29.360 --> 0:00:32.360
<v Speaker 1>it's been revealed the person had picked to make that

0:00:32.479 --> 0:00:36.400
<v Speaker 1>decision has had the offer withdrawn over concerns his appointment

0:00:36.479 --> 0:00:41.280
<v Speaker 1>might offend one of the very people referred for investigation. Today,

0:00:41.680 --> 0:00:44.800
<v Speaker 1>senior reporter for the Saturday paper, Rick Morton on the

0:00:44.880 --> 0:00:48.880
<v Speaker 1>dumping of the proposed Robodett investigator and what it means

0:00:48.960 --> 0:00:56.680
<v Speaker 1>for the future of the knack. It's Monday, November eighteen.

0:01:05.800 --> 0:01:09.119
<v Speaker 1>So the National Anti Coruption Commission, the NACH, in one

0:01:09.160 --> 0:01:13.800
<v Speaker 1>of its first very controversial decisions, it declined to investigate

0:01:13.840 --> 0:01:18.600
<v Speaker 1>referrals from the Robodet Royal Commission. It was heavily criticized

0:01:18.600 --> 0:01:23.480
<v Speaker 1>for that decision and it's now reconsidering. So tell me

0:01:23.600 --> 0:01:24.399
<v Speaker 1>what that looks like.

0:01:25.080 --> 0:01:27.480
<v Speaker 2>Yeah, I'm glad you said that they declined to investigate

0:01:27.480 --> 0:01:29.880
<v Speaker 2>because they didn't They didn't do any investigation and it

0:01:29.880 --> 0:01:32.800
<v Speaker 2>took them eleven months to do no investigation. Essentially, there

0:01:32.800 --> 0:01:36.440
<v Speaker 2>were so many complaints made about that decision that the

0:01:37.160 --> 0:01:40.800
<v Speaker 2>fully independent Office of the Inspector of the NAC, staffed

0:01:40.800 --> 0:01:43.880
<v Speaker 2>by Galphin SSC is also the Inspector of the New

0:01:43.880 --> 0:01:47.160
<v Speaker 2>South Wales EYEKAK, launched an investigation of the back of

0:01:47.160 --> 0:01:49.880
<v Speaker 2>those complaints and found that the Commissioner of the NAC,

0:01:50.000 --> 0:01:53.720
<v Speaker 2>Paul Preriton, who had declared internally four times that he

0:01:53.760 --> 0:01:57.040
<v Speaker 2>had a conflict of interest with Person number one who

0:01:57.120 --> 0:02:01.400
<v Speaker 2>was referred through Robodet, but never actually fully recused himself

0:02:01.440 --> 0:02:05.000
<v Speaker 2>from the decision making process. Paul Brereton had engaged in

0:02:05.080 --> 0:02:07.800
<v Speaker 2>offers of misconduct as it's defined under the KNACK Act

0:02:08.320 --> 0:02:10.920
<v Speaker 2>and that they should revisit the decision, and the KNACK

0:02:11.000 --> 0:02:12.520
<v Speaker 2>of course saw the riding of the wall and had

0:02:12.560 --> 0:02:15.840
<v Speaker 2>already agreed through submissions to the Inspector that yes, they

0:02:15.840 --> 0:02:18.600
<v Speaker 2>would do that and because of the way this has

0:02:18.680 --> 0:02:20.560
<v Speaker 2>kind of been handled so far, they would seek to

0:02:20.560 --> 0:02:25.760
<v Speaker 2>appoint an independent eminent person to actually revisit that decision,

0:02:25.800 --> 0:02:29.280
<v Speaker 2>so someone who's not currently at the KNACK would be

0:02:29.320 --> 0:02:33.440
<v Speaker 2>brought in to relook at that initial decision of whether

0:02:33.520 --> 0:02:37.080
<v Speaker 2>or not to investigate one, two, three, or all six

0:02:37.120 --> 0:02:40.160
<v Speaker 2>of the Robete referrals. And what we're now learning is

0:02:40.200 --> 0:02:43.400
<v Speaker 2>that that position was actually offered to the former Solicitor General,

0:02:43.560 --> 0:02:47.359
<v Speaker 2>Justin Gleeson, and then it was abruptly rescinded.

