Speaker 1: From Schwartz Media. I'm Ashlin McGee. This is seven am.
Speaker 1: When the final report from the Robodet Royal Commission landed,
Speaker 1: it was gathing of the entire scheme, the individuals who
Speaker 1: rolled it out, and the government policy that enabled it.
Speaker 1: The commissioner went to significant lengths to refer six people
Speaker 1: to at that point very fresh National Anti Corruption Commission
Speaker 1: the NAK. But last week the Corruption Commission said it
Speaker 1: wouldn't be investigating further, essentially saying it had nothing to add.
Speaker 1: So what's the motivation there? Why not take a swing
Speaker 1: at the architects of such a discredited and damaging scheme.
Speaker 1: Today the Saturday Paper senior report of Rick Morton on
Speaker 1: why no real people are being held to account and
Speaker 1: the impact that that has on victims. It's Monday, June tenth.
Speaker 2: Rick.
Speaker 1: Around this time last year, you broke a story that
Speaker 1: the Robutad Royal Commission made this huge call to delay
Speaker 1: handing down its findings. Can you take us back to
Speaker 1: that time and what you learned.
Speaker 2: Yeah, that was a pretty significant little tidbit actually at
Speaker 2: the time, because the robertedt Roy Commission was happening on
Speaker 2: an incredibly tight timeframe, they were still receiving documents from
Speaker 2: the Comwealth by the truckload, essentially while they were holding hearings,
Speaker 2: so they'd already been granted a delay or an extension
Speaker 2: of time. Really to finish writing the report.
Speaker 3: This Commission has to inquire and report, and an important
Speaker 3: part of the inquiry component is these public hearings because
Speaker 3: it's the opportunity to explore evidence in a public forum.
Speaker 4: But not many people and the.
Speaker 2: Commissioner Catherine Holmes wrote to the Attorney General Mark Dreyfus
Speaker 2: and requested another extension of time, this one by only
Speaker 2: seven days. So they were originally meant to report then
Speaker 2: on June thirty. This extension was asking for them to
Speaker 2: be able to report the following week, in the first
Speaker 2: week of July. Now that was significant because the only
Speaker 2: reason Commissioner Holmes, i reported at the time, wanted that
Speaker 2: extension was because the National Anti Corruption Commission did not
Speaker 2: take effect in law until July one. At that point
Speaker 2: she had formed a view it seems that she might
Speaker 2: potentially need to make referrals to the National Anti Coruption Commission,
Speaker 2: and that's why she wanted that one week extension. It
Speaker 2: was the only reason sheanced for it. I've seen the
Speaker 2: latter and that's why it was granted.
Speaker 5: This morning the government received the final report of the
Speaker 5: Royal Commission into the robodette scheme. The Government has publicly
Speaker 5: released this report as soon as it was tabled this
Speaker 5: morning and will now care.
Speaker 2: So she's making referrals to we know from the report,
Speaker 2: the National Anti Corruption Commission, the Australian Federal Police, the
Speaker 2: Australian Public Service Commission, and an Act Legal Professional Standard.
Speaker 5: SPOT recommends the referrals of individuals for civil action or
Speaker 5: criminal prosecution. I recommend that this additional chapter remain sealed
Speaker 5: and not be table with the rest of the report,
Speaker 5: so as not to prejudice a conduct of any future
Speaker 5: civil action or criminal prosecution.
Speaker 2: She ended up making six referrals of six people to
Speaker 2: the National Anti Corruption Commission for them to conduct their
Speaker 2: own inquiries.
Speaker 1: And so a year on from those referrals Catherine Holmes
Speaker 1: made to the NAC last week we learned what would
Speaker 1: ultimately happen to those people those referrals.
Speaker 2: What happened yet so they said nothing would happen. It's
Speaker 2: not a finding of no corruption, it's not a they've
Speaker 2: been doing work behind closed doors. And decided there's nothing
Speaker 2: to fore hear. What they've decided is that they're not
Speaker 2: going to look into it.
Speaker 4: After eleven months, the National Anti Corruption Commission has decided
Speaker 4: not to launch its own investigation into the actions of
Speaker 4: six public officials referred to it by the Robodet Royal Commission.
