Complaint before the Commonwealth Ombudsman - NACC and corruption arising over the $610 million NAIF Loan complaint, page-6

The matter rolls on.

I have asked our new Attorney General to request o comprehensive brief from her Department; (Ms Joanna Virtue), the Branch Head of Fraud Prevention and Anti-Corruption.

For interested parties I have provided below a copy of my recent letter to Commissioner Brereton concerning the Request to Review:-

Request for Review of Decision Outcome Dated 24 February 2025Howard Patrick
Commissioner Paul BreretonNational Anti-Corruption CommissionGPO Box 605Canberra ACT 2601Dear Commissioner Brereton,Request for Review of the Decision Outcome Letter dated 24 February 2025.
I write to request a formal review of the Decision Outcome letter signed by you on 24 February 2025.
That document was issued following your Office’s purported assessment of my complaint concerning the actions and omissions of Commonwealth officers involved in the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility (NAIF)’s $610 million concessional loan to Genex Power Ltd and the subsequent takeover by a foreign entity, J-Power.The Decision Outcome is, with respect, plainly deficient. It does not acknowledge — let alone engage with — the central issue raised in my original complaint: the refinancing of the NAIF loan and the transfer of the financial benefits of that loan from Genex Power Ltd to the foreign government-linked entity J-Power. That refinancing, and its implications for Commonwealth accountability, national interest, and sovereign control of publicly subsidised infrastructure, lie at the heart of this matter.Nowhere in your letter is the word “refinance” or “refinancing” even mentioned.That omission is deeply troubling. It calls into question whether the NACC has fulfilled its statutory obligation to thoroughly assess matters that raise serious allegations of corrupt conduct and systemic maladministration.Attached Annotated FOI Decision Letter from NAIFAs part of this request for review, I attach an annotated version of NAIF’s FOI Decision Letter, dated [insert date], which contains numerous points your Office should have investigated, including but not limited to:- The absence of any public disclosure of the terms and conditions of the $610 million loan;- The failure of NAIF’s Chief Legal Officer, Mr Chris Collins, to obtain legal advice from either the Solicitor-General or the Australian Government Solicitor concerning the lawfulness of transferring the benefits of the concessional loan to a foreign entity;- The fact that ASIC, the FIRB, the Takeovers Panel, and the Attorney-General’s Department were made aware of these issues and likewise failed to act;- The NACC’s own failure to seek relevant documents from NAIF before concluding there was nothing to investigate.In light of these issues, your decision to characterise the matter as not meeting the threshold for corruption appears untenable. The totality of the evidence, and the deliberate avoidance of the refinancing issue, gives rise to a reasonable suspicion that officers of multiple Commonwealth agencies acted — or failed to act — in a manner that may amount to corrupt conduct, serious maladministration, or abuse of power.Whitewash DeterminationI am not alone in viewing your letter as a whitewash. I have documented my concerns in public forums, including HotCopper, and noted the striking absence of key terms such as “refinance,” “FIRB,” and “conflict of interest.” These absences appear deliberate and calculated to avoid scrutiny of misconduct at the highest levels.I again assert that Mr Bruce Miller, as Chairman and Non-Executive Member of the FIRB, had a conflict of interest which was not investigated. Mr Collins at NAIF failed to seek the legal clarity that his role demanded. And your own failure to address the refinancing issue — when it was explicitly raised — may amount to an abuse of power.I therefore formally request that your Office re-open this matter and conduct a proper and independent investigation into all relevant matters, including the refinancing arrangement and its consequences.I am prepared to provide further information and assistance at any time.Yours sincerely,Howard Patrick

If anybody wanted it I think I could provided a better version of the letter.

At least there is public record of most of what has gone on.

I have provided the Commonwealth Ombudsman with this and other information pertaining to this case of lack of accountability and public integrity in the Australian Public Service. Despite my 3 January 2025 letter to the Chair and Non-Executive Member of the FIRB I am still waiting for a meaningful response from Mr Bruce Miller about his conflicts of interest when the J-Power application went before the FIRB.