WEBVTT - ‘A serious mess’: The crisis inside the corruption watchdog

0:00:01.240 --> 0:00:05.080
<v Speaker 1>Do you accept responsibility for not telling your chief executive

0:00:05.120 --> 0:00:09.200
<v Speaker 1>officer that you've done ten hours of work for defense

0:00:09.600 --> 0:00:13.240
<v Speaker 1>during work hours with the NAG. Do you accept responsibility

0:00:13.280 --> 0:00:16.360
<v Speaker 1>for not telling your chief executive officer about the fact

0:00:16.400 --> 0:00:19.520
<v Speaker 1>that you had that ongoing role and you were doing

0:00:19.560 --> 0:00:22.080
<v Speaker 1>the ongoing work for defense because you didn't tell him

0:00:22.120 --> 0:00:26.200
<v Speaker 1>either of those things, did you No? Do you accept

0:00:26.239 --> 0:00:27.280
<v Speaker 1>responsibility for that?

0:00:27.760 --> 0:00:27.840
<v Speaker 2>No.

0:00:28.560 --> 0:00:32.760
<v Speaker 3>Paul Brereton, the outgoing head of Australia's National Anti Corruption Commission,

0:00:33.360 --> 0:00:36.680
<v Speaker 3>was grilled at Senate Estimates this week. Breton led the

0:00:36.680 --> 0:00:40.920
<v Speaker 3>body tasked with investigating serious corruption in the Commonwealth public sector,

0:00:41.320 --> 0:00:44.120
<v Speaker 3>but his time as its first Commissioner has ended in

0:00:44.200 --> 0:00:48.519
<v Speaker 3>a crisis of confidence over Robodet, his ongoing Defense links,

0:00:48.880 --> 0:00:52.800
<v Speaker 3>and whether the watchdog properly managed conflicts of interest inside

0:00:52.800 --> 0:00:53.760
<v Speaker 3>its own walls.

0:00:54.160 --> 0:00:57.800
<v Speaker 4>What lessons arise for the KNACK from this Robodet controversy.

0:00:57.960 --> 0:01:00.840
<v Speaker 4>The lesson from that was that on obviously would have

0:01:00.880 --> 0:01:03.960
<v Speaker 4>been better had I had nothing to do with that

0:01:04.040 --> 0:01:05.119
<v Speaker 4>matter at all.

0:01:05.440 --> 0:01:08.880
<v Speaker 3>From the outset, Breton says he's become a distraction from

0:01:08.920 --> 0:01:12.679
<v Speaker 3>the Commission's work, but his resignation begs the question, do

0:01:12.800 --> 0:01:19.920
<v Speaker 3>the next problems end with him. I'm will eat Ali.

0:01:20.400 --> 0:01:25.840
<v Speaker 3>You're listening to seven AM today Independent journalist Nick Fike

0:01:26.000 --> 0:01:29.680
<v Speaker 3>on how Australia's anti corruption watchdog ended up in crisis

0:01:30.240 --> 0:01:38.360
<v Speaker 3>and whether it can recover. It's Friday, May twenty ninth.

0:01:43.880 --> 0:01:44.119
<v Speaker 5>Nick.

0:01:44.160 --> 0:01:46.399
<v Speaker 3>That was quite a showdown I think you can say,

0:01:46.920 --> 0:01:51.600
<v Speaker 3>between Paul Breton and some senators in the Senate Estimates inquiry.

0:01:52.120 --> 0:01:55.360
<v Speaker 3>But before that, I want to go back to twenty

0:01:55.400 --> 0:01:59.400
<v Speaker 3>sixteen with the Brereton Inquiry into war crimes in Afghanistan,

0:01:59.400 --> 0:02:01.160
<v Speaker 3>because that's into involved, isn't.

0:02:01.000 --> 0:02:03.040
<v Speaker 2>It It is it's the start of a long story.

0:02:03.160 --> 0:02:06.680
<v Speaker 5>So the Commissioner of the NAC is Paul Brereton, and

0:02:06.760 --> 0:02:11.080
<v Speaker 5>he was also conducting the Afghanistan War Crimes Inquiry started

0:02:11.120 --> 0:02:13.440
<v Speaker 5>in twenty sixteen, ran to twenty twenty. That was for

0:02:13.480 --> 0:02:17.720
<v Speaker 5>the Inspector General of the ADF. He produced the Brereton Report.

