Speaker 1: I'm Ruby Jones, and you're listening to seven AM. The
Speaker 1: National Anti Corruption Commission has over two hundred employees, an
Speaker 1: annual budget of sixty million dollars, and has received more
Speaker 1: than five thousand referrals. It also hasn't made a single
Speaker 1: major finding in the two years it's been operating, and
Speaker 1: adding to questions around performance and credibility. It was recently
Speaker 1: revealed that the NAC's chief Commissioner, Paul Brereton, has been
Speaker 1: consulting for the Defense Force while leading the Federal Watchdog,
Speaker 1: which has oversight of the df. Today journalist Nick Fake
Speaker 1: on the missteps and mismanagement of the NAC and whether
Speaker 1: it has any hope of regaining public trust. It's Monday,
Speaker 1: October twenty seven, So Nick, let's begin by going back
Speaker 1: to when the NAC was first established. Was of course
Speaker 1: one of the Albanese government's first acts when they took power,
Speaker 1: and it was promised because of this widespread distrust at
Speaker 1: the time in political processes and in politicians themselves. So
Speaker 1: take me back to that moment and to why the
Speaker 1: KNACK was needed.
Speaker 2: Yeah, Ruby, voters anticipated the KNACK would bring much needed
Speaker 2: integrity and oversight to public affairs in Australia. They expected
Speaker 2: that would bring scrutiny to allegations around you know, for example,
Speaker 2: the sports lots affair, and there were a whole bunch
Speaker 2: of discretionary grants schemes under the Coalition government. There was
Speaker 2: the Eastern Australia Agriculture eighty million dollar water sales to
Speaker 2: the Commonwealth that was the subject of controversy.
Speaker 3: Barnaby Joyce is embroiled in a controversial eighty million dollar
Speaker 3: water buyback that he oversaw in twenty seventeen from a
Speaker 3: Cayman Islands based company co founded by the now Energy Minister.
Speaker 2: There was a web of unusual financially interactions around Liberal
Speaker 2: Minister Stuart Robert and Synergy three sixty.
Speaker 4: A former employee of the Synergy three to sixty lobbying
Speaker 4: firm has made explosive written allegations to a Parliamentary inquiry
Speaker 4: about dealings involving Stuart Robert and the company. An arrangement
Speaker 4: was designed to facilitate the flow of funds through United
Speaker 4: Marketing and Onwood to Stuart Robert.
Speaker 2: There were a whole bunch of allegations around home affairs,
Speaker 2: huge offshore detention contracts and corruption allegations around those.
Speaker 5: Opposition later Pizza Dutton was Home Affairs Minister at the
Speaker 5: time some of these contracts being awarded, but Home Affairs
Speaker 5: Department Secretary Michael Pizzullo told Senate Estimates in twenty twenty
Speaker 5: one that these contracts had nothing to do with the minister.
Speaker 2: There was the government's thirty million dollar acquisition of land
Speaker 2: near Western Sydney Airport that was valued at three million
Speaker 2: dollars a year earlier, and then there was a raft
Speaker 2: of scandals related to defense contracts. But theseus I think
Speaker 2: probably the tip of the iceberg. The KNACK hasn't made
Speaker 2: a dent in any of them.
Speaker 1: When the KNACK was set up, there was all of
Speaker 1: these questions and serious concern around the decision that was
Speaker 1: made at the time to not have public hearings embedded
Speaker 1: into the way the NAC functions unless it was decided
Speaker 1: that there was quote exceptional circumstances. So, now that we
Speaker 1: are more than two years into the NAC's operation, tell
Speaker 1: me how that has played out.
Speaker 2: Well, there's been no hearings so far, no public hearings
Speaker 2: at all, and I think the ongoing lack of transparency
Speaker 2: which was built into the design of the Knack by
Speaker 2: the Albanese government, it's become a running sore. So Jason
Speaker 2: Katsukis was a reporter who wrote in the Saturvey paper
Speaker 2: recently that Albanesi had personally overruled a push by the
Speaker 2: then Attorney General Mark Dreyfus to give the Knack wider
Speaker 2: discretion to hold public hearings, but Albanesi reportedly insisted that
Speaker 2: hearings be held in private unless exceptional circumstances existed. But
Speaker 2: so far apparently there are no exceptional circumstances that there
Speaker 2: haven't been any public hearings, and I think it's been
Speaker 2: to the detriment of the organization's reputation.