Speaker 2: So it's taken them as long to come out with
Speaker 2: this statement as it did for the entire rob Deet
Speaker 2: Royal Commission to conduct its inquiry and release a one
Speaker 2: thousand page report. So what they've said essentially is that
Speaker 2: we don't have any power as a National Anti Coruption Commission,
Speaker 2: so there'd be no value in us conducting an investigation
Speaker 2: when one was already conducted by the Royal Commission. We
Speaker 2: think the Royal Commission did a bang up job and
Speaker 2: there's really nothing else for us to do. Noting that
Speaker 2: they're out of the six public officials that were referred
Speaker 2: to the KNAK, five of them are currently the subject
Speaker 2: or have been the subject of a separate inquiry by
Speaker 2: the Australian Public Service Commission. So essentially they've said that's
Speaker 2: now the most appropriate avenue for some form of remedy
Speaker 2: or sanction, and we don't want to. They actually use
Speaker 2: this word, which I found quite incredible. They were conscious
Speaker 2: of the risk of inconsistent outcomes and the oppression involved,
Speaker 2: the depression in subjecting individuals to repeated investigations. So they
Speaker 2: kind of threw up their hands and said, we're we're
Speaker 2: out of the race.
Speaker 1: And so Rick, If the KNACK has decided not to
Speaker 1: investigate further, why did Catherine Holmes think these referrals were
Speaker 1: so necessary? Why were they important enough, do you think
Speaker 1: in her mind to delay the entire role commission.
Speaker 2: She formed the view that, given what she knew about
Speaker 2: the National Anti Corruption Commission legislation, given what she knew
Speaker 2: about their remit, and given what she knew about the
Speaker 2: conduct of the individuals involved in her inquiry, that the
Speaker 2: KNACK was one of the body's best place to deal
Speaker 2: with the individual accountability of people who were involved in
Speaker 2: robodet Bearing in mind, of course, another thing that she
Speaker 2: would have known, which is the Istrailed Public Service Commission
Speaker 2: has next to no power to do anything of note.
Speaker 2: What they do do and have done so far, I
Speaker 2: might add, is investigate current and former public servants. But
Speaker 2: they can only really issue sanctions against current public servants
Speaker 2: and none of those people have lost their jobs in
Speaker 2: the Australian public service. Something has been found against them
Speaker 2: and they continue to act in those roles in the
Speaker 2: Australian public Service. Commissioner Homes, no doubt, I don't want
Speaker 2: to speak for her, but no doubt saw that there
Speaker 2: was a need for the National Anti Corruption Commission to
Speaker 2: value add to the investigations that we're done elsewhere. And
Speaker 2: of course people will wonder, quite rightly, well, why didn't
Speaker 2: Commissioner Cathern Holmes just make these findings herself? Why didn't
Speaker 2: she say so and so did X in their corrupt
Speaker 2: And it's precisely because she's very esteem judged that she
Speaker 2: didn't do any of those things, because the Royal Commissioner
Speaker 2: has a very specific purpose in the Australian context, which
Speaker 2: is it's a fact finding thing. It is not the
Speaker 2: job of a raw commission, as much as we might
Speaker 2: wish it was. It is not the job in legislation
Speaker 2: for them to make findings of guilt or criminal misconduct
Speaker 2: or even civil misconduct in a corruption sense. It's their
Speaker 2: job to lay out the facts and to make findings
Speaker 2: about certain behaviors which can then form the basis of
Speaker 2: other investigations and referrals, which is precisely what Gavin Holmes did.
Speaker 2: And of course now the NACK says, not only are
Speaker 2: they not going to look at it, but they're not
Speaker 2: going to make any findings. And of course the prospect
Speaker 2: now for individual accountability is vanishing on the horizon.
Speaker 1: Rick, You've been speaking to a whole lot of people
Speaker 1: since this decision from the NAC came out. How's it landed?
Speaker 2: It's gutted people. I was talking to Jenny Miller not
Speaker 2: long after the statement came out. She's Reese CAUs those
Speaker 2: mother killed himself after receiving a robodette that he never owed.
Speaker 2: She's been promised something at every turn, and she has
Speaker 2: fought and fought, and she's been proved right at every turn,
Speaker 2: right back when she was fighting in twenty seventeen for
Speaker 2: answers to this, she knew, in her heart of hearts
Speaker 2: that the robodet had something to do with it, because
Speaker 2: Reese had put the debt letters on its fridge, and
Speaker 2: she knew the money was weighing on his mind. And
Speaker 2: she was gassed at every turn and every turn. Finally,
Speaker 2: when somebody's bent their will, and you know, an outso
Speaker 2: or commission or there's been inquiry or some kind of
Speaker 2: fact finding mission and she's been proved right, but then
Speaker 2: she's been denied justice. And it's happening again and again
Speaker 2: and again. And we've ended the week with an update
Speaker 2: from the Austraian Public Service Commission that seven public servants
Speaker 2: have had fineh's made against them and they're still employed.
Speaker 2: What in this system where I mean, can somebody show
Speaker 2: me a single consequence of note? I can't see one.
Speaker 2: I mean to me, this just looks like a flag
Speaker 2: that says you can do a little bit of corruption,
Speaker 2: you can do a little bit of harm, you can
Speaker 2: do a lot of harm. And the worst that's going
Speaker 2: to happen in some cases is you have to resign
Speaker 2: from your four hundred thousand dollars a year job.