0:02:18.040 --> 0:02:20.560
<v Speaker 5>He was also a major general in the Army Reserve.

0:02:21.720 --> 0:02:25.160
<v Speaker 5>He went on, obviously to be appointed as the inaugural

0:02:25.240 --> 0:02:31.000
<v Speaker 5>Commissioner of the NAC and that relationship, his relationship with

0:02:31.040 --> 0:02:35.280
<v Speaker 5>the ADF was the foundation of a series of conflicts,

0:02:36.000 --> 0:02:38.840
<v Speaker 5>and he had a professional association with some of the

0:02:38.919 --> 0:02:42.400
<v Speaker 5>subjects that he was investigating at the NAC. But it

0:02:42.440 --> 0:02:44.840
<v Speaker 5>turns out that it was not just an affiliation. He

0:02:44.960 --> 0:02:49.680
<v Speaker 5>was doing ongoing consulting work with the Inspector General's Office,

0:02:50.240 --> 0:02:53.680
<v Speaker 5>and he also had a close association. In fact, occasionally

0:02:53.680 --> 0:02:56.839
<v Speaker 5>he was termed a personal association with Katherine Campbell, who

0:02:56.919 --> 0:02:59.560
<v Speaker 5>was the subject of the Robodet inquiry. She was one

0:02:59.600 --> 0:03:02.280
<v Speaker 5>of the sixth who was referred to the KNACK over

0:03:02.400 --> 0:03:06.840
<v Speaker 5>robo debt. So in multiple ways the Commissioner of the

0:03:06.880 --> 0:03:10.280
<v Speaker 5>KNACK was conflicted, or there was a perceived conflict or

0:03:10.600 --> 0:03:14.079
<v Speaker 5>the potential for a conflict in terms of his previous

0:03:14.160 --> 0:03:17.080
<v Speaker 5>roles and his current role. That's been the basis of

0:03:17.200 --> 0:03:20.760
<v Speaker 5>so much controversy and I think is at the heart

0:03:20.840 --> 0:03:22.480
<v Speaker 5>of his resignation this week.

0:03:22.800 --> 0:03:24.799
<v Speaker 3>So tell us about what we saw on Tuesday night

0:03:25.040 --> 0:03:26.120
<v Speaker 3>in Senate estimates.

0:03:26.440 --> 0:03:28.240
<v Speaker 5>So the background is that a few weeks ago, the

0:03:28.240 --> 0:03:32.040
<v Speaker 5>Green Senator David Chubridge moved a successful Senate motion he

0:03:32.160 --> 0:03:35.800
<v Speaker 5>directed Brereton and the three other the KNACK deputy commissioners

0:03:35.800 --> 0:03:38.240
<v Speaker 5>to attend budget essenates this week to give evidence and

0:03:38.280 --> 0:03:42.600
<v Speaker 5>to answer questions. On Monday, though, Breton announced his resignation,

0:03:42.920 --> 0:03:47.680
<v Speaker 5>taking effect on six July. There's still speculation as to

0:03:47.720 --> 0:03:50.040
<v Speaker 5>why he resigned, but the pressure was rising on a

0:03:50.120 --> 0:03:54.040
<v Speaker 5>number of fronts, some of which we've discussed, and Breton

0:03:54.080 --> 0:03:57.200
<v Speaker 5>had earlier told Parliament the Knack had also said that

0:03:57.240 --> 0:04:00.760
<v Speaker 5>he'd resigned his position before becoming the NAC Commision, but

0:04:00.800 --> 0:04:04.000
<v Speaker 5>this wasn't true, as we've discussed, he was still commissioning.

0:04:04.560 --> 0:04:07.119
<v Speaker 5>And we know that Breton was currently under an investigation

0:04:07.320 --> 0:04:11.800
<v Speaker 5>by the oversight Gail Furness. She's the KNACK Inspector, a

0:04:11.880 --> 0:04:14.240
<v Speaker 5>kind of oversight role that she has. She had an

0:04:14.280 --> 0:04:18.920
<v Speaker 5>investigation running into his defense ties and that was what

0:04:19.320 --> 0:04:22.320
<v Speaker 5>primarily was the basis of a series of quite testing

0:04:22.480 --> 0:04:27.920
<v Speaker 5>questions between Breton and David Shubridge and Senator Pocock also.