Speaker 1: And what do we know about what it's actually investigated.
Speaker 6: Well, very little.
Speaker 2: Actually, they've got five thousand referrals, They've done a bunch
Speaker 2: of investigations. They say that they've got thirty eight corruption
Speaker 2: investigations underway, including twelve joint investigations. They've finalized ten investigations.
Speaker 2: It become clear in nine of them that corrupt conduct
Speaker 2: wouldn't be found. So essentially we have an organization that
Speaker 2: has over two hundred employees and an annual budget of
Speaker 2: over sixty million dollars, but it's yet to initiate and
Speaker 2: land a single major corruption finding.
Speaker 6: So far, it's landed.
Speaker 2: On one low level bribe case involving a Western Sydney
Speaker 2: Airport procurement manager. So I don't think anyone could say
Speaker 2: it's been a strong start the integrity watchdog.
Speaker 1: And one of the strongest criticisms of the KNACK was
Speaker 1: around its decision to not take on the Robodet scandal
Speaker 1: when it was referred to it the commissioner, Paul Bereton.
Speaker 1: He was found to have engaged in officer misconduct in
Speaker 1: relation to this perceived conflict of interest around that decision,
Speaker 1: and as it stands now, the NAC is looking into robodebt.
Speaker 1: Another person has been brought on to investigate whether anyone
Speaker 1: acted coruptly or not. So if you look at that episode,
Speaker 1: which happened very early on in the history of the NAC,
Speaker 1: how damaging do you think it's been for the reputation.
Speaker 2: I'd say that the Robodet investigation has been both the
Speaker 2: highest profile of the next cases and the highest profile failure.
Speaker 2: It's been thoroughly mismanaged. I think it continues to cost
Speaker 2: them dearly, Like both financially and in terms of its reputation.
Speaker 2: So there were revelations of previous Defense Force links between
Speaker 2: Commissioner Brereton and the former DHS Secretary Katherine Campbell, and
Speaker 2: that this had undermined the nax's initial decision not to
Speaker 2: take on the ROBODAD investigation. But apparently even the damage
Speaker 2: caused by that perceived conflict had failed to convince Breton
Speaker 2: to sort out his Defense relationship. And so we've learned
Speaker 2: recently that Brereton hadn't even informed the nac CEO that
Speaker 2: he was doing ongoing consulting work. Breton stayed on as
Speaker 2: a ranking officer with the ADF in order to keep
Speaker 2: consulting with the ADF, and it appears he hasn't been
Speaker 2: keeping the nac CEO informed of his own consulting with
Speaker 2: the ADF. This puts him in a completely conflicted situation.
Speaker 1: Proceedings and resume with the National Anti Corruption Commission. I
Speaker 1: believe we have an opening statement.
Speaker 2: So there was the Senate Estimates hearing recently where the
Speaker 2: nac CEO, Philip Reed, attempted to exonerate Breton by explaining
Speaker 2: that it was unpaid consulting work.
Speaker 7: Will provide the advice on a needs basis.
Speaker 6: That's a role.
Speaker 8: That's work. Providing advice is work, mister.
Speaker 7: Reed, Well, you know each of us will have different
Speaker 7: words to describe this work.
Speaker 6: Now.
Speaker 2: The Green Senator David Shubridge raised the obvious criticisms, How
Speaker 2: could Breton be both a senior officer of the ADF
Speaker 2: and the head of the organization task with investigating it?
Speaker 8: Being part of providing high level support to ministers defense
Speaker 8: and external government agencies is a significant thing, isn't it. Well,
Speaker 8: he's providing high level support to Minister's Defense and External
Speaker 8: Goverment Agency.
Speaker 7: Senator, he's providing advice to the igad D.
Speaker 8: Which they are in turn, that's providing to Minister Defense
Speaker 8: and external government agencies. That is a significant body of work.
Speaker 6: Mister Reid.
