Okay, so what troubles you?

Well, I'll start with the obvious one.

Y- you mentioned that, um, this has been put down by IBAC in the first place to, to incompetence.

If it was incompetence, well, that's not a crime.

But there were 9,000 defective applications approved, and as you say, a quarter of a billion dollars at stake.

It's incompetence on a pretty rare scale, and I, I mean, I'd be taking a very close look at that.

Not only that, I think it passes from incompetence once you engage in the cover-up.

Mm-hmm

So what troubles you?

Well, I'll start with the obvious one.

Y-you mentioned that, um, this has been put down by IBAC in the first place to, to incompetence.

If it was incompetence, well, that's not a crime.

But there were nine thousand defective applications approved, and as you say, a quarter of a billion dollars at stake.

It's incompetence on a pretty rare scale, and I, I mean, I'd be taking a very close look at that.

Not only that, I think it passes from incompetence once you engage in the cover-up.

Mm

Yes, absolutely.

People don't appreciate just how fundamental it is to our democratic entitlements.

We're allowed to know how government...

And if you look at the 1982 legislation, it's quite upfront in its objectives in stating that if you better inform the public, you'll get better government because they'll know who to vote for and, for example, know who not to vote for.

So that it's got to work well.

The other thing that it does is it presumes that we are entitled to know.

So there's this idea that we've got a right to know only subject to certain exceptions.

whoever is, you know, I guess the subject of this information.

Is that all there is? There's no rule that says actually you can't receive this sort of gift? Like getting a gift from a body that you regulate is improper behaviour?

No, as you pointed out, there's a very, very, very grey area around all of this in which obviously you can't take a brown paper bag full of cash.

But on the other side of it, When these things happen insidiously, invitations to football matches, invitations to do this or that, or other things which do have actually a commercial value, they seem to be acceptable.

They fall outside the rules.

Now, they've got to be declared, and that does give us some insight, as has the declaration here, given us some insight into the decision.

But the wisdom of the decision, the propriety of the decision are another matter.

Like people wouldn't trust me anymore, would they? And they'd be right not to.

Well, the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal had a major inquiry into just that thing, the cash for comment inquiries.

What do you think?

Oh, I agree with you entirely.

There's actually a number of problems here.

I think some of your maths back there were a bit rough, but forget that for the moment.

Just think about it.

Uh, this is the person who's got the ultimate control over Qantas.

She made an, an important decision in the last three years involving Qantas so that she earned the nickname the Minister for Qantas.

Is that all there is? There's no rule that says, "Actually, you can't receive this sort of gift," like, like getting a gift from a body that you regulate is, is improper behavior?

I mean, I don't know if that's corruption, but it just doesn't look good, does it?

Well, there's a couple of things in that.

First of all, it is a style of corruption, which, you know, in the trade, we call it grey corruption because it's not brown paper bag stuff.

It's a very different form of it.

It's very subtle.

It can influence people without them even realising they're being influenced.

But could I just go back? Look, you know, I've been pretty tough on the Labor Party in Victoria over a period of time, Tom, but...

And, you know, thanks to your work, we know just how damaging that has been.

And even the Prime Minister, you know, there's this six million dollar donation to the Marrickville Golf Club, which sits in his electorate, and on the night of the twenty twenty-two election or the day of it, you know, the golf club put on social media, "Vote Albo, Vote Labor." [laughs] I mean, I mean, I, I don't know if that's corruption, but it, it j- just doesn't look good, does it?

Well, there's a couple of things in there.

First of all, it is a style of corruption which, you know, in the trade we call it gray corruption because it's not brown paper bag stuff.

It's a very different, uh, form of it.

It's very subtle.

It can influence people without them even realizing they're being influenced.

But could I just go back? Uh, look, you know, I've been pretty tough on the Labor Party in Victoria over a period of time, Tom, but I, I tend to wonder whether there's any advantage in making the Labor Party pay that money back.

But, but, but the, but the left side of politics i- say-- doesn't seem to see a problem with, with union donations influencing things like the Big Build and, you know, thanks to your work, we know just how damaging that has been.

And they haven't got time to go to these things, let alone stump up the money.

Well, of course, all of that is 100% correct, but can I throw this on top? The fact is that these businesses, they've got a duty to actually maximise their profits for their shareholders.

Do you think they're giving away the money with expecting nothing in return? Of course they're expecting something in return.