0:04:28.040 --> 0:04:32.840
<v Speaker 6>Commissioner, can you surely not see that Australians who watch

0:04:32.920 --> 0:04:39.280
<v Speaker 6>this the commissioner of our highest integrity body, and your

0:04:39.360 --> 0:04:45.080
<v Speaker 6>inability to take any responsibility at any turn to throw

0:04:45.120 --> 0:04:48.960
<v Speaker 6>the CEO under the bus to just conseque me not?

0:04:49.240 --> 0:04:51.240
<v Speaker 2>When did I be willing to well?

0:04:51.279 --> 0:04:53.960
<v Speaker 6>Earlier you said he has absolutely no right to know

0:04:54.360 --> 0:04:56.520
<v Speaker 6>what you're doing in terms of the IGADF.

0:04:57.040 --> 0:05:00.479
<v Speaker 4>I see the CEO, I said it was relevant for

0:05:00.600 --> 0:05:04.000
<v Speaker 4>the other statutory officers to know that I had an

0:05:04.040 --> 0:05:08.480
<v Speaker 4>ongoing affiliation with the IGADF, which they knew, which you didn't.

0:05:08.800 --> 0:05:11.000
<v Speaker 3>Was there anything that stood out to you from those exchanges?

0:05:11.160 --> 0:05:13.920
<v Speaker 5>So, after having heard from the Attorney General's Office, having

0:05:13.960 --> 0:05:17.640
<v Speaker 5>heard from the NAC Commissioner, the KNACK Deputy Commissioners, the

0:05:17.720 --> 0:05:21.000
<v Speaker 5>KNACK Inspector herself turns up Gail Furness and she reveals,

0:05:21.040 --> 0:05:25.040
<v Speaker 5>in something of a bombshell, that she's undertaken another investigation.

0:05:25.600 --> 0:05:29.040
<v Speaker 7>So I received a complaint, I had the commissioner's response,

0:05:29.400 --> 0:05:30.880
<v Speaker 7>I commenced an investigation.

0:05:31.200 --> 0:05:35.599
<v Speaker 5>This is a third investigation into a complaint about Brereton's conduct.

0:05:35.920 --> 0:05:38.120
<v Speaker 5>We just sat through an hour and a half of

0:05:38.160 --> 0:05:41.040
<v Speaker 5>Breton and his fellow commissioners and the CEO fronting up

0:05:41.040 --> 0:05:44.640
<v Speaker 5>to Senate estimates. They hadn't even mentioned this. Gail Furness

0:05:44.720 --> 0:05:46.600
<v Speaker 5>gets up and the first thing she says is, oh,

0:05:46.640 --> 0:05:49.280
<v Speaker 5>by the way, it only started last month.

0:05:49.480 --> 0:05:50.480
<v Speaker 2>Yeah exactly.

0:05:50.880 --> 0:05:53.960
<v Speaker 1>And are you able to recall when you first sent

0:05:54.040 --> 0:05:57.600
<v Speaker 1>it to the commission for the response, Well, it.

0:05:57.520 --> 0:05:59.040
<v Speaker 7>Was before the fourteenth of April.

0:06:00.040 --> 0:06:04.119
<v Speaker 5>It was also revealed that the second investigation that she'd

0:06:04.160 --> 0:06:07.000
<v Speaker 5>been looking into it had been going back and forth

0:06:07.040 --> 0:06:10.520
<v Speaker 5>between her and Commissioner of Breton's office that he'd run

0:06:10.600 --> 0:06:13.320
<v Speaker 5>up two hundred and four thousand dollars in legal fees

0:06:13.800 --> 0:06:17.560
<v Speaker 5>paid by the taxpayer to defend himself from whatever her

0:06:17.600 --> 0:06:19.359
<v Speaker 5>findings are, which we don't know yet.

0:06:19.600 --> 0:06:22.520
<v Speaker 3>Okay, So three investigations is quite a lot to get

0:06:22.520 --> 0:06:25.400
<v Speaker 3>your head around. Do we know much about them? Can

0:06:25.760 --> 0:06:28.000
<v Speaker 3>we separate what the three are about and whether or

0:06:28.040 --> 0:06:28.719
<v Speaker 3>not they're related.

