From Schwartz Media. I'm Ruby Jones. This is seven am. When the Albanese government created the long promised Anti Corruption Commission, there was a sense of optimism that the commission would weed out corruption and restore faith in politics. But when it came to its first big test, investigating the Robodet scandal, it took the commission a year to decide it would do nothing. Now there are concerns that the NAK is failing to live up to its obligations, hindered by silence
and secrecy. Today special correspondent in Canberra for the Saturday Paper, Jason Kotsukus on what the National Anti Corruption Commission has achieved so far and whether that's enough. It's Monday, September nine, So, Jason, just over a year ago the National Anti Corruption Commission was established, and this came after much public outrage and mistrust.
We were at a real low point, I think when it came to faith in our political system when the NAC was established, which meant that there were high expectations for it. So tell me about the promise of the knack.
That's right, Ruby, I think this was one of the biggest promises that Anthony Alberizi made when he was in opposition. They'd been talking about this pretty much NonStop for the three years up to the twenty twenty two election. You know, this was something that Scott Morrison had promised but never
delivered on. After the legislation was introduced towards the end of twenty twenty two, that the Elbanezi was very proud to stand up in Parliament to be able to say that we've delivered on our promises.
We said we would introduce the legislation and we did it today and that delivers on our promises. We promised broad jurisdiction, and what this legislation does is will allow for the investigation of serious or systemic corruption conduct across the Commonwealth public sector by minutes.
This was something that would restore the faith in our political system.
We do need to restore faith in our political system. We need to make sure that there's transparency, that there's accountability, and that there is integrity.
One thing that became clear in November twenty twenty two was that while this new body was going to be independent from government, you know, it emerged that there would only be public hearings in exceptional circumstances. So the Attorney General Mark Trefas said that your people should be afraid if they've been engaged in corrupt.
Activities, included any third party who was seeking to adversely affect public decision making in a corrupt way is going to be the subject of investigation by this commission.
What about So having set the bar so high, there have been some concerns since then that the actually the NAC is not living up to its expectations that were set by the PM and the Attorney General, and that
in fact it has betrayed its core obligations. And I think there is a growing sense of disappointment and disquiet over the neax's performance, not just on the on the crossbench, but I think some sections of the Labor caucus are also a little bit concerned that this body is not quite as powerful as we've been led to believe.
Well, let's talk more about that than about these concerns about how the KNAC is operating and perhaps falling short. What is it that you're hearing?
Well? This week I spoke with former New South Wales Supreme Court judge Anthony Wheeley. He's now chair of the Center for Public Integrity, one of the leading think tanks in the push to establish a National Integrity Commission, and he's very disappointed about what he says as the failures of the KNACK to do what it's supposed to do.
And I think the thing he's most furious about is Robodet and the NAC's refusal to investigate six public officials that were referred to the NAC by the Robodet Royal Commission.
The National Anti Corruption Commission has ruled out further investigation into the public officials behind the disastrous Robodet scheme that saw hundreds of thousands of Australian families hounded for debts they didn't owe.
Yeah, that was a big moment when the KNACK decided not to investigate Robodet despite specifically being asked to. I think that was the point at which a lot of faith in the NAC began to crumble. So what was the reason that the commissioners gave for that decision?
So the KNACK announced on June six that would not investigate the referrals because the conduct of the six public officials had already been explored by the Robodet Royal Commission, and that further investigation was unlikely to produce significant new evidence, and the Commissioner, Paul Breton, spoke about the robot debt decision at a public sector anti corruption conference in July, and he said that rather than investigating what had already
been exposed by the Royal Commission, the way that his body, the National Anti Corruption Commission, was addressing these issues like ROBODET was through prevention and education and equipping decision makers to make decisions ethically. But we also learned on June six that Paul Breton had recused himself from that decision. We don't have a reason why he delegated the decision
whether to investigate or not to a deputy commissioner. We do know that it was to avoid a perception of conflict of interest, but it hasn't really been made clear why. So there are a lot of questions still hanging over
this decision. So when Mark Dreyfus announced that there would only be public hearings accepted exceptional circumstances, this came as a surprise to Anthony Wheely, and he told me that he had always believed that public hearings would be a core part of the National Anti Corruption Commission, and he'd consulted with the Attorney General early on during the process
of establishing the KNAC. He said there'd been a good deal of agreement about what the body should look like and what powers it should have, and he told me that this limit on public hearings had never been raised with him.
That's interesting that that secrecy provision, according to Willie, wasn't mentioned as part of the consultation process, but by the time the KNACK was created there it was. So what has that provision meant? Jason?
I think what he really said to me was that we've got this veil of secrecy around the National Anti Corruption Commission. And in the main he said that the new body has really been strangely silent, and there have been a few announcements, Anthony Whey said, but not very much, and no positive indication as to what the body is doing. In other words, it seems to be surrounded by this wall of relative secrecy.
After the break, is there a good reason why the knac's hearings should be behind closed doors? Jason, We've been talking about the secrecy that surrounds the NAC's activities. All its hearings are largely happening behind closed doors. So what is it that we actually know then about what the NAC has been doing for the past year. What has it achieved since it was established?
