NEW COMPLAINT - to the Inspector of the NACC; Gail Furness.
Concerning the SECRET $610 million concessional loan.
Below is an email to Director of the Inspector's Office, Erin Jameson.
The email was cc'd to Hayes, Doyle, Collins, Yanco Witham, NAIF Review Task Force and The Saturday PaperResponse to the Director of the Office of the Inspector of the NACC
Erin Jameson
Director
Office of the Inspector of the National Anti-Corruption Commission
Dear Erin
I am aware that the office of the Inspector of the NACC, (Furness), is separate to that of the NACC Commissioner's office; (Brereton).
I informed you, back in July, that the advice to me from the NACC was that the NACC would not deal with the matters raised in ID 202461774220 - 2635 in a timely, (proactive), manner.
The consequence of the NACC not acting in a timely manner is self-evident and is well documented in posts on the HotCopper website. I again provide quick links to HotCopper:-
The situation has now been reached where I have not received the NACC's assessment of my report and I have good reason to not be satisfied.
Like the judiciary, (Black J), it seems the NACC chose to take the approach of ASIC; ignore the decision of NAIF's Chief Legal Officer to not seek opinion on the legality of propositions involving the SECRET $610 million concessional loan.
Reading recent articles in The Saturday Paper by Rick Morton and Jason Koutsoukis about the NACC's handling of the Robedebt Commission Report makes it clear that the lack of an assessment of ID 202461774220-2635 should not be surprising.
The issue which has repeatedly been ignored is this:-
What has been the MOTIVATION(S) for Mr Collins not having NAIF request and obtain legal opinions on both the Skip Capital and J - Power propositions?
Given the terms and conditions of the $610 million loan were and remain SECRET it seems Mr Collins, ("2024 Government Lawyer of the Year"), should have been driven by ethics and a desire for NAIF comply with the APS's code of conduct and regulations by having documented legal clearance for what both transactions proposed. Mr Collins's "MOTIVATION(S) for seemingly ignoring ethics and APS code of conduct remain unexplained.
It is often said; "follow the money"; both these financial transactions, (Skip and J - Power), involved the substantial SECRET NAIF money provided by taxpayers.
Why Mr Witham chose, in 2022 and again in 2024, to not seek clarification from Mr Collins on why he did not have NAIF seek legal support from the Solicitor-General and/or the AGS needs to be explained by the NACC Commissioner, or, failing that, by Inspector Furness. If Mr Collins had sought such opinion(s) he would have placed NAIF Chairperson, Board and CEO and others in a position to explain why I might be wrong to think it and Ministers King and Gallagher abrogated their responsibilities concerning the administration of the SECRET loan.
I have persisted by recently bringing the matter to the attention of the Panel established to undertake the 2024 NORTHERN AUSTRALIA INFRASTRUCTURE ACT REVIEW. Perhaps, if the NAIF Board and CEO had insisted, in mid-2022, on Mr Collins obtaining a legal interpretation of the Northern Australia Infrastructure Act Act 2016, as it refers to "individuals", this situation may not have arisen?
Given the above I make a "NEW COMPLAINT"; I am complaining to Inspector Furness that the NACC has not done what it is meant to do; provide an assessment of my report, ID 202461774220 - 2635; (within ninety days). My conversation, last Friday, with the NACC, ( Linda; in a recorded conversation), resulted in me being informed that my submission is still "being assessed". What "being assessed" means is unknown because Linda is not allowed access to documentation that may have been generated by NACC officers and is not permitted to put me in contact with officers who may or may not have done more than just read the submission.
As the Director of the Office of the Inspector of the National Anti-Corruption Commission will you please tell me if, through the NACC and various other sources of information available to Inspector Furness, her investigators have more than ample information to conduct a detailed forensic examination of this now, "NEW COMPLAINT". Does the Office of the Inspector of the NACC have a form that I am required to complete? Will the completion of such a form result in an "ID" for the "NEW COMPLAINT"?
I did ask the NACC officer if I could be sent an email with some basic information concerning the assessment but I gather no such information will be forthcoming. It seems clear that the NACC is using the ASIC tactic of almost invariably refusing to respond to reports/submissions concerning, among other matters, possible corruption?
Yours sincerely
Howard Patrick
6 October 2024
On Thu, Oct 3, 2024 at 9:07 AM NACC Inspector <[email protected]> wrote:
OFFICIAL
Good morning,
Thank you for your email, received 30 September 2024.
As advised in my previous emails to you, the Inspector of the National Anti-Corruption Commission (Inspector) is not part of the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC).
If you wish to seek an update on the NACC’s consideration of your referral you may contact them directly by calling 1300 489 844.
Kind regards,
Erin Jameson
Director
Office of the Inspector of the National Anti-Corruption Commission
OFFICIAL
From: Howard Patrick <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, 30 September 2024 1:23 PM
To: NACC Inspector <[email protected]>
Cc: Chris Collins <[email protected]>; Craig Doyle <[email protected]>; Tracey Hayes <[email protected]>; Greg Yanco <[email protected]>; Peter Witham <[email protected]>
Subject:
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organisation. Do not follow guidance, click links, or open attachments unless you recognise the sender and know the content is safe.