0:06:29.000 --> 0:06:31.320
<v Speaker 5>So the first one we already know about, that was

0:06:31.360 --> 0:06:35.200
<v Speaker 5>the officer misconduct finding that was in relation to the

0:06:35.279 --> 0:06:36.400
<v Speaker 5>Robodette findings.

0:06:36.640 --> 0:06:38.120
<v Speaker 2>The second one is ongoing.

0:06:38.200 --> 0:06:42.360
<v Speaker 5>It's into Breton's defense tires, the things we've been talking about,

0:06:42.480 --> 0:06:46.200
<v Speaker 5>how he handled or mishandled them. We don't know her conclusions.

0:06:46.400 --> 0:06:49.080
<v Speaker 5>The third one we literally don't know. We just learned

0:06:49.120 --> 0:06:51.560
<v Speaker 5>about it last night. It was only mentioned in the

0:06:51.560 --> 0:06:54.400
<v Speaker 5>context of a complaint about Breton's conduct.

0:06:54.839 --> 0:06:58.000
<v Speaker 1>Can you identify did it relate to the commissioner in

0:06:58.040 --> 0:06:58.479
<v Speaker 1>any way?

0:06:59.160 --> 0:07:02.720
<v Speaker 7>As I've said, I commenced a complaint investigation into a

0:07:02.760 --> 0:07:05.440
<v Speaker 7>complaint i'd received about the conduct of the commissioner.

0:07:05.760 --> 0:07:08.599
<v Speaker 3>So let's talk about this concept of a conflict of

0:07:08.640 --> 0:07:13.640
<v Speaker 3>interest here, if Brereton is connected with the ADF in

0:07:13.720 --> 0:07:15.600
<v Speaker 3>some kind of formal way, and there have been photos

0:07:15.640 --> 0:07:18.800
<v Speaker 3>circulating of him wearing army fatigues, for example, while he

0:07:18.840 --> 0:07:22.080
<v Speaker 3>was Commissioner, the conflict of interest there is what that

0:07:22.120 --> 0:07:24.960
<v Speaker 3>there might be some kind of corruption allegation that emerges

0:07:25.040 --> 0:07:28.840
<v Speaker 3>from the Defense Force itself, and that, if so, how

0:07:28.880 --> 0:07:30.800
<v Speaker 3>big a deal would that be? Could he not just

0:07:30.880 --> 0:07:34.640
<v Speaker 3>recuse himself, for example, for those sorts of referrals.

0:07:34.920 --> 0:07:39.360
<v Speaker 5>So the problem is a perception one. Primarily, it's that,

0:07:39.920 --> 0:07:43.800
<v Speaker 5>as you said, he appears in uniform, that he has

0:07:43.960 --> 0:07:50.440
<v Speaker 5>ongoing work with defense personnel defense referrals, of which there

0:07:50.440 --> 0:07:53.240
<v Speaker 5>have been many, we believe over one hundred to the NAC.

0:07:54.040 --> 0:07:58.840
<v Speaker 5>Defense is potentially the NAC's biggest customer. Allegations that have

0:07:58.960 --> 0:08:03.400
<v Speaker 5>been made in relation to defense material, defense acquisitions, defense

0:08:03.560 --> 0:08:08.640
<v Speaker 5>matters generally, we're talking about billion dollar contracts here. Now

0:08:09.200 --> 0:08:12.840
<v Speaker 5>we have the head of the Knack who has since

0:08:13.000 --> 0:08:18.640
<v Speaker 5>finally has recused himself from those referrals. He's recused himself

0:08:18.800 --> 0:08:23.040
<v Speaker 5>after having presided over them for two years. For more

0:08:23.080 --> 0:08:27.480
<v Speaker 5>than two years, the question to me now is what

0:08:27.760 --> 0:08:31.920
<v Speaker 5>happens to all of those investigations that he presided over

0:08:32.000 --> 0:08:35.240
<v Speaker 5>for two and a half years. Do they get revisited

0:08:35.480 --> 0:08:38.320
<v Speaker 5>who do they get revisited by? Are they situations that

0:08:38.360 --> 0:08:41.880
<v Speaker 5>were influenced by Brereton? Of course they would have been

0:08:41.960 --> 0:08:44.120
<v Speaker 5>here was the head of the commission. So we have

0:08:44.480 --> 0:08:47.320
<v Speaker 5>a genuine, deep seated problem here.