0:02:49.360 --> 0:02:54.080
<v Speaker 1>Right, Okay, So Justin Gleeson, former Solicitor General, was offered

0:02:54.160 --> 0:02:59.200
<v Speaker 1>this role as this independent eminent person to revisit the

0:02:59.280 --> 0:03:02.600
<v Speaker 1>issue of whether these six people referred to the Knack

0:03:02.960 --> 0:03:07.639
<v Speaker 1>over possible wrongdoing during the Robotut scandal should be investigated.

0:03:08.000 --> 0:03:12.399
<v Speaker 1>But you're saying you've discovered that before he was even appointed,

0:03:13.120 --> 0:03:14.320
<v Speaker 1>the idea was walked back.

0:03:14.400 --> 0:03:17.919
<v Speaker 2>So why Yeah, that's a very good question. And there's

0:03:17.960 --> 0:03:20.320
<v Speaker 2>two different versions of this from people I've spoken to

0:03:20.400 --> 0:03:22.400
<v Speaker 2>within the Knack. One of them is that it was

0:03:22.440 --> 0:03:25.080
<v Speaker 2>just a simple conflict of interesting even though Justin Clison

0:03:25.120 --> 0:03:28.760
<v Speaker 2>had no conflicts with any of the six people referred directly,

0:03:29.320 --> 0:03:33.000
<v Speaker 2>one of the six people, a former Coalition minister, had

0:03:33.040 --> 0:03:36.600
<v Speaker 2>spoken publicly about Justin Gleeson during his time as a

0:03:36.640 --> 0:03:40.600
<v Speaker 2>Solicitor General, and that gave rise to the need for

0:03:40.640 --> 0:03:43.280
<v Speaker 2>them to be beyond reproach and that they couldn't go

0:03:43.320 --> 0:03:45.360
<v Speaker 2>ahead with it. Now, why that wasn't sorted out before

0:03:45.400 --> 0:03:48.400
<v Speaker 2>it got to almost appointing him properly is a really

0:03:48.440 --> 0:03:52.360
<v Speaker 2>good question. But the other version of this, and it

0:03:52.400 --> 0:03:54.920
<v Speaker 2>is not without precedent within the Knack, was that they

0:03:54.960 --> 0:03:58.880
<v Speaker 2>had actually countenanced the idea that this former minister would

0:03:58.920 --> 0:04:02.720
<v Speaker 2>complain and that they were worried about the views of

0:04:02.800 --> 0:04:07.320
<v Speaker 2>this former minister once or if they announced Justin Gleeson

0:04:07.720 --> 0:04:10.960
<v Speaker 2>as the eminent person to revisit the decision, and that

0:04:11.200 --> 0:04:13.400
<v Speaker 2>was actually a huge factor in the decision making to

0:04:13.440 --> 0:04:15.160
<v Speaker 2>pull the job off them.

0:04:15.640 --> 0:04:20.279
<v Speaker 1>Right, So should concerns of a complaint be enough to

0:04:20.440 --> 0:04:21.960
<v Speaker 1>stop an appointment like this?

0:04:22.160 --> 0:04:22.360
<v Speaker 3>Rick?

0:04:24.120 --> 0:04:28.360
<v Speaker 2>No, No, shouldn't. I mean, if you listen to Jeffrey

0:04:28.360 --> 0:04:31.320
<v Speaker 2>Watson s See and other eminent kind of legal minds,

0:04:31.360 --> 0:04:35.200
<v Speaker 2>you know, decisions of corruption agency around the country are

0:04:35.240 --> 0:04:37.599
<v Speaker 2>always challenged and there will be for good or ill.