Speaker 2: Shuebridge pointed to the fact that there'd been one hundred
Speaker 2: and twenty active referrals to the NAC on defense related matters.
Speaker 2: I mean, defense procurement are the largest, some of the
Speaker 2: largest contracts that governments ever get into, and we have
Speaker 2: a Chief Commissioner who should be recusing himself from all
Speaker 2: of them.
Speaker 1: What have the KNACS said about how they handle this?
Speaker 2: The NAC CEO. He told Estimates that Breton will recuse himself.
Speaker 7: That he will then refuse himself from if those matters
Speaker 7: come forward, if matters come forward from those areas, those units.
Speaker 2: We know that Brereton recused himself from at least six
Speaker 2: of these, but you know what about the other one
Speaker 2: hundred and fourteen And who's choosing which ones he recused from?
Speaker 2: Is that him choosing? So you know, just a reminder
Speaker 2: to listeners. As an example, there's a forty six billion
Speaker 2: dollar naval frigate deal. It's been referred to the KNACK
Speaker 2: for investigation. Is Breton overseeing this or not? We literally
Speaker 2: don't know, Huebridge said to the nac CEO at Senate Estimates.
Speaker 2: He said, you took it on notice and you didn't
Speaker 2: advise of his work with the ADF And because of
Speaker 2: him failing to tell you that, you've misled the committee
Speaker 2: and you've misled Parliament. So I suddenly you have a
Speaker 2: situation where the nac CEO is misleading Parliament because he's
Speaker 2: been misinformed by the Chief Commissioner of the.
Speaker 7: NAK when the question was asked and when the response
Speaker 7: was provided, I was unaware.
Speaker 8: Yes, because the commissioner puts you in that situation by
Speaker 8: not telling you. And again, I don't put the fault
Speaker 8: at your feet, mister Reid. I put the fault at
Speaker 8: the feet of the commissioner of the National Anti Corruption
Speaker 8: Commission who wasn't being transparent with you.
Speaker 2: Senator David Pocock he joined in. He had similar criticisms.
Speaker 9: Like, why not to we allow a commissioner who's on
Speaker 9: eight hundred thousand dollars a year to aging things which
Speaker 9: potentially mean that we're going to have to get up
Speaker 9: someone else to do the job that he's been paid
Speaker 9: so much. It's just you've got to understand mystery, this
Speaker 9: this is this is bonkers. If you're out there in
Speaker 9: the public and I'm it's it's it's hugely frustrating.
Speaker 2: We're going to have to get someone else to look
Speaker 2: at what the what the Commission is supposed to be doing.
Speaker 6: It's crazy.
Speaker 1: Coming up why some whistle blowers are regretting even contacting
Speaker 1: the KNACK. You've been speaking to whistle blowers, to people
Speaker 1: who have taken concerns that they might have around potential
Speaker 1: corruption to the Knacks. So can you tell me a
Speaker 1: bit about their experiences and what they're telling you about
Speaker 1: how seriously their complaints are being taken, and their impressions
Speaker 1: of how well the KNACK is functioning at the moment.
Speaker 2: Yeah. I've spoken to several whistle blower in recent months
Speaker 2: who remain in the dark about information they provided to
Speaker 2: the KNACK. So they contacted the KNACK wanting to spill
Speaker 2: the beans on allegations of wrongdoing. They don't know where
Speaker 2: their allegations are, whether they're being investigated, whether they're even
Speaker 2: being taken seriously. So many still they feel unsafe having
Speaker 2: put this information to this commission and not knowing what's
Speaker 2: happened with it. And they're not the only ones, transparency experts.
Speaker 2: A growing number of politicians, including those who initially supported
Speaker 2: the formation of the KNACK, have become quite outspoken in
Speaker 2: recent months in their dismay about what's not happening.
Speaker 1: And can we just come back to robodat because that is, obviously,
Speaker 1: I think the most important and highest profile case that
Speaker 1: the KNACK has been involved in. Where is that investigation
Speaker 1: up to now? And do we know do we have
Speaker 1: any sense of how that might play out?
Speaker 2: Yeah, SOAK rebooted its investigation after the inspector the NAC
Speaker 2: inspector Gail Ferness said, look, it's been mismanaged.