0:08:47.880 --> 0:08:50.600
<v Speaker 3>Does this take us in the direction of wondering why

0:08:50.640 --> 0:08:53.840
<v Speaker 3>Brereton was appointed commissioner in the first place. Nothing to

0:08:53.880 --> 0:08:56.280
<v Speaker 3>do with his ability, but just because of the situation

0:08:56.400 --> 0:08:57.360
<v Speaker 3>that he was inevitably in.

0:08:57.640 --> 0:09:02.000
<v Speaker 5>I think there are serious problems about his original appointment,

0:09:02.080 --> 0:09:05.400
<v Speaker 5>and I don't think they've been adequately discussed. I know

0:09:05.559 --> 0:09:09.360
<v Speaker 5>that several integrity experts in the legal field, for example

0:09:09.480 --> 0:09:13.040
<v Speaker 5>Jeffrey Watson SC they believe that the Commissioner of the

0:09:13.080 --> 0:09:16.000
<v Speaker 5>KNACK should never have been a defense figure. The military

0:09:16.080 --> 0:09:20.160
<v Speaker 5>is a hierarchical organization. It's generally secretive. They don't deal

0:09:20.200 --> 0:09:24.120
<v Speaker 5>well with transparency and accountability issues as a culture, and

0:09:24.200 --> 0:09:28.080
<v Speaker 5>I think the method of appointing all of the commissioners

0:09:28.120 --> 0:09:33.480
<v Speaker 5>and deputy commissioners in the first instance was problematic. The

0:09:33.559 --> 0:09:36.360
<v Speaker 5>KNAC had the run of the field when they opened

0:09:36.679 --> 0:09:40.439
<v Speaker 5>this organization. It was a brand new integrity organization. They

0:09:40.440 --> 0:09:42.960
<v Speaker 5>could have had former judges, they could have had scs.

0:09:43.440 --> 0:09:46.480
<v Speaker 5>They ended up with the least qualified combination of deputies

0:09:46.520 --> 0:09:47.760
<v Speaker 5>permitted under the Act.

0:09:48.240 --> 0:09:50.719
<v Speaker 2>It was almost like it was built to.

0:09:50.679 --> 0:09:59.880
<v Speaker 3>Fail coming up. Does Breton's resignation actually fix the knack?

0:10:13.640 --> 0:10:16.640
<v Speaker 3>You've identified the conflict of interest as a major issue

0:10:16.720 --> 0:10:18.760
<v Speaker 3>and the way that appointments have been made to the knack.

0:10:19.280 --> 0:10:22.480
<v Speaker 3>Does Breton's departure change any of that or fix any

0:10:22.559 --> 0:10:23.439
<v Speaker 3>of those concerns.

0:10:23.760 --> 0:10:28.080
<v Speaker 5>I think potentially a lot will be changed by his departure.

0:10:28.280 --> 0:10:30.959
<v Speaker 5>I think some of it depends on who they appoint next.

0:10:31.040 --> 0:10:33.559
<v Speaker 5>So I think the alber EASi government is a poor

0:10:33.600 --> 0:10:36.960
<v Speaker 5>track record when it comes to appointing commissioners. They need

0:10:37.000 --> 0:10:41.679
<v Speaker 5>to appoint someone who is top draw, completely unimpeachable, has

0:10:41.720 --> 0:10:43.640
<v Speaker 5>the best possible qualifications.

0:10:43.679 --> 0:10:46.199
<v Speaker 2>They need a transparent, rigorous process.

0:10:46.440 --> 0:10:49.240
<v Speaker 5>They'll need someone that the legal community gets behind, that

0:10:49.320 --> 0:10:54.160
<v Speaker 5>transparency experts get behind. Because Breton's left a serious mess

0:10:54.200 --> 0:10:56.600
<v Speaker 5>at the knack. It's not just the conflicts. This is

0:10:56.720 --> 0:11:00.240
<v Speaker 5>an organization with a serious deficit of public trust. There's

0:11:00.240 --> 0:11:04.760
<v Speaker 5>the pile of defense investigations. There's only two deputy commissioners remaining.