Speaker 1: After the break the options available to the National Anti
Speaker 1: Corruption Commission and why it didn't take them.
Speaker 6: And can you tell us why are for thirty five
Speaker 6: million dollars exercise we don't deserve to see who's being
Speaker 6: referred as it include former ministers for exam. I understand
Speaker 6: your question very well, and when I first read the
Speaker 6: Commissioner Holmes's letter. I hate conflicting emotions because I have
Speaker 6: lots of people out there who feel it will anyone
Speaker 6: ever get punished, but to put not to elegant to
Speaker 6: point on it to the people worry about that there
Speaker 6: are adverse findings. There are bodies who are now being
Speaker 6: asked with a brief of evidence to look at these matters.
Speaker 6: There will be accountability, but I have to say one
Speaker 6: of the big lessons of robo Dad is if you
Speaker 6: do things without proper process, you might end up inadvertently
Speaker 6: letting off some of the very people for whom we
Speaker 6: want accountability.
Speaker 1: Rick the Knack has decided not to pursue investigations that
Speaker 1: were referred to it by the Royal Commission. But take
Speaker 1: me through what it could have done, what the options were,
Speaker 1: and also how it defines corruption.
Speaker 2: I think that's a critical question, Mirn, because a lot
Speaker 2: of people seem to think that corruption is an old
Speaker 2: fashioned brown paper bag receiving cash under a tree behind
Speaker 2: Parliament House kind of thing. That is not the definition
Speaker 2: of corruption that is used by the National Anti Corruption
Speaker 2: Commission or that is enshrined in the legislation for the NAP.
Speaker 2: The Commissioner has the following functions right, this is section seventeen.
Speaker 2: Sorry to get really your technical, but I think it matters.
Speaker 2: The Commissioner has the function to detect corrupt conduct, to
Speaker 2: conduct preliminary investigations inter corruption issues or possible corruption issues,
Speaker 2: to conduct corruption investigations into those issues that could involve
Speaker 2: corrupt conduct that is serious also stemic, So to be
Speaker 2: perfectly clear, they can investigate conduct of any person that
Speaker 2: adversely affects a public officials honest or impartial exercise of
Speaker 2: powers or the performance of their official duties. They can
Speaker 2: investigate a public official that involves a breach of public trust.
Speaker 2: That's critical for Robodot I would have thought. They can
Speaker 2: investigate a public official that involves the abuse of office.
Speaker 2: The Commission of Catherine has made findings that some politicians
Speaker 2: did abuse the power of their office in her report.
Speaker 2: And finally, the nat can investigate a public official or
Speaker 2: form a public official that involves the misuse of documents
Speaker 2: or information that they gained in their capacity as a
Speaker 2: public official. Those are the definitions right, and they are
Speaker 2: required to report on corruption investigations and any public inquiries
Speaker 2: they hold, and if they need to, they can refer
Speaker 2: corruption issues to Commonwealth agencies and state and territory government entities.
Speaker 2: So of course we've got the KNACK saying, well, actually,
Speaker 2: you know, it's better for the other agencies and investigatory
Speaker 2: bodies to do their investigations, and we're kind of finished here.
Speaker 2: You know, the true pure value of the National Anti
Speaker 2: Corruption Commission is the value of actually making a finding
Speaker 2: of crop conduct. That is one of the key accountability
Speaker 2: measures in public life is to make sure that when
Speaker 2: people do the wrong thing, their behavior is labeled accordingly
Speaker 2: so that the rest of us can make decisions. And
Speaker 2: I think the KNACK has completely put that to the side,
Speaker 2: or they've not thought about it at all, But that is,
Speaker 2: it's a crucial feature of what they're meant to do.
Speaker 1: And so what does this decision not to pursue this
Speaker 1: particular amount to tell you about how the NAC sees
Speaker 1: itself and understands its role.
Speaker 2: I mean, it does baffle me, I must say, because
Speaker 2: this is their first public kind of stake in the
Speaker 2: ground saying this is who we are, and who we
Speaker 2: are apparently is a National Anti Corruption Commission that is
Speaker 2: anti corruption commissions Like they're essentially saying we don't have
Speaker 2: a role to play in detecting, defining, determining corruption, you
Speaker 2: don't have any power and therefore we're not going to
Speaker 2: make any effort to look into this and actually do
Speaker 2: the thing that we're charged with doing, which is detecting
Speaker 2: corrupt conduct, defining corrupt conduct, and then putting it in
Speaker 2: the public arena to warn others against engaging instantlar corrupt conduct.
