You should know that I have placed your 9 October email on the HotCopper website.
I have attached to this email the comments I have made on the position which seems to have been reached in terms of NACC's investigation of my submission - it is still "being assessed". I have also posted those comments on HotCopper
The NACC is able to decide, seemingly, at any time, to take "no action". Given this, I am somewhat at a loss regarding your reference to"New Complaint"? Would you please clarify if I need to take any further action?
At the conclusion of the NACC process of assessing my submission, is it Inspector Furness's interpretation of the Act that the NACC is required to provide a report; whether or not it determined "no action" be taken?
I ask this question mindful of the extract from the NACC's, "The investigation process" document.
The document can be found at:-
The following is copied from the document:-
"At the completion of an investigation the Commissioner must prepare a report on the investigation for the Attorney-General (unless the report involves the conduct of the Attorney-General, in which case the report is to the Prime Minister).
The report must set out:
- theCommission’s findings or opinionson the corruptionissue
- a summary of the evidence and other material on which those findings or opinions are based
- any recommendations the Commission sees fit to make and the reasons for those recommendations."
For obvious reasons I would want to see in the report the "evidence and other material on which those findings or opinions are based". The NACC could not possibly properly conduct an investigation without obtaining all documents generated by and held by NAIF, (Collins), and ASIC, (Witham), pertaining to the $610 millionSECRETconcessional loan and the Solicitor-General and/or the AGS.
I have another two questions to add to the two above:-
Will Inspector Furness place a time limit for the NACC to assess my submission?
Will she require a report, (based on the above guidelines), be produced by the NACC?
Yours sincerely
Howard Patrick
NB
I have cc'd this email to the Committee Secretary of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the National Anti-Corruption Commission, the Committee's Chairperson, Senator Karen Grogan, and one Member, Helen Haines MP.
The Committee won't obtain meaningful information about how the NACC seems to be disregarding corruption; for the public HotCopper will be a source of such information. The situation seems well described by the recent words of Senator Lidia Thorpe; "Minister, is this about maintaining corruption and keeping it in house." Senator Watt answered with the predictable; No.
I have also cc'd my ACT Senator, David Pocock, who was made aware, back in 2022, of the Genex Power Ltd / Skip Capital transaction which was not questioned by NAIF's Chief Legal Officer, Mr Chris Collins, despite the proposed clear contravention of the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility Act 2016.
The above willingness, of NAIF's Chief Legal Officer, to have NAIF contravene the Act in the Skip Capital matter and then to not seek legal clarification on making NAIF funds available to a foreign corporation has led me to again bring the attention of the the Panel reviewing the NAIF Act 2016.
The Genex Power Ltd story, to a significant extent documented on Hot Copper, reveals how ethics and APS code of conduct can be disregarded; (Collins and Witham).
More and more journalists, like those I have bb's, are going to be making the public aware that the NACC is going along the SECRECY pathway; long adopted by ASIC.
Well worth reading is what was said in the Senate when an attempt was made to amend the NACC Act.
The ALP and the Coalition want to maintain almost complete secrecy with hearings.
The SNACC has already become another ASIC.
https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Hansard/Hansard_Display?bid=chamber/hansards/28068/&sid=0081