I have spoken on occasions to the people who give this kind of money, and one very, very famous Australian major company said, Boasted to me and said, no, no, no, we're perfectly fair.

We give whatever we give to the Labor Party.

We also give to the coalition.

I said, well, that's unfair because you should be giving some amount to one nation.

Nothing ever changes.

Explain to me, is this corruption or not? Because I'm confused.

Well, m-most of the people listening will think of corruption as involving what, well, I call it brown paper bag corruption.

The idea that money passes hands, that, uh, there's actual genuine financial corruption.

But corruption isn't really like that.

Every jurisdiction, except for Victoria, recognizes that there is another area, I'll call it statutory corruption.

That is where public decision-making is perverted, changed, altered, whatever, by reason of connections or influence, et cetera.

And the fact is that decisions are made behind closed doors in secret, in effing secret, maybe, I don't know.

Yes.

How are you, why are you convinced that a royal commission is the right way to approach this?

Well, for starters, this isn't in the building industry.

This is really into, it's a criminal investigation.

It's about how organized crime has infiltrated, uh, and, and really wrecked a, a major part of the economy.

It happens to be the building industry, but it's not like the other inquiries.

It's into crime.

Now, why do I think, uh, we need it? It's because the police, and they've made a statement today, they don't have the relevant powers.

What do you make of the idea of holding back funding while this is investigated?

So in terms of the reforms, what are you pleased to see and what difference will this make when it comes to investigating union corruption?

Well, in the first place, there was a terrible clog placed on IBAC with the exceptional circumstances before a public hearing get rid of that second is that there was a restriction on the jurisdiction the jurisdiction has been opened more broadly so it can look at corrupt conduct more or less in in line with New South Wales say where for example the IBAC will be able to look at circumstances where there's no corruption on the part of a public official But a public official or a public fund has become the victim of the corrupt acts of another person.

That's really quite important.

You no longer need to show that the events were a crime before you open an investigation.

Jackie, it's really good.

I might say the Centre for Public Integrity has been calling for this for about two years now.

So great to see it.

Final question, will we ever get the $15 billion back?

So in terms of the reforms, what are you pleased to see and what difference will this make when it comes to investigating union corruption?

Well, in the first place, there was a terrible clog placed on IBAC with the exceptional circumstances before a public hearing.

Get rid of that.

Secondly is that there was a restriction on the jurisdiction.

The jurisdiction has been opened more broadly so it can look at corrupt conduct more or less in line with New South Wales, say, where, for example, the IBAC will be able to look at circumstances where there's no corruption on the part of a public official.

But a public official or a public fund has become the victim of the corrupt acts of another person.

That's really quite important.

Final question, will we ever get the $15 billion back?

So-

I mean, but the fact that we're laughing about it is, is itself a sad reflection of just how, how bad this system is that we're dependent upon accidental exposés.

I've done a bit of corruption work over the years, Tom, and we used to have a saying after we finished a really deep inquiry which went incredibly effectively, "Oh, well, we scratched the surface on that one," because everyone that's called out, you can bet there's 10, maybe 100, which you haven't found.

And C, if you, if you were seen to be, you know, uh, attending a wedding, a birthday party or something while on a business trip, then, you know, questions would be asked like, "Was that the purpose of the trip here?" So it doesn't happen much in, in, in the private sector, but it seems to me that when politicians become politicians, they sort of develop this culture of entitlement to our money.

That's exactly right.

If it happens in the private sector, it only happens at a level where the people are so powerful within an organization that they regard themselves as unaccountable.

I'm a Sydney-sider, but I happen to be in Melbourne today, and I'll have to account for every cent I claim, and that's common.

And as you say, most of the time you would say justify traveling rather than doing it by Zoom or telephone.

She gained spectacular promotion.

Yes.

It's actually quite interesting.

Maybe this is just the nerd emerging in me.

But when I looked at the report, I couldn't help but notice this constant obsession with looking for whether or not somebody had a motive for So that I checked on, I did just this morning, I checked on how many times the word motive was used.

It was used 14 times in the report.

And most of the findings have got a section titled motive.

This is not your first rodeo on Late Night Live.

She gained

spectacular promotion.

Yes.

It's actually quite interesting.

Maybe this is just the nerd emerging in me.

But when I looked at the report, I couldn't help but notice this constant obsession with looking for whether or not somebody had a motive for So that I checked on, I did just this morning, I checked on how many times the word motive was used.

It was used 14 times in the report.

This is not your first rodeo or late night live.