Well, I think you know, you're exactly right, it's very difficult to know. It's impossible to really judge what they've been doing because we don't really know. What we do know is that the Commissioner Paul Brereton did provide some insight into just how many referrals have been triaged and assessed. In the next first year. To June thirty, twenty twenty four, the Commission had received three one hundred and eighty nine
referrals of suspected corrupt conduct. About ninety percent of those were excluded at the triarche stage because they did not concern a Commonwealth per wig official or they didn't raise a corruption issue. Commissioner Breriton also revealed that the KNACK had opened twenty six corruption investigations, seven of them jointly with other agencies, and that they referred nine corruption issues to other agencies for investigation. Only one of the NAC's
investigations has resulted in individual being charged. It's pretty thin pickings, you know what the NACS actually achieved so far. I mean, we will see the publication of annual reports and other information, you know, regarding what the NAC's been doing. But as Professor Ann Toomey said to me, she's Professor Emerita at the University of Sydney. She says, you know, it's possible that the KNACK is operating extremely well, but we just
don't know what the knack's doing. And she does have a bit of a problem with that.
And I think, Jason, the case for more transparency is clear, so that the the public can know that corruption is being investigated. But can we talk for a moment about the reasons to not have public hearings. Is there a case to be made that if the KNACK was to do that, then potentially referrals could be made for political reasons and people who haven't actually done anything wrong their names could be tarnished.
That's right, and that's definitely the strong view of quite a number of people. One of the people I spoke to was William Staltz. He's a lecturer at the Australian
National University's National Security College. He said the KNACK should be aiming to avoid people misrepresenting or weaponizing the referrals process for political or other purposes, and he says a decision not to progress a referral shouldn't be regarded as an indication of innocence, and nor should the existence of a referral against a public official be regarded as a mark of guilt. So he thinks that we need more
secrecy and that'll help the KNACK do its work. While there's been calls for public hearings, we should also remember that with bodies like the New South Wales Independent Commission against Corruption, there have been a lot of concerns that public hearings that they have conducted have descended into show trial like rituals. Gladys Bergiclian has lost the battle to clear herself of corruption findings.
The former premier was hoping to overturn the IYEA.
We saw Gladys bedicular in the former New South Wales premier who was essentially forced to resign because of the public hearings that were investigating some of her personal relationships while she was.
Premier, a premier turned optics executive, unable to shake the shame of her secret relationship with Daryl Maguire.
Their love affair ended so while there are some concerns about how the KNACK is operating, you know some people like Xavier Boffer from the Samuel Griffith Society, this is the obviously on the right of Australian politics. But he he said to me, look, any talk of reform to the NAK is premature and more likely to be ideological
rather than evidence based. In his view, Australians must remain vigilant that the KNAK does not devolve into a kangaroo court that compromises the rule of law by engaging in theatrical public show trials. When it comes to AIKAK, Mark Dreyfus has said that the exception kind of puts the National Anti Corruption Commission in line with IKAK because even though we see a lot of high profile cases in the media, actually only about five percent of those hearings
of public. But the converse of that is that New South Wales IYAKAK does have a broader ability to hold public hearings and having the ability to do so hasn't led to an overuse of that of that privilege. So it's even though the Attorney General Mark Treefuss has used that argument the way the new said, well, Eyekak has operated seems to prove that having the ability to hold public hearings is a privilege that is used wisely by the commissioners.
And at the end of the day, this all goes to public trust, doesn't it. That's why the commission was set up in the first place, because there was this deep public distrust about what politicians and public officials might be doing behind closed doors. So if the KNACK isn't working to restore that faith because it isn't transparent enough, then is the KNAC even working at all?
Well, I think it probably is too early to say whether the KNAC is working or isn't working, but I do think that it hasn't properly explained the reasons why it didn't investigate the Robodet referrals, and I think that has seriously undermined public faith in this body that was set up to investigate exactly those types of cases. Having said that, I do think we need to give them more time to demonstrate whether or not it can do the job that it has been asked to do by
this government. From what I can tell, Paul Breretton is a person of high integrity, But I do think they haven't properly explained the decision making around not investigating that. The Robott referrals.
Jason, thank you so much for your time.
Ruby, always a pleasure talking with you. Thanks very much.
Also in the news today, questions on sexual orientation and gender will be included in the next census. Sure Jim Chalmers confirmed the new position yesterday, saying the government has listened to the community. His comments follow weeks of criticism of the government's decision to withdraw questions on sexuality and gender on the basis they would be divisive. A government statement confirms only people sixteen and over will be asked the new questions and there'll be an option not to answer.
And protests have broken out across France in response to President Emmanuel Macron's decision to pick a conservative prime minister. Seventy three year old Michelle Barnier is a former Brexit negotiator. His appointment comes after a snap election in June left France with a hung parliament. Protest organizers set about three hundred thousand people took to the streets across France, with just over half in Paris, but police in Paris estimated
twenty six thousand people had protested there. I'm Ruby Jones. This is seven am. Thanks for listening.
A low mon