Genex, NAIF and the "too" late Independent Review of the NAIF Act; (for the public record)., page-7

NAIF’s SECRET $610 MILLION CONCESSIONAL LOAN FOR THE BENEFIT OF A FOREIGN CORPORATION.

National Anti-Corruption Commission, (NACC), Submission

The apparent failure of the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility, (NAIF) and the Australian Securities and Investment Commission, (ASIC), to provide evidence to the NACC that the Solicitor-General and/or the Australian Government Solicitor found the J - Power transaction was legal and had provided such advice to NAIF’s Chief Legal Officer; (Mr Chris Collins).

After one hundred and sixteen days, (116), the NACC has failed to produce an assessment indicating that NAIF and/or ASIC have produced documentation which should have arisen from NAIF’s Chief Legal Officer seeking advice, [for NAIF’s Board, Chairperson, CEO and the two ministers, (King and Gallagher), responsible for the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility Act 2016], from legal counsel available to NAIF within the Australia Public Service, (APS).

As seen below, in an email from the Director of the Office of the Inspector of the NACC, the only advice I have received from the NACC is “that the submission is still “being assessed””.

Despite the stated ninety (90) day timeframe Inspector Furness has determined she will not, at the moment, take action, (by raising the outstanding assessment of the submission with Commissioner Brereton).

The question then for Inspector Furness is at what point does the Office of the Inspector of the National Anti-Corruption Commission become involved; (we know how long it took for the Inspector to act in the matter of NACC’s investigation into the aspect of the Robodebt Royal Commission Report which involved breaches of APS code of conduct, nearly a year.

NACC Inspector	Oct 9, 2024, 4:33 PM (16 hours ago)
to me

OFFICIAL

Good afternoon,

Thank you for your email, received 6 and 8 October 2024, which I have discussed with the Inspector of the National Anti-Corruption Commission (Inspector).

I understand you are unhappy you have not yet received an assessment outcome from the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC), regarding the matter you reported to them, and have been told by the NACC that your submission is still "being assessed".

The Inspector generally considers timeliness of assessing reports as a matter for the NACC and will not take action in your matter for this reason.

Kind regards,

Erin Jameson

Director

Office of the Inspector of the National Anti-Corruption Commission

Had Mr Collins and the ASIC Officer, (Mr Peter Witham; who had extensive knowledge of matters pertaining to the still SECRET $610 million concessional loan from NAIF to Genex Power Ltd, going back to 2022), acted ethically and in accordance with APS code on conduct they would have obtained clear legal advice that the proposed Skip Capital takeover and the actual J - Power takeover were indeed legal.

It ought be borne in mind Collins and Witham were willing, in 2022, to have the SECRET $610 million concessional pass to the two individual owners of Skip Capital, (Jackson and Farquhar). What happened in relation to the Skip Capital takeover bid should have raised a “RED FLAG” for these two Australia Government officers in 2024. What motivated Collins and Witham to not respond to concerns raised with them is not known.

Why, as seems to be the case, Collins and Witham did not alert Black J of the NSW Supreme Court of the matters is a mystery; if they did inform Black J of the legal doubts about the transaction Messrs Collins and Witham could have produced evidence. An NACC assessment and/or Inspector of the NACC investigation ought to reveal if Black J was informed by NAIF and/or ASIC and, if not, why not.

Acting as they did meant neither Collins or Witham have been able to state that the organizations they represent, NAIF and ASIC, had legal advice that "although we weren't sure if the proposed transactions were legal, the advice we have, (from the Solicitor-General and/or the AGS), has provided necessary legal clarification and support for the transactions".

The actual situation is that all parties, to both transactions, took the position:-“we don’t know if the transaction is legal but we will act as if it is”. The position(s) taken by Messrs Collins and Witham is what ultimately led to Submission ID 20241774220 - 2635 and attention to it being raised with the Panel conducting the Review of the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility Act 2016.

The other person who played a prominent part in both the Skip Capital and J - Power matters was of course Mr Simon Kidston.

Will the NACC Commissioner and Inspector of the NACC reach a position where Submission ID 20241774220 - 2635 is actually assessed and a report is prepared and made public?

Is the Inspector reticent about announcing an investigation by her Office because then she will have the power to demand documents generated by and between Messrs Collins, (NAIF), and Witham, (ASIC)?

The documents, I would claim, the NACC should long ago have obtained; if for no other reason than to be able to state the handling of the SECRET $610 million concessional loan by NAIF in the J - Power transaction was legal.

For those with an interest in the NACC activities since its inception last year the following link makes for interesting reading:-

NACC Inspector will "investigate" over Robodebt - The Klaxon