0:11:04.840 --> 0:11:08.800
<v Speaker 5>They have a track record of precisely zero major corruption

0:11:08.960 --> 0:11:13.440
<v Speaker 5>findings from seven thousand referrals. With a staff of over

0:11:13.520 --> 0:11:17.280
<v Speaker 5>two hundred people. They've never made a major corruption finding.

0:11:17.360 --> 0:11:19.240
<v Speaker 3>Perhaps we should celebrate the fact we live in such

0:11:19.240 --> 0:11:22.280
<v Speaker 3>a corruption free country, Nick, mean, that's another way to

0:11:22.320 --> 0:11:22.760
<v Speaker 3>look at us.

0:11:22.800 --> 0:11:24.839
<v Speaker 2>Oh, isn't it? Isn't it great? Wally?

0:11:25.240 --> 0:11:28.640
<v Speaker 5>Yeah, I can barely laugh about it at this point.

0:11:28.600 --> 0:11:31.960
<v Speaker 3>That you've mentioned some concerns with the appointments of commissioners

0:11:31.960 --> 0:11:33.760
<v Speaker 3>in the way which is done. I suppose that raises

0:11:33.800 --> 0:11:36.040
<v Speaker 3>the question of the design of the KNACK at the

0:11:36.040 --> 0:11:39.240
<v Speaker 3>beginning of the whole process. Do you see design flaws

0:11:39.240 --> 0:11:42.040
<v Speaker 3>here that would need government or legislative intervention?

0:11:42.520 --> 0:11:43.200
<v Speaker 2>Not that many.

0:11:43.280 --> 0:11:47.960
<v Speaker 5>Actually, the main problem I think was the lack of

0:11:48.000 --> 0:11:48.960
<v Speaker 5>public hearings.

0:11:49.360 --> 0:11:51.240
<v Speaker 2>The KNACK hasn't had any public hearings.

0:11:52.080 --> 0:11:56.079
<v Speaker 5>It's only obliged to have them in exceptional circumstance. Apparently

0:11:56.120 --> 0:11:59.600
<v Speaker 5>we have never come across an exceptional circumstance that requires a.

0:11:59.559 --> 0:12:00.360
<v Speaker 2>Public head hearing.

0:12:00.440 --> 0:12:04.680
<v Speaker 5>Yet otherwise to me, it's actually it was an issue

0:12:04.679 --> 0:12:08.680
<v Speaker 5>of personnel and approach, I think, apart from the lack

0:12:08.720 --> 0:12:10.760
<v Speaker 5>of public hearings, I don't think the problem was a

0:12:10.840 --> 0:12:11.800
<v Speaker 5>legislative one.

0:12:11.880 --> 0:12:14.840
<v Speaker 3>Well, you mentioned the privacy and secrecy element of it,

0:12:15.200 --> 0:12:17.480
<v Speaker 3>as I recall, the argument for that was that the

0:12:17.520 --> 0:12:21.000
<v Speaker 3>problem with public inquiries into corruption is that the minute

0:12:21.000 --> 0:12:24.480
<v Speaker 3>you are investigated, the political damage is so severe that

0:12:24.520 --> 0:12:28.160
<v Speaker 3>a judgment is rendered irrespective of whether or not you

0:12:28.200 --> 0:12:30.959
<v Speaker 3>get cleared, and that that would ultimately just be too

0:12:31.040 --> 0:12:35.360
<v Speaker 3>damaging to public officeholders who may not have done anything corrupt,

0:12:35.920 --> 0:12:38.720
<v Speaker 3>and that this would just be a totally unworkable situation.

0:12:39.440 --> 0:12:41.240
<v Speaker 3>You say you think they should fix that. Do you

0:12:41.280 --> 0:12:43.040
<v Speaker 3>mean making it all public or do you think there

0:12:43.080 --> 0:12:46.480
<v Speaker 3>is still some room for private hearings to take place.