Ms Gail Furness SC
NACC Inspector
Attention:-
Mr Erin Jameson
Director
Office of the Inspector of the NACC
Dear Mr Jameson
On 9 July I received an email from you; a copy of it is shown below.
I have not received any correspondence from the NACC other than the Email Confirmation of Webform Submissions; (ID 202461774220-2023.
You are aware that the person subject to the Submission, NAIF's Chief Legal Officer, Mr Chris Collins, is presenting at a Legal Counsel Forum event in Sydney on 30 February.
https://www.legalcounselforum.com/speakers
It concerns me that Mr Collins is talking on the subject of ethics when I have observed his actions with respect to the Skip Capital and J - Power matters. For an officer employed under a Commonwealth of Australia Act. (NAIF 2016) to not seek legal opinions from the Solicitor-General and/or the Australian Government Solicitor is, in my view, anything but ethical.
I have asked Mr Collins if NAIF has provided to the NACC all correspondence between him, (on behalf of NAIF), and the Solicitor-General concerning NAIF administration of the still SECRET $610 concessional loan made to Genex Power Ltd.
This is the loan which, in 2022, NAIF was prepared to transfer to the two individuals who own Skip Capital (Jackson and Farquhar).
The SECRET loan subsequently passed to the foreign corporation that owns the entity j -Power.
Despite repeated requests to NAIF and Minister King and Gallagher I am not aware of any documented evidence that NAIF, (Mr Collins), sought and obtained legal opinions on these two propositions.
If supportive opinions were ever obtained by Mr Collins for NAIF why has he not revealed them?
You know, from am email sent to Mr Collin's, that I put the following rhetorical question to him:-
"You won't answer this question but have you provided the NACC with copies of all your correspondence with the Solicitor-General?"
I now ask you if Mr Paul Brereton, the NACC Commissioner, has obtained from NAIF, Mr Collins), all correspondence between with the Solicitor-General on matters concerning the SECRET $610 million concessional loan made to Genex Power Ptd?
Furthermore has the NACC subjected the correspondence to thorough forensic analysis?
It is beyond my understanding how the NACC Commissioner might make a claim to the NACC Inspector, Ms Gail Furness, that the submission was professionally dealt with if the documents have not, FIRSTLY, been obtained and, SECONDLY, been subjected to thorough forensic analysis.
I look forward to the forthcoming response from the Office of the Inspector of the National Anti-Corruption Commission. There are many beside me who will be interested to know if, despite what I allege went on, including, I believe, the CEO of ASIC knowingly and wilfully misleading Ministers King and Gallagher, the Inspector, Ms Gail Furness, believes it was reasonable for the NACC to go along with others and adopt the approach:- “we don’t know if the transaction is legal but we will act as if it is”
I have cc'd this to Mr Collins and NAIF's Chairperson and CEO.
I have also cc'd this email to ASIC's CEO, Mr Greg Yanco, and to the ASIC officer who has held comprehensive information about the repeated requests to NAIF to obtain legal opinions from the Solicitor- General. Said, (Mr Peter Witham), seems to have assiduously joined with NAIF to avoid having NAIF approach the Solicitor-General.
Yours sincerely
Howard Patrick
Good afternoon
Thank you for your 2 emails, received 9 and 11 July 2024 (with attachments).
The Inspector
The Inspector of the National Anti-Corruption Commission (Inspector) is established by the National Anti-Corruption Commission Act 2022 to provide oversight of the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC). The Inspector cannot deal with complaints about any other agency or its staff.
The Inspector is independent of the NACC and not involved in the NACC’s receipt and assessment of reports made to it.
Your matter
You have advised you made a report to the NACC via webform submission and received advice from a staff member of the NACC that it may take up to 90 days for your report to be considered. You have raised concern about this timeframe.
I acknowledge the advice provided to you by NACC is consistent with its Service Charter:
We will respond within 30 days where
·your report is not within our jurisdiction
·your report does not relate to corrupt conduct, or
·we need more information in order to assess your report.
All reports that meet those thresholds are assessed within 90 days.
I note however, that the NACC does not have to consider or respond to every referral it receives and the NACC Commissioner can decide not to take any action in relation to a referral.
The Inspector generally considers timeliness of assessing reports as a matter for the NACC and will not intervene in your matter for this reason.
The Inspector does not have the power to investigate or intervene in the business transaction you refer to in your report to the NACC.
If, after you receive the NACC’s assessment of your report, you are unhappy with the outcome, you may come back to the Inspector to make a new complaint.
Kind regards,
Erin Jameson
Director
Office of the Inspector of the National Anti-Corruption Commission
If you have received this transmission in error please notify us immediately by return e-mail and delete all copies. If this e-mail or any attachments have been sent to you in error, that error does not constitute waiver of any confidentiality, privilege or copyright in respect of information in the e-mail or attachments.8 9.30