0:04:37.680 --> 0:04:41.159
<v Speaker 3>He says, every single step you take is going to

0:04:41.200 --> 0:04:44.839
<v Speaker 3>be challenged for good or for real purposes by some

0:04:44.960 --> 0:04:47.520
<v Speaker 3>of the people who are the subject of allegations of corruption.

0:04:48.040 --> 0:04:49.360
<v Speaker 3>That's the way it pans out.

0:04:49.760 --> 0:04:52.920
<v Speaker 2>So you know the fact that people might litigate or

0:04:52.960 --> 0:04:55.840
<v Speaker 2>have complaints. It's not in and of itself a sufficient

0:04:55.839 --> 0:04:57.560
<v Speaker 2>reason to not go ahead with something. In fact, you're

0:04:57.600 --> 0:05:00.440
<v Speaker 2>the Corruption Commission, you should do what you think is

0:05:00.560 --> 0:05:02.320
<v Speaker 2>right and just in the circumstances.

0:05:04.120 --> 0:05:06.560
<v Speaker 1>And can we talk a bit more about the decision

0:05:06.600 --> 0:05:11.480
<v Speaker 1>making here? Do we know how or who made the

0:05:11.520 --> 0:05:15.080
<v Speaker 1>call that Gleeson should not be appointed to that role?

0:05:15.520 --> 0:05:18.000
<v Speaker 2>Yeah, that's I don't know the complete answer about it.

0:05:18.000 --> 0:05:20.680
<v Speaker 2>They won't go into any detail, of course about who

0:05:20.760 --> 0:05:23.880
<v Speaker 2>said what and when and where or why. But I

0:05:23.920 --> 0:05:26.040
<v Speaker 2>did manage to speak to a number of people within

0:05:26.120 --> 0:05:28.599
<v Speaker 2>the Knack and within the government who said that a

0:05:28.720 --> 0:05:32.800
<v Speaker 2>lot of research went into the potential engagement of the

0:05:32.839 --> 0:05:36.159
<v Speaker 2>former solicit of General Justin Gleeson. And so you know,

0:05:36.200 --> 0:05:40.640
<v Speaker 2>we now have questions about did Breton approach Gleeson? If

0:05:40.680 --> 0:05:43.359
<v Speaker 2>he did, why did he back off? Or if it

0:05:43.360 --> 0:05:47.400
<v Speaker 2>wasn't Bretherton's idea, whose was it and who raised the

0:05:47.440 --> 0:05:53.120
<v Speaker 2>issues internally about the coalition minister and Justin Gleeson. And

0:05:53.279 --> 0:05:55.360
<v Speaker 2>we don't know the answers to that yet now. Of course,

0:05:55.360 --> 0:05:57.320
<v Speaker 2>even though there's all these questions going around, I did

0:05:57.360 --> 0:05:59.640
<v Speaker 2>ask the NA you know, did you consult with any

0:05:59.680 --> 0:06:03.960
<v Speaker 2>of the people about this appointment or any particular appointment,

0:06:04.000 --> 0:06:06.080
<v Speaker 2>and they said the KNACK has not consulted and has

0:06:06.120 --> 0:06:09.000
<v Speaker 2>no intention to consult with any referred persons about whether

0:06:09.040 --> 0:06:12.920
<v Speaker 2>they have a view on the appropriateness of the independent Eminent.

0:06:12.680 --> 0:06:16.200
<v Speaker 1>Person and Rick, all of this does seem to have

0:06:16.279 --> 0:06:21.679
<v Speaker 1>happened at the very last minute, which begs the question

0:06:21.839 --> 0:06:26.200
<v Speaker 1>that if Justin Gleeson is not the right person for

0:06:26.240 --> 0:06:30.880
<v Speaker 1>this job for any reason, why was that not discovered sooner?

0:06:31.440 --> 0:06:34.280
<v Speaker 1>And what does that failure say to you about what's

0:06:34.320 --> 0:06:37.240
<v Speaker 1>going on inside the KNACK and its processes.