0:12:46.880 --> 0:12:50.480
<v Speaker 5>An investigation has to jump over several hurdles to reach

0:12:50.480 --> 0:12:53.840
<v Speaker 5>the level of a formal investigation. I don't think anyone

0:12:53.920 --> 0:12:57.160
<v Speaker 5>is saying that all of their investigations should be secretive.

0:12:57.559 --> 0:12:59.960
<v Speaker 5>I think the New South Wales IIKAK is an excellent mode.

0:13:00.520 --> 0:13:03.160
<v Speaker 5>They have public hearings when they choose to, when they

0:13:03.160 --> 0:13:04.199
<v Speaker 5>think it's appropriate.

0:13:04.840 --> 0:13:06.960
<v Speaker 2>Most of their work is done behind the scenes.

0:13:07.000 --> 0:13:11.480
<v Speaker 5>Confidentiality is absolutely obligatory for an anti coruption organization. But

0:13:11.559 --> 0:13:13.800
<v Speaker 5>once you reach a certain level where you know that

0:13:13.840 --> 0:13:17.760
<v Speaker 5>there is a serious corruption matter to discuss, that it's

0:13:17.800 --> 0:13:21.040
<v Speaker 5>a public matter. I think there have to be public hearings.

0:13:21.760 --> 0:13:25.719
<v Speaker 5>With private investigations, all you end up with is an

0:13:25.760 --> 0:13:29.320
<v Speaker 5>investigation report. At the end of years of investigation, you'll

0:13:29.320 --> 0:13:31.920
<v Speaker 5>get one day of headlines, maybe you'll get two days

0:13:31.920 --> 0:13:33.319
<v Speaker 5>of headlines.

0:13:33.040 --> 0:13:35.280
<v Speaker 2>And then it will be gone again. We don't get an.

0:13:35.280 --> 0:13:39.319
<v Speaker 5>Understanding of the depth of the corruption that has been investigated,

0:13:39.679 --> 0:13:42.440
<v Speaker 5>compared to, for example, a royal commission like the Robot

0:13:42.520 --> 0:13:45.520
<v Speaker 5>Royal Commission. The only reason this became a public issue

0:13:45.559 --> 0:13:49.000
<v Speaker 5>and became so widely known was because we watched the

0:13:49.040 --> 0:13:54.160
<v Speaker 5>blow by blow in public of Catherine Holmes's Royal Commission hearings.

0:13:54.600 --> 0:13:57.240
<v Speaker 2>Now we need the equivalent of that for the knack.

0:13:57.440 --> 0:13:59.320
<v Speaker 3>I would say there will be people in New South

0:13:59.320 --> 0:14:02.040
<v Speaker 3>Wales who argue that the problem you have with IKAK

0:14:02.160 --> 0:14:03.880
<v Speaker 3>is it just swept everything up, so you end up

0:14:03.920 --> 0:14:07.080
<v Speaker 3>with you barrio'farrell resigning over a bottle of grange, and

0:14:07.080 --> 0:14:09.640
<v Speaker 3>that's the same situation as you know, Edio bed.

0:14:09.600 --> 0:14:12.559
<v Speaker 5>I've heard that argument well lead, but I would counter

0:14:13.000 --> 0:14:15.800
<v Speaker 5>by saying the New South Wales's IKAK is the most

0:14:15.880 --> 0:14:20.040
<v Speaker 5>respected and admired anti corruption organization in the country that

0:14:20.160 --> 0:14:23.800
<v Speaker 5>actually should be the model according to public polling and

0:14:23.880 --> 0:14:27.440
<v Speaker 5>according to one integrity experts say, I mean, we keep

0:14:27.480 --> 0:14:30.840
<v Speaker 5>talking about the grange bottle that comes up a lot.

0:14:31.200 --> 0:14:34.600
<v Speaker 5>No one was obliging him to resign over that. That

0:14:34.760 --> 0:14:38.280
<v Speaker 5>was his choice, and I think it's entirely reasonable that

0:14:38.320 --> 0:14:41.520
<v Speaker 5>politicians occasionally take a fall for doing the wrong thing.

0:14:42.240 --> 0:14:46.160
<v Speaker 5>Is that not a reasonable thing to expect about politicians

0:14:46.160 --> 0:14:47.840
<v Speaker 5>that they have integrity standards?