Speaker 6: We want you to relook at it.
Speaker 2: The KNACK brought on Jeffrey Nettle to relook at it,
Speaker 2: and then they rebooted the investigation and they said, look,
Speaker 2: we will.
Speaker 6: Look into it. And it's been running.
Speaker 2: This new investigation has been running since at least July,
Speaker 2: but we're none the wiser. So other than that it's
Speaker 2: cost over a million dollars and that it'll run into
Speaker 2: next year at least, we really don't know where it is.
Speaker 2: And this is a problem for the NAC generally. There's
Speaker 2: such a lack of transparency around what they're doing on
Speaker 2: all fronts.
Speaker 1: And Nick, I mean, there is really only the political
Speaker 1: will to set something like this up a corruption watchdog
Speaker 1: very rarely. I mean it took multiple scandals, pressure from
Speaker 1: Independence trying to enter the political system. It was a
Speaker 1: real moment in time that I think meant that we
Speaker 1: got a federal Anti Corruption Commission in the first place. So,
Speaker 1: given what you're saying about the ways in which it's
Speaker 1: failing at the very kind of first hurdle of transparency,
Speaker 1: what do you think this means for public trust?
Speaker 2: Well, I think a lot of people agree that the
Speaker 2: nacts yet to prove itself in any way, and it
Speaker 2: appears hamstrung by its own processes, by its own missteps,
Speaker 2: its own commitment to secrecy, and you know, I think
Speaker 2: it's incumbent on both the alb and Easy government and
Speaker 2: Brariton to restore its reputation in whatever way they can.
Speaker 1: What would it take at this point in time to
Speaker 1: restore any public faith.
Speaker 2: Well, personally, I think it just needs to show that
Speaker 2: it can take on high profile cases and that it
Speaker 2: can deliver results. It needs to show that it's above politics,
Speaker 2: that it can make uncomfortable findings. I don't think people
Speaker 2: are interested in low level misdemeanors or slap on the risk,
Speaker 2: and I think so far all the public scene are
Speaker 2: these endless discussions about how the commissioners a conflicted or
Speaker 2: unwilling to speak about their investigations. I mean, how's that
Speaker 2: supposed to assure the public. The whole point of an
Speaker 2: anti corruption commission is to bring transparency, and on that
Speaker 2: front it's completely failed. I'm not sure the NAK can
Speaker 2: regain trust unless it produces results like really soon, and personally,
Speaker 2: I'm not sure that will.
Speaker 6: Happen under the leadership of Paul Burton.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I think the public will need to see results
Speaker 2: or resignations.
Speaker 1: Well, Nick, thank you so much for your time.
Speaker 6: Thanks Ruby.
Speaker 1: Also in the news today, Prime Minister Anthony Alberanezi is
Speaker 1: in Malaysia for the Asian Meeting of World Leaders before
Speaker 1: he heads to South Korea for the Pacific Economic Forum.
Speaker 1: Ahead of the meetings, which focus on regional security and trade,
Speaker 1: the Prime Minister alluded to an ongoing campaign to have
Speaker 1: the United States remove tariffs on Australian goods. Prime Minister
Speaker 1: Abenezi failed to secure an exemption on US import taxes
Speaker 1: of ten percent on most of its goods and fifty
Speaker 1: percent for aluminium and steel, but he says he will
Speaker 1: engage the US President at the meetings, whose attendance is
Speaker 1: an unusual move that signals the United States rising interest
Speaker 1: in the region. And National Senator Mat Canavan will present
Speaker 1: details of his report into net zero to the party today,
Speaker 1: but will not include economic modeling of the cost of
Speaker 1: dumping the target. National's Deputy leader and outspoken NET zero opponent,
Speaker 1: Mat Canavan led the review with his Senate colleague Ross Cadell,
Speaker 1: but has flagged the Discussions over the party's position were
Speaker 1: likely to be ongoing, and it could take time for the.
Speaker 6: Matter to be settled.
Speaker 1: I'm Ruby Jones. This is seven am.
Speaker 6: Thanks for listening
Speaker 2: And