0:06:38.000 --> 0:06:40.440
<v Speaker 2>Yeah, they're not good, and I don't say that off

0:06:40.480 --> 0:06:42.320
<v Speaker 2>one or two examples. In fact, we just had the

0:06:42.360 --> 0:06:46.600
<v Speaker 2>inspectors and your report table where there were other deficiencies

0:06:46.680 --> 0:06:52.080
<v Speaker 2>noted in the knacks handling of corruption referrals. Their IT

0:06:52.400 --> 0:06:54.680
<v Speaker 2>systems are not mature. I mean, there are new agencies,

0:06:54.720 --> 0:06:56.680
<v Speaker 2>so they are always going to be teething issues. But

0:06:57.200 --> 0:07:00.800
<v Speaker 2>some of these decisions relate to the judgment of the

0:07:00.839 --> 0:07:05.400
<v Speaker 2>Commissioner and the deputy commissioners. So we've got some issues

0:07:05.440 --> 0:07:08.000
<v Speaker 2>with the way they handle stuff. There doesn't appear to

0:07:08.000 --> 0:07:11.400
<v Speaker 2>be a coherent sense of how they go about their work.

0:07:11.560 --> 0:07:14.560
<v Speaker 2>And having spoken to people now who have worked within

0:07:14.600 --> 0:07:17.200
<v Speaker 2>the Knack who are still within the knack. There is

0:07:17.240 --> 0:07:20.000
<v Speaker 2>a real sense that they're kind of making some of

0:07:20.040 --> 0:07:22.800
<v Speaker 2>these things up on the fly, and in doing so

0:07:23.680 --> 0:07:26.520
<v Speaker 2>trusting their own discretion and their own kind of eminence.

0:07:26.560 --> 0:07:29.520
<v Speaker 2>As in Grotran's case, it's a former judge, but not

0:07:29.560 --> 0:07:32.800
<v Speaker 2>realizing or not giving full credit to the idea that

0:07:32.800 --> 0:07:35.920
<v Speaker 2>they might actually make mistakes as they go. And we're

0:07:35.920 --> 0:07:38.600
<v Speaker 2>seeing that now come out, not just in the decisions

0:07:38.600 --> 0:07:40.920
<v Speaker 2>they've been making, but in terms of this hiring process,

0:07:40.960 --> 0:07:42.960
<v Speaker 2>which was so far advanced from what I can tell,

0:07:43.760 --> 0:07:45.720
<v Speaker 2>and which almost made it to the end. And then

0:07:45.720 --> 0:07:49.960
<v Speaker 2>suddenly something's changed, and someone's got cold feet somewhere, and

0:07:50.200 --> 0:07:52.640
<v Speaker 2>Gleason's being told see you later.

0:07:55.880 --> 0:07:59.640
<v Speaker 1>So can faith in the Knack be restored? That's after

0:07:59.680 --> 0:08:11.720
<v Speaker 1>the break Rick, We're in a situation now where the

0:08:11.800 --> 0:08:16.520
<v Speaker 1>KNAK is appointing an outside expert to revisit a decision

0:08:16.800 --> 0:08:19.640
<v Speaker 1>made by the Commission. We don't know who that person's

0:08:19.680 --> 0:08:22.200
<v Speaker 1>going to be now, and there are are serious questions

0:08:22.240 --> 0:08:25.600
<v Speaker 1>around the process there. But the fact that this is

0:08:25.640 --> 0:08:29.160
<v Speaker 1>happening at all, what does that say to you about

0:08:29.240 --> 0:08:31.400
<v Speaker 1>the viability of the NAC's leadership.

0:08:31.880 --> 0:08:34.280
<v Speaker 2>There has been a lot of external commentary right, including

0:08:34.360 --> 0:08:38.080
<v Speaker 2>from the inspector, but also other eminent appeals court judges.