Speaker 2: But without those entities, without those bodies, you don't have
Speaker 2: civic pressure on people who can do the wrong thing
Speaker 2: and do do the wrong thing because they know they
Speaker 2: won't get caught. I just, yeah, it boggles the mind
Speaker 2: looking at that statement. It's kind of like, I don't know,
Speaker 2: it's like a cattle farmer that won't sell cows, Like,
Speaker 2: what is your job? What is the point of view?
Speaker 2: They're just it doesn't make any sense to me.
Speaker 5: Rick.
Speaker 1: It's really common to hear politicians, television presenters, all kinds
Speaker 1: of different people stand up now and call Robudet what
Speaker 1: it was, a cruel or legal betrayal of Australians that
Speaker 1: cost lives.
Speaker 5: It was wrong, it was illegal, It should never have happened,
Speaker 5: and it should never happen again.
Speaker 1: Robodet will go down as one of the worst policies
Speaker 1: in recent history.
Speaker 6: They were literally shaken down by their own government, by
Speaker 6: a government who didn't have the power to raise debt
Speaker 6: notices against them, and in fact they did break the law.
Speaker 1: But now we're in this situation where we might not
Speaker 1: see a single person held accountable for that. Where are
Speaker 1: those voices now?
Speaker 2: So people will still get up and say it was
Speaker 2: cruel and it was illegal, which it was. It was
Speaker 2: not consistent with the law, and they knew that it
Speaker 2: was illegal from the very beginning. And they will say
Speaker 2: that it was a betrayal that cost lives more lives
Speaker 2: than we will ever know, which is all true. And
Speaker 2: I was thinking about it, and I'm like, well, what
Speaker 2: do I say, because I don't think there's any value
Speaker 2: in me being over the top emotional about it, because
Speaker 2: people then will come back and say, well, let's think
Speaker 2: about this rationally. So let's think about it rationally. You
Speaker 2: cannot have an illegal scheme that affected for one hundred
Speaker 2: and sixty thousand people and no people responsible. You cannot
Speaker 2: have a scheme that required literally hundreds of people, hundreds
Speaker 2: and hundreds of people to operate, dozens and dozens of
Speaker 2: people in decision making Roles, who knew at least partly
Speaker 2: that this scheme was not just illegal but mathematically inaccurate.
Speaker 2: You cannot have a scheme under all of those conditions
Speaker 2: and with all of those people involved, and have no
Speaker 2: one actually held accountable. So a lot didn't exist when
Speaker 2: Robot was happening. But what we have now is the
Speaker 2: National Anticruption Commission. The KNACK was set up for a purpose,
Speaker 2: which was to detect corupt conduct, and now doesn't seem
Speaker 2: to want to do that on one of the easiest
Speaker 2: cases it could possibly have, and one of the cases
Speaker 2: where it was the most necessary. Because great, the Australian
Speaker 2: Public Service Commission's going to flog people with a letters leave.
Speaker 2: That's not justice, that's the public service investigating itself. You know,
Speaker 2: people will get up and say it was a great betrayal,
Speaker 2: and it was, but it's very hard to find someone
Speaker 2: like a politician or a senior about seven to get
Speaker 2: up and say, well, actually, the greater betrayal still is
Speaker 2: that we have a system that refuses to acknowledge that
Speaker 2: something went wrong, that wants to think that you know,
Speaker 2: it was a few bad apples and everyone else is fine.
Speaker 2: But then neither wants to do anything about the few
Speaker 2: bad apples, nor change the architecture of the system in
Speaker 2: any meaningful way, in any meaningful way whatsoever.
Speaker 1: Rick, thanks so much for your time today, and thank
Speaker 1: you also for your reporting on this over so many years,
Speaker 1: because you've given a voice to so many people on
Speaker 1: this story and your reporting's being critical, So thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank fash I appreciate that.
Speaker 1: Also in the news today, British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak
Speaker 1: canceled opportunities for journalists to ask him questions during his
Speaker 1: public appearances over the weekend after it was revealed it
Speaker 1: decided to leave D Day commemorations early. Sunak left the
Speaker 1: memorial marking eighty years since the invasion of Normandy and
Speaker 1: the liberation of Europe from the Nazis so he could
Speaker 1: be on time for a television interview where he made
Speaker 1: the case for his reelection. And four hostages taken from
Speaker 1: the Nova Music festival on October seven have been freed
Speaker 1: and have been reunited with their families after an Israeli
Speaker 1: operation in central Gaza on Saturday night local time. Airstrikes
Speaker 1: and grand assaults in the area during the operation killed
Speaker 1: between one hundred and two hundred and ten Palestinians, according
Speaker 1: to statements from local health authorities. That's all from the
Speaker 1: team at seven am for today. My name's Ashlan McGee.
Speaker 1: Thanks for your company and I'll see you again tomorrow