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