0:08:38.120 --> 0:08:41.000
<v Speaker 2>Margaret White, former appeals court judge in Queensland, who is

0:08:41.240 --> 0:08:42.839
<v Speaker 2>you know they've kind of build the cat on this

0:08:42.920 --> 0:08:45.320
<v Speaker 2>and said, it doesn't seem like Breton fully understands the

0:08:45.400 --> 0:08:47.800
<v Speaker 2>function of his own commission.

0:08:48.520 --> 0:08:51.640
<v Speaker 4>They seem to misconceive their role with the greatest of respect.

0:08:53.440 --> 0:08:56.680
<v Speaker 4>They seem to think that because they couldn't provide some

0:08:56.800 --> 0:09:00.520
<v Speaker 4>kind of compensation or remedy to those who who were

0:09:00.559 --> 0:09:04.839
<v Speaker 4>injured by this huge breach of public trust, therefore there

0:09:04.840 --> 0:09:06.280
<v Speaker 4>was no point in taking it up.

0:09:06.840 --> 0:09:08.320
<v Speaker 2>Someone I was speaking to you from the NAC were like,

0:09:08.320 --> 0:09:11.280
<v Speaker 2>he suffers from having been a judge in that he

0:09:11.679 --> 0:09:14.400
<v Speaker 2>thinks that, you know, there is an appeals court above

0:09:14.480 --> 0:09:16.800
<v Speaker 2>him that will overturn any mistakes they make, but there isn't.

0:09:17.559 --> 0:09:20.280
<v Speaker 2>The fact that the Inspector received so many complaints was

0:09:20.679 --> 0:09:23.440
<v Speaker 2>lucky that their role was triggered. It was also lucky

0:09:23.480 --> 0:09:25.680
<v Speaker 2>that they figured that the public interest was high enough

0:09:25.679 --> 0:09:28.480
<v Speaker 2>that their report was published into what they found about

0:09:28.480 --> 0:09:31.520
<v Speaker 2>Commissioner Puritan's handling of this matter, Because had that not

0:09:31.600 --> 0:09:35.199
<v Speaker 2>been the case, it's only in very specific circumstances where

0:09:35.200 --> 0:09:37.840
<v Speaker 2>any of this would have been public knowledge. And of

0:09:37.880 --> 0:09:39.880
<v Speaker 2>course I get the sense that a lot of the

0:09:39.920 --> 0:09:42.360
<v Speaker 2>internal discussions that we had about what to do with Robodet,

0:09:42.679 --> 0:09:44.959
<v Speaker 2>the Commissioner didn't think would ever see the light of DACK.

0:09:45.600 --> 0:09:47.439
<v Speaker 2>So that's been pretty out of statements, and it's only

0:09:47.480 --> 0:09:49.600
<v Speaker 2>a new practice, but they appear to be quite sensitive

0:09:49.600 --> 0:09:53.240
<v Speaker 2>and defensive of public commentary, some of it on social media,

0:09:53.280 --> 0:09:56.760
<v Speaker 2>but most of it in the media about things that

0:09:56.800 --> 0:09:59.200
<v Speaker 2>people have been saying about the knack. One of the

0:09:59.280 --> 0:10:01.760
<v Speaker 2>misinformation bits they seek to correct is that he had

0:10:01.800 --> 0:10:04.280
<v Speaker 2>a conflict of interest with someone and they were very

0:10:04.280 --> 0:10:08.280
<v Speaker 2>close personal friends. Now Breton, again not for the first time,

0:10:08.880 --> 0:10:12.679
<v Speaker 2>corrects the record by saying they had a prior professional

0:10:12.720 --> 0:10:17.120
<v Speaker 2>relationship and they were not close. Now, that in itself

0:10:17.400 --> 0:10:22.199
<v Speaker 2>has been debunked by former Federal court judge Allen Robinson. Now,

0:10:22.240 --> 0:10:26.160
<v Speaker 2>Alan Robinson said that whatever Paul Bretherton is saying now

0:10:26.720 --> 0:10:29.640
<v Speaker 2>to the inspector and now publicly about his relationship with

0:10:29.679 --> 0:10:33.320
<v Speaker 2>person number one is gloss. That was the word he used.