0:14:48.000 --> 0:14:49.720
<v Speaker 2>As in that was his choice.

0:14:49.760 --> 0:14:52.680
<v Speaker 5>He wasn't obliged by the AKAK to resign because he'd

0:14:52.720 --> 0:14:54.880
<v Speaker 5>received or mishandled.

0:14:54.240 --> 0:14:58.080
<v Speaker 2>A bottle of grange. I think public scrutiny is really important.

0:14:58.400 --> 0:15:01.320
<v Speaker 3>So you've set out some things you would like to

0:15:01.320 --> 0:15:04.120
<v Speaker 3>see by the way of reform, some criticisms you've made

0:15:04.120 --> 0:15:06.520
<v Speaker 3>of the way the Albanezi government has handled this. Are

0:15:06.520 --> 0:15:08.800
<v Speaker 3>you optimistic at all your vision will become reality.

0:15:09.000 --> 0:15:12.480
<v Speaker 5>I'm not optimistic necessarily, but we have to believe that

0:15:12.520 --> 0:15:17.080
<v Speaker 5>it's possible to improve this organization. We have to fight

0:15:17.200 --> 0:15:20.920
<v Speaker 5>for a proper National Anti Corruption Commission. I know that

0:15:21.120 --> 0:15:23.840
<v Speaker 5>there's been talk of critics of the NAC. I know

0:15:23.960 --> 0:15:27.440
<v Speaker 5>there was a defensiveness by Paul Burton. We actually believe

0:15:27.800 --> 0:15:31.320
<v Speaker 5>we critics believe in the importance of a National Anti

0:15:31.360 --> 0:15:32.360
<v Speaker 5>Corruption Commission.

0:15:32.360 --> 0:15:35.320
<v Speaker 2>We just want it to be better. Everyone wants it

0:15:35.360 --> 0:15:36.000
<v Speaker 2>to be better.

0:15:36.440 --> 0:15:40.760
<v Speaker 5>So to me, it's very much a case of pessimism

0:15:40.880 --> 0:15:42.920
<v Speaker 5>of the intellect, but optimism of the will.

0:15:43.360 --> 0:15:46.720
<v Speaker 2>We have to believe it's possible. Nick, thanks so much,

0:15:46.960 --> 0:15:47.440
<v Speaker 2>thank you.

0:16:02.400 --> 0:16:04.680
<v Speaker 8>Also in the news, it's been revealed that the number

0:16:04.720 --> 0:16:08.040
<v Speaker 8>of NDIS participants expected to be shifted off the scheme

0:16:08.160 --> 0:16:12.160
<v Speaker 8>under new eligibility rules is considerably higher than first thought.

0:16:12.680 --> 0:16:15.320
<v Speaker 8>Health Minister Mark Butler announced last month that the number

0:16:15.360 --> 0:16:17.800
<v Speaker 8>of participants set to be exited or shifted from the

0:16:17.960 --> 0:16:21.200
<v Speaker 8>NDIS would be at least one hundred and sixty thousand,

0:16:21.760 --> 0:16:24.360
<v Speaker 8>but documents tabled in the Senate on Wednesday show the

0:16:24.400 --> 0:16:27.440
<v Speaker 8>government is hoping to reduce current numbers by two hundred

0:16:27.480 --> 0:16:31.520
<v Speaker 8>and forty one thousand participants by mid twenty thirty one.

0:16:31.560 --> 0:16:34.520
<v Speaker 8>And the federal government is suing the manufacture of pfas

0:16:34.680 --> 0:16:38.120
<v Speaker 8>or forever chemicals found in firefighting foam at twenty eight

0:16:38.160 --> 0:16:42.680
<v Speaker 8>defense bases across Australia. It's seeking two billion dollars in damages,

0:16:42.800 --> 0:16:46.880
<v Speaker 8>the government's largest ever legal claim. The Attorney General, Michelle Rowland,

0:16:46.960 --> 0:16:51.640
<v Speaker 8>says multinational Corporation three M withheld information and misrepresented the

0:16:51.640 --> 0:16:56.120
<v Speaker 8>effects and environmental risks of the foam. I'm Ruby Jones.

0:16:56.320 --> 0:17:06.240
<v Speaker 8>Thanks for listening. Seven AM will be back tomorrow