0:10:33.320 --> 0:10:36.560
<v Speaker 2>It's gloss because the way he declared it internally before,

0:10:36.640 --> 0:10:38.520
<v Speaker 2>mind you, before he thought anyone was going to see

0:10:38.520 --> 0:10:42.520
<v Speaker 2>these words, was that he had a close association with

0:10:42.600 --> 0:10:44.720
<v Speaker 2>person number one, and on another occasion he said, this

0:10:44.720 --> 0:10:47.680
<v Speaker 2>person is well known to me. I believe as we speak,

0:10:48.200 --> 0:10:51.679
<v Speaker 2>Paul Brereton is talking about public trust in government at

0:10:51.720 --> 0:10:55.040
<v Speaker 2>a conference. Well, this is public trust, and this is

0:10:55.080 --> 0:10:57.280
<v Speaker 2>how you get rid of it, step by step, bit

0:10:57.320 --> 0:10:58.960
<v Speaker 2>by bit, erosion by erosion.

0:11:00.320 --> 0:11:02.760
<v Speaker 1>And the very reason that the KNAC was set up

0:11:02.880 --> 0:11:07.480
<v Speaker 1>was to counter this suspicion that the people that voters

0:11:07.600 --> 0:11:12.640
<v Speaker 1>had that there is or was corruption in public life.

0:11:12.760 --> 0:11:17.520
<v Speaker 1>So if the KNACK fails to address that, then we

0:11:17.600 --> 0:11:20.080
<v Speaker 1>lose more than just a bureaucratic body, don't we We

0:11:20.160 --> 0:11:23.400
<v Speaker 1>lose more faith, more trust in public life.

0:11:23.880 --> 0:11:25.840
<v Speaker 2>Well, we had one shot at this, right, We had

0:11:25.840 --> 0:11:28.880
<v Speaker 2>a shot to bring about a National Anti Corruption Commission.

0:11:30.000 --> 0:11:33.160
<v Speaker 2>You know, key considerations were warded down in the making

0:11:33.200 --> 0:11:37.560
<v Speaker 2>of it. You know, the people corruption experts wanted public

0:11:37.600 --> 0:11:40.000
<v Speaker 2>hearings unless there were really good reasons not to. But

0:11:40.040 --> 0:11:42.960
<v Speaker 2>we didn't get that. The people we appointed to lead

0:11:43.000 --> 0:11:45.160
<v Speaker 2>it had to be to use their own term in

0:11:45.679 --> 0:11:50.120
<v Speaker 2>how they dismissed Justin Gledson. Beyond reproach, the standards have

0:11:50.200 --> 0:11:54.800
<v Speaker 2>to be the highest for the agency that enforces standards,

0:11:56.880 --> 0:11:59.480
<v Speaker 2>whoever they appoint as the independent person, and they might

0:11:59.520 --> 0:12:03.240
<v Speaker 2>be another equally good candidate, that person who is only

0:12:03.280 --> 0:12:06.520
<v Speaker 2>making a decision about whether the KNACH should investigate or not.

0:12:08.120 --> 0:12:10.440
<v Speaker 2>Now they might come to the same conclusion, which case

0:12:10.480 --> 0:12:14.280
<v Speaker 2>the process ends there nothing happens. But if they recommend

0:12:14.320 --> 0:12:16.840
<v Speaker 2>an investigation, then the NAC has to do that investigation

0:12:17.200 --> 0:12:19.920
<v Speaker 2>the same people who do they delegate it to. Now

0:12:21.040 --> 0:12:24.480
<v Speaker 2>the Commissioner still presumably has to be recused. So who

0:12:24.600 --> 0:12:27.920
<v Speaker 2>the KNACK does the investigation, who signs off on any

0:12:27.960 --> 0:12:30.520
<v Speaker 2>of this? As someone I think joking you said on Twitter,

0:12:30.520 --> 0:12:33.240
<v Speaker 2>we're going to need a parallel KNACK set up just

0:12:33.280 --> 0:12:36.160
<v Speaker 2>for the robotet stuff. And of course then you get

0:12:36.559 --> 0:12:39.840
<v Speaker 2>turtles all the way down because already in this case,

0:12:39.840 --> 0:12:43.240
<v Speaker 2>we've had the KNACK making decision that the inspector then

0:12:43.440 --> 0:12:46.440
<v Speaker 2>called into question by hiring a former federal court judge

0:12:46.480 --> 0:12:49.640
<v Speaker 2>to back up the legal argument she was making. And

0:12:49.679 --> 0:12:52.200
<v Speaker 2>then they referred this back to the NAC, who said, well,

0:12:52.200 --> 0:12:54.840
<v Speaker 2>we will get an independent person to remake the decision.

0:12:55.559 --> 0:12:58.680
<v Speaker 2>And it's like having a highway upgrade all the way

0:12:58.880 --> 0:13:00.840
<v Speaker 2>to the end of the city, and there's just a

0:13:00.880 --> 0:13:02.840
<v Speaker 2>one laid road. There's a bottleneck at the end. In

0:13:02.880 --> 0:13:05.439
<v Speaker 2>the bottleneck, it's the same commission as the same Knack,

0:13:06.440 --> 0:13:10.360
<v Speaker 2>revisiting the same issue that they have comprehensively failed on.

0:13:11.800 --> 0:13:14.400
<v Speaker 1>It's a dispiriting state of affairs.

0:13:14.480 --> 0:13:16.120
<v Speaker 2>Rick, Do I do anything else?

0:13:17.760 --> 0:13:19.240
<v Speaker 1>Thank you so much, bea Dan.

0:13:19.600 --> 0:13:20.839
<v Speaker 2>Thanks Ruby, I appreciate it.

0:13:30.559 --> 0:13:33.760
<v Speaker 1>Also in the news today, the Prime Minister Anthony Alberesi

0:13:33.880 --> 0:13:38.000
<v Speaker 1>has backed Kevin Rudd to remain as Australia's ambassador to Washington.

0:13:38.800 --> 0:13:42.760
<v Speaker 1>There's been speculation that Trump could demand Rudd's withdrawal after

0:13:42.800 --> 0:13:45.880
<v Speaker 1>disparaging remarks that Rudd made about the President elect in

0:13:45.920 --> 0:13:49.800
<v Speaker 1>the past resurfaced. Speaking from the APEX summit in Peru,

0:13:50.160 --> 0:13:53.920
<v Speaker 1>Alberzi described his first ten minute phone conversation with Trump

0:13:54.240 --> 0:13:57.959
<v Speaker 1>as very constructive and positive, and said that Kevin Rudd

0:13:58.120 --> 0:14:03.240
<v Speaker 1>was not mentioned. Meanwhile, Donald Trump has nominated oil and

0:14:03.360 --> 0:14:07.439
<v Speaker 1>gas industry executive Chris Wright, a staunch defender of fossil

0:14:07.440 --> 0:14:10.400
<v Speaker 1>fuel use, as his pick to lead the US Department

0:14:10.400 --> 0:14:13.920
<v Speaker 1>of Energy. Chris Wright is the founder and chief executive

0:14:13.960 --> 0:14:18.520
<v Speaker 1>of Liberty Energy, an oil filled services firm based in Denver, Colorado.

0:14:19.040 --> 0:14:23.520
<v Speaker 1>He's previously called climate change activists alarmist, and has likened

0:14:23.520 --> 0:14:28.800
<v Speaker 1>efforts by democrats to combat global warming to Soviet style communism.

0:14:29.040 --> 0:14:31.080
<v Speaker 1>I'm Ribby Jones. See